All "Syrian" migrants good for Europe? - Page 3

**scoundrel** · September 10th, 2015, 08:28 PM

Not wanting to be nasty or anything, but the Syrian refugee crisis is essentially America's mess; however, Europe will be the main place lumbered with the problem of tidying it up. Britain played her malign part too, and it is mainly for this reason that I personally think Britain has to take in some of these refugees. It is infuriating to see thousands of people totally from outside who never contributed here in their lives getting council houses, benefits and all that shit when there are so many British people born and bred who paid taxes and contributed and can't even get on the waiting list for a council flat, even if they are sleeping on a park bench, as quite a few British people currently do. But it is a fact that Cameron and Osborne connived at Mr Obama's project to depose the Assad regime in Syria for selfish American policy reasons; and the rise of ISIL is in no small part the consequence of this illegal and stupid policy, which Cameron and Osborne not only supported, but still support now.

On one point, Mr Cameron is right though. All Britain's refugee quota will come direct from displaced person camps in Syria. These are people who lacked the means and opportunity to escape from the warzone. They are far more deserving than the ones who paid umpteen thousands of dollars to people smugglers and now want to storm the Channel Tunnel because they think we British are bigger suckers than the French and they want to shop around for the cushiest number. I would use all the force necessary to keep these undesireables out of Britain.. Hopefully it won't come to shooting them dead, but if it does, they'll be dying because they tried to force their way into Britain after Britain told them No.

The ones stuck in Syria are in much worse danger than the Calais riff raff who want a free house, free car, benefits from the British taxpayer and probably want oral sex from Page Three girls into the bargain. Also, if they are coming from Syria direct, Britain has the opportunity to interview and vet them first and weed out some of the ISIL infiltrators who are bound to try to pass themselves off as refugees.

**Sharkhunter** · September 10th, 2015, 08:47 PM

For starters, the west should have kept its nose out of Syria when the "rebels" first started rumbling. As soon as there was a sniff of a vacuum, Isis was ready to step into the breach. The problem is that the Americans have a problem with Putin, and as a result were more prepared to risk the complete collapse of the Syrian government and President Assad than maintain stability with Assad still in power and allied with Russia.

They could have also kept better control of our co-called "Allies", the Wahhabists in Saudi, Qatar and soon who have bankrolled the extremists. They didn't just come out of nowhere as out media suggests; they have been there for a while waiting in the wