Should Muslim Countries take more responsibility for migrants?

jank

djpbarry wrote: »

Once again, I’m not saying the state of the Middle East is entirely the fault of the US/UK, but it’s ridiculous to say they haven’t played a role in recent history.
Well, yeah. We should blame the US for lending their support to questionable regimes when it suits them, then “removing” those regimes at a later date. I mean, how is that going to stabilize anything?
But only after the US tried to “fix” it.

Well, you and others are very quick to point the finger of blame onto the west with no reference at all to other long standing factors (You just proved that point with your initial post in this thread). Reminds me of the Irish Socialist Partys' response to the Charlie Hedbo attacks...
"We condemn these attacks, this the fault of the Imperial Western powers, blah blah blah capitalism blah blah Israel blah blah UKIP, National front blah blah.." They didn't even mention Syria or Al-Queda in their long winded 'condemnation' of murder and terrorism.

We in the West are for ever and ever re-evaluating, moralising and judging our history. I wonder if they do the same in the Middle East or Turkey, with the latter even refusing to acknowledge that the Armenian Genocide even happened, never mind their responsibility for it. Tell me, if Germany was denying that the Holocaust happened do think we the rest of the world should give it a pass.

Again, these issue are multi faceted and complex. Sure the West has a part to play it in, no one denies that but lets put all cards on the table. Turkey sure as hell has lots to answer for as they ruled the place for 500 years. Plus of course lets not forget the main issue, Violent Islam and the perpetual Sunni vs Shia conflict that you have not even argued against?

Now of course, if all the arm chair experts has some magic formula to all these problems, then lets hear it.

Number one on the list will be stop interfering. Sure great, in theory. Until of course we see what is happening in the Med escalating even more. Can Europe afford to take in more millions of refugees? Syria was a great example of non intervention.... not. Then of course if the West stops interfering well Saudi will get nervous from a resurgent Iran with a possibility of a Nuclear bomb, que an nuclear arms race in the Middle east. Great stuff! Sunni vs Shia only this time with Nuclear weapons. Throw in some more smaller failed states where minorities are cleansed, human rights abuses you could not believe, how long do you think the world will wait until the "bleeding hearts" want western military intervention to stop tens of thousands if not millions beings killed?

... and all this without even mentioning what Russia or China will do to bend things in their own favour, never mind what the price of oil would do to a shaky world economy. You want Ireland to have 15%+ unemployment against if the Middle East goes at it?

IrishTrajan

Nodin wrote: »

Theres no evidence they wanted to "bleed both sides dry"

Many years down the road for well known reasons.

He was a US ally at one stage.

"wanted him gone".[/QUOTE]

And the British-US were allies with the Soviets, taking their time getting to the front because they wanted the Soviets and Germans to bleed out.

Now, like I said, how on earth does any of this detract from my point that he was a genocidal maniac who the US were right to destroy?

Wurzelbert

A Primal Nut wrote: »

I was reading this article about a Palestinian migrant :
http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/europe/i-just-want-to-be-human-teenage-boy-tells-story-of-desperate-migrant-boat-journey-to-italy-10189052.html

This quote stood out for me:

And as Palestinians we don’t have legal rights in any Arab countries but we think we will be able to have a future in Europe

This seems to explain why asylum seekers don't try to stay in Turkey, Morocco, Tunisia, the rich gulf countries espite the fact they would be easier to get to. There are refugee camps on the Syrian border with Turkey but they don't get any further than there. These countries say they support Palestinians but when given a choice Palestinians prefer Europe.

Should the EU put more pressure on these countries to accept migrants. And try to come to a deal? It seems unfair Europe is getting blamed when the real culprits are many middle eastern countries.

an interesting question, especially given the fact that most of today’s migrants are muslims...for me the answer is clear: yes, they should. in fact, there should be no reason for a single muslim migrant to end up in europe, if only the muslim world got its act together and began to take care of its own problems...

djpbarry

IrishTrajan wrote: »

Britain has contributed nearly €11bn to refugee camps. You want them to import the refugees instead, resulting in infrastructural strain? We already have UKIP rising in prominence, and you want them to import more migrants? I'm sorry, but that is entirely unfeasible.

UKIP are a non-issue. After Thursday, Nigel and his buddies will go back to being an irrelevancy. Watching the current British government pander to their nonsense is embarrassing, to say the least.

IrishTrajan wrote: »

Germany, France and Italy are already cracking under the strain….

Hardly.

IrishTrajan wrote: »

Where do we draw the line?

We don’t. If there are people in need of help, we help them. If you don’t like it, then you can lobby your representative to remove your country’s signature from the UNHCR.

IrishTrajan wrote: »

Is it a fixed number of years where we can be considered the root cause and have to pay for it? 20 years ago? 50? Where do we draw the line as to who qualifies? Should we have to take in all the Libyans, Egyptians, Iraqis, Syrians, Lebanese, Moroccans, Algerians, Tunisians, Nigerians because "well, some people's ancestors screwed you over, and since we're all part of the EU now"?

Well, if the UK and US stop their meddling, maybe there won’t be so many people displaced by conflict in the future?

djpbarry

jank wrote: »

Well, you and others are very quick to point the finger of blame onto the west with no reference at all to other long standing factors (You just proved that point with your initial post in this thread).

Oh I’m sorry. Next time I point out that something the UK or the US did might have had undesirable consequences, I’ll be sure to list off everything bad that has ever happened in the history of civilization.

jank wrote: »

Reminds me of the Irish Socialist Partys' response to the Charlie Hedbo attacks...
"We condemn these attacks, this the fault of the Imperial Western powers, blah blah blah capitalism blah blah Israel blah blah UKIP, National front blah blah.." They didn't even mention Syria or Al-Queda in their long winded 'condemnation' of murder and terrorism.

You’re comparing the above with what I posted?

That doesn’t dignify a response.

jank wrote: »

We in the West are for ever and ever re-evaluating, moralising and judging our history.

Eh, a sizeable chunk of Britain is still mighty ****ing proud of its imperialist past. As for the US, you really want to try and argue that the entire American populace is re-evaluating American interventionist policies? Really?

jank wrote: »

Again, these issue are multi faceted and complex. Sure the West has a part to play it in, no one denies that but lets put all cards on the table. Turkey sure as hell has lots to answer for as they ruled the place for 500 years.

So Turkey has to accept responsibility for things that happened centuries ago, but the US and UK have relatively little to answer for?

jank wrote: »

Plus of course lets not forget the main issue, Violent Islam and the perpetual Sunni vs Shia conflict that you have not even argued against?

What do you mean I haven’t argued against it?

djpbarry

Wurzelbert wrote: »

an interesting question, especially given the fact that most of today’s migrants are muslims...

No, they’re not.

IrishTrajan

djpbarry wrote: »

UKIP are a non-issue. After Thursday, Nigel and his buddies will go back to being an irrelevancy. Watching the current British government pander to their nonsense is embarrassing, to say the least.

Yes, the growth of right-wing parties all throughout Europe from the SD, to FN, Golden Dawn to UKIP... Yes, it's entirely irrelevant :rolleyes:

djpbarry wrote: »

Hardly.

Actually, they are. Unless you disagree with French, German, British, and Italian Ministers whose job it is to know.

36,000 illegal migrants into Europe in 4 months

djpbarry wrote: »

We don’t. If there are people in need of help, we help them. If you don’t like it, then you can lobby your representative to remove your country’s signature from the UNHCR.

How many homeless people have you taken in off the streets? Any migrants living in your house, per chance? How long have you spent building wells in Africa, or hospitals in South-East Asia?

djpbarry wrote: »

Well, if the UK and US stop their meddling, maybe there won’t be so many people displaced by conflict in the future?

Yes, it's all the UK and US :rolleyes: Surely nothing to do with the world of geopolitics and regional tensions in one of the poorest and most violent places on Earth.

It's all that Bush fellow's fault! If he hadn't told the Pakistanis to counter Iran in-.. wait, he didn't. Oh, if he hadn't told the Saudis and Qataris to pursue sectarian fuelled wars-.... Wait, he didn't. If the US hadn't told the Turks to become more Islamist and let jihadis pass through the borders-... Wait, they didn't.

The world is not so simple as "The US are the bad guys, if they stopped we'd all have enough to go around!". The Middle East is one of the most complex regions on earth, and their politics are anything but simple. Simply saying "the West did it" whilst ignoring the centuries old rivalries and feuds is absolutely farcical.

ZeroThreat

IrishTrajan wrote: »

Yes, the growth of right-wing parties all throughout Europe from the SD, to FN, Golden Dawn to UKIP... Yes, it's entirely irrelevant :rolleyes:



Actually, they are. Unless you disagree with French, German, British, and Italian Ministers whose job it is to know.

36,000 illegal migrants into Europe in 4 months



How many homeless people have you taken in off the streets? Any migrants living in your house, per chance? How long have you spent building wells in Africa, or hospitals in South-East Asia?



Yes, it's all the UK and US :rolleyes: Surely nothing to do with the world of geopolitics and regional tensions in one of the poorest and most violent places on Earth.

It's all that Bush fellow's fault! If he hadn't told the Pakistanis to counter Iran in-.. wait, he didn't. Oh, if he hadn't told the Saudis and Qataris to pursue sectarian fuelled wars-.... Wait, he didn't. If the US hadn't told the Turks to become more Islamist and let jihadis pass through the borders-... Wait, they didn't.

The world is not so simple as "The US are the bad guys, if they stopped we'd all have enough to go around!". The Middle East is one of the most complex regions on earth, and their politics are anything but simple. Simply saying "the West did it" whilst ignoring the centuries old rivalries and feuds is absolutely farcical.

If you ever bothered to look at the FN's policies, you'd realise they're actually socialist and highly protectionist (French style).

IrishTrajan

ZeroThreat wrote: »

If you ever bothered to look at the FN's policies, you'd realise they're actually socialist and highly protectionist (French style).

They are highly conservative of French values and want to control immigration. They're right-wing.

Nodin

IrishTrajan wrote: »

And the British-US were allies with the Soviets, taking their time getting to the front because they wanted the Soviets and Germans to bleed out.?

A non-sequitur.

The notion of an over-arching US policy on the matter is the stuff of conspiracy theory.

IrishTrajan wrote: »

Now, like I said, how on earth does any of this detract from my point that he was a genocidal maniac who the US were right to destroy?

I think the chaos in the region at the moment shows that the methodology employed was the wrong one rather well.

Nodin

IrishTrajan wrote: »

Yes, the growth of right-wing parties all throughout Europe from the SD, to FN, Golden Dawn to UKIP... Yes, it's entirely irrelevant :rolleyes:

.....

What has any of that to do with the statement "UKIP are a non-issue."?

IrishTrajan

Nodin wrote: »

What has any of that to do with the statement "UKIP are a non-issue."?

Because UKIP are representative of a growing unease with mass immigration. I pointed out the other parties (who are quite large, in some cases) as a supporting statement.

We're not dealing with a single party, we're dealing with the growing sense of unease brought about my mass immigration.

Help!!!!

djpbarry wrote: »

We don’t. If there are people in need of help, we help them. If you don’t like it, then you can lobby your representative to remove your country’s signature from the UNHCR.

You do realise we are an island? Most people in the country are broke.
We cannot help everyone. Why is it always Europe & USA that needs to help.
Why cant they go to China, Russia other parts of Africa?

IrishTrajan

Help!!!! wrote: »

You do realise we are an island? Most people in the country are broke.
We cannot help everyone. Why is it always Europe & USA that needs to help.
Why cant they go to China, Russia other parts of Africa?

Because they're not white.

When China or Russia does something morally reprehensible, it's ignored. When we do it, people from here scream that everything is our fault because some white people's ancestors abused Africans as slaves for a couple hundred years.

We hold ourselves to a higher moral standard, which is fine for reasonable stuff. But when push comes to shove, the left would rather sit on their high horse and turn their nose up at the "less civilized" of us who know it is entirely infeasible for us to accommodate for everyone, regardless of whether it's our fault that they're in the circumstances or not.

Nodin

IrishTrajan wrote: »

Because UKIP are representative of a growing unease with mass immigration. I pointed out the other parties (who are quite large, in some cases) as a supporting statement..

....if UKIP are representative of a "growing unease with mass immigration" it has some considerable growth to undergo before becoming relevant.

IrishTrajan wrote: »

We're not dealing with a single party, we're dealing with the growing sense of unease brought about my mass immigration.

He referred to UKIP quite specifically.


You referred to migrants coming via the med only to back up your claim that the majority of migrants generally are muslim.

Nodin

Help!!!! wrote: »

You do realise we are an island? Most people in the country are broke.
We cannot help everyone. Why is it always Europe & USA that needs to help.
Why cant they go to China, Russia other parts of Africa?

You do realise that vast numbers do go to "other parts of Africa"?

IrishTrajan

Nodin wrote: »

....if UKIP are representative of a "growing unease with mass immigration" it has some considerable growth to undergo before becoming relevant.

The SD are the second largest party in Sweden, I believe. FN are the second or third largest in France.

Nodin wrote: »

He referred to UKIP quite specifically.

I brought UKIP up initially as part of my argument. I just explained why I brought them up.

Nodin wrote: »

You referred to migrants coming via the med only to back up your claim that the majority of migrants generally are muslim.

Did I? Can you quote that?

I said Britain already contributes to Syria and Iraq's refugee crisis, and that we shouldn't import them. I did not say most immigrants are Muslim.

jank

Nodin wrote: »

You do realise that vast numbers do go to "other parts of Africa"?

True and often get a very hostile reception from residents in their new country.

http://www.nytimes.com/2015/04/22/world/africa/south-african-army-deployed-in-areas-hit-by-anti-immigrant-violence.html?_r=0

Could you imagine the outcry from the twitterazi if the army had to be deployed in France or Sweden or Ireland to protect new African immigrants?
All in all the West treats immigrants much much better then the rest of the world. We should not forget that the next time people want to wear their favourite hair-shirt.

jank

djpbarry wrote: »

Oh I’m sorry. Next time I point out that something the UK or the US did might have had undesirable consequences, I’ll be sure to list off everything bad that has ever happened in the history of civilization.

No need, just perhaps an acknowledgment of the very basic facts and the very large elephant in the room, that is violent Islam and its own internal battles.

djpbarry wrote: »

Eh, a sizeable chunk of Britain is still mighty ****ing proud of its imperialist past. As for the US, you really want to try and argue that the entire American populace is re-evaluating American interventionist policies? Really?

What 'sizeable' chunk is this? Do you have stats? What is the scope of things are they proud off exactly or are you now arguing in generalities.

As per America, it is a large and diverse country with all types of people and opinions. This is the country that has brought us the likes of Noam Chomsky Ben Afleck and Gleen Greenwald. Tell me how many Arab writers, movie stars or intellectuals are living in the middle east pointing fingers at themselves and/or the Ottomon Empire for the current state of play.

If you talk to many conservatives they often want to recall US troops entirely to their own borders and this includes Germany, Korea and Japan... their attitude is **** em', let them sort out their own mess and police the world. I am sure you agree with this notion.

djpbarry wrote: »

So Turkey has to accept responsibility for things that happened centuries ago, but the US and UK have relatively little to answer for?

Turkey ruled this region for 500 years and only in 1917/1918 did they lose their grip on the region, so we are not talking centuries here. They don't even accept that a genocide happened to the Armenians under their watch. Not exactly a country ready for some critical self examining.

Interestingly a new book is out about this very point.
http://www.spectator.co.uk/books/9511702/the-ottoman-empire-the-last-great-casualty-of-the-first-world-war/

Nodin

IrishTrajan wrote: »

The SD (...........)why I brought them up. .

The status of others has nothing to do with the status of UKIP)

IrishTrajan wrote: »

Did I? Can you quote that?

I said Britain already contributes to Syria and Iraq's refugee crisis, and that we shouldn't import them. I did not say most immigrants are Muslim.

This post claims most migrants are muslim
http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=95348486&postcount=34

this post contradicts that
http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=95349594&postcount=37

In this post you disagree with the above and state "Actually they are" and post figures relating to the med.
http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=95349779&postcount=38

djpbarry

IrishTrajan wrote: »

Yes, the growth of right-wing parties all throughout Europe from the SD, to FN, Golden Dawn to UKIP... Yes, it's entirely irrelevant :rolleyes:

You referred specifically to UKIP. I merely pointed out that, after tomorrow, they will go back to being irrelevant. Therefore, what UKIP does or does not want is not relevant to this discussion.

IrishTrajan wrote: »

Actually, they are. Unless you disagree with French, German, British, and Italian Ministers whose job it is to know.

No, I’m disagreeing with you, because the above is just your opinion. Feel free to support it with something.

IrishTrajan wrote: »

36,000 illegal migrants into Europe in 4 months

You do know the difference between an asylum seeker and an illegal immigrant, don’t you?

IrishTrajan wrote: »

How many homeless people have you taken in off the streets? Any migrants living in your house, per chance? How long have you spent building wells in Africa, or hospitals in South-East Asia?

My taxes go towards helping people through social welfare and foreign aid payments and I’m happy for that to continue.

IrishTrajan wrote: »

The world is not so simple as "The US are the bad guys, if they stopped we'd all have enough to go around!"

I never said it was that simple. What I am saying is the US has an abysmal record when it comes to foreign intervention and it has done anything but help stabilize regions.

IrishTrajan wrote: »

When China or Russia does something morally reprehensible, it's ignored.

The annexation of Crimea was ignored, was it?

djpbarry

Help!!!! wrote: »

You do realise we are an island? Most people in the country are broke.

No, they’re not. Not by a very long way.

djpbarry

jank wrote: »

What 'sizeable' chunk is this? Do you have stats? What is the scope of things are they proud off exactly or are you now arguing in generalities.

In spite of the failed operations in Iraq and Afghanistan, The UK Armed Forces are still held in very high regard by the British public:
http://www.bsa.natcen.ac.uk/latest-report/british-social-attitudes-29/armed-forces/public-opinion.aspx

jank wrote: »

Tell me how many Arab writers, movie stars or intellectuals are living in the middle east pointing fingers at themselves and/or the Ottomon Empire for the current state of play.

And you accuse me of arguing in generalities?

Why do you keep holding up states with questionable human rights records as some sort of benchmark? We’re doing better than them, so everything’s fine?

jank wrote: »

Turkey ruled this region for 500 years and only in 1917/1918 did they lose their grip on the region, so we are not talking centuries here. They don't even accept that a genocide happened to the Armenians under their watch. Not exactly a country ready for some critical self examining.

So Turkey are the benchmark now?

SILVAMAN

The real question is if refugees are accepted, what are their plans? They have left their homes/culture and need to accept the norms of their new state, thereby swear allegiance to it, learn the language and history accept democracy, and integrate.
No room for maintaining a separate culture within the new state. This is a policy that needs to be rigorously enforced by the state, and any criminality or treasonable activity ought to entail a stripping of citizenship, assuming that it has been achieved, and immediate expulsion from the state to their country of origin.

Nodin

jank wrote: »

True and often get a very hostile reception from residents in their new country.

http://www.nytimes.com/2015/04/22/world/africa/south-african-army-deployed-in-areas-hit-by-anti-immigrant-violence.html?_r=0

Could you imagine the outcry from the twitterazi if the army had to be deployed in France or Sweden or Ireland to protect new African immigrants?
All in all the West treats immigrants much much better then the rest of the world. We should not forget that the next time people want to wear their favourite hair-shirt.

So the next time we see ourselves not setting the best standard, we can relax in the knowledge that others do far worse. Grand.

IrishTrajan

Nodin wrote: »

This post claims most migrants are muslim
http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=95348486&postcount=34

this post contradicts that
http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=95349594&postcount=37

In this post you disagree with the above and state "Actually they are" and post figures relating to the med.
http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=95349779&postcount=38

It would be nice if you checked what we were talking about.

That wasn't me who posted initially, and I was talking to djpbarry about the strain placed on infrastructure by mass migration. I said absolutely nothing regarding "Muslims being the largest migrant groups".

The figures, 36,000 people in 4 months, was me bringing statistics to the table to support my claim that the migrant problem is putting strain on countries such as Germany, Italy and France. The reason I chose Africa and the Middle East, is because not many people come from Canada or the US to live here illegally (if there are any).

Nodin

IrishTrajan wrote: »

It would be nice (...........)US to live here illegally (if there are any).

I'm happy with my understanding of the exchange as it took place.

IrishTrajan

Nodin wrote: »

I'm happy with my understanding of the exchange as it took place.

Are you being wilfully dense? Here, I'll give you a step by step.

Me:

Germany, France and Italy are already cracking under the strain, as seen by them bringing forth and supporting a motion to force Member States to take in "quotas" of asylum seekers, in order to alleviate the burden on them.

Him:

Hardly.

Me:

Actually, they are. Unless you disagree with French, German, British, and Italian Ministers whose job it is to know.

36,000 illegal migrants into Europe in 4 months

Now, can you point out to me where I claimed all the migrants were Muslim? Unless of course you can't, because I didn't.

IrishTrajan

djpbarry wrote: »

You referred specifically to UKIP. I merely pointed out that, after tomorrow, they will go back to being irrelevant. Therefore, what UKIP does or does not want is not relevant to this discussion

Of course it is relevant. If a growing sense of unease with immigrants didn't exist, do you think UKIP would become prominent?

The Lord Ashcroft and Populus Polls both have UKIP larger than the Liberal Democrats.

Will they get into power this election? Probably not, but they have grown. To say there isn't a growing unease, when right-wing parties are growing, is quite naive.

djpbarry wrote: »

No, I’m disagreeing with you, because the above is just your opinion. Feel free to support it with something.

Britain:
Click
click
Italy/Greece
Click
Click
France:
Click

djpbarry wrote: »

You do know the difference between an asylum seeker and an illegal immigrant, don’t you?

Yes, asylum seekers eat less than illegal immigrants. :rolleyes: We're talking about the strain on infrastructure, not quibbling over terms. Both are largely similar circumstances. One is illegal, the other is not. Most people refused asylum become illegal migrants.

djpbarry wrote: »

My taxes go towards helping people through social welfare and foreign aid payments and I’m happy for that to continue.

You said "If there are people in need of help, we help them". There's homeless people in Ireland, why don't you help them? There's people in Africa without wells, why don't you help them?

I asked "Where do we draw the line?" and you said "We don’t".

Don't tell me you're drawing lines now, after saying we shouldn't. That is entirely disingenuous.

djpbarry wrote: »

I never said it was that simple. What I am saying is the US has an abysmal record when it comes to foreign intervention and it has done anything but help stabilize regions.

Yes, them flooding Europe with cash didn't help rebuild after the first world war. They didn't rebuild Italy's infrastructure after the second world war. They didn't build schools and hospitals in Afghanistan, they didn't give aid to civilians.

Like I said, I agree with you, the US made some mistakes, the most notable being the disbanding of the Iraqi Army. However, the US (and it's us dealing with the migrants, not them) policymakers didn't sit around a table and say "Hmm, who should we destabilize today?". They took out Saddam Hussein, like they were right to do.

Also, the current situation in Iraq was not entirely of the US' making. It was the failure of the Iraqi Shi'ite dominated army to stop ISIS and other Sunni factions. The Shia didn't want to die for the Sunni. The factions fighting at the moment? Sunnis and Shia. Guess who supports the Sunnis? Sunni-dominated Saudi Arabia. Guess who is supporting the Shi'ites? Shia Iran!

Oh, the pesky Americans, they've made it look almost as if this is a multifaceted conflict! Those sneaky buggers.

djpbarry wrote: »

The annexation of Crimea was ignored, was it?

Do you see US and UK troops in Ukraine fighting? That's what the Budapest Memorandum on Security dictated they do if the territorial or economic integrity of Ukraine was ever compromised. We only sanctioned Russia after pro-Russian rebels shot down Dutch civilians, little (if anything) to do with Ukraine or Ukrainians.

This point is a side-point.

Help!!!!

Nodin wrote: »

You do realise that vast numbers do go to "other parts of Africa"?

Yes & so they should. So lets say we let a million into Europe this time, then next month theres more problems & we let another million in. Earthquake in Asia? well we have to let them in as well cause it would be racist to refuse them after we let in the Africans
Where does it stop?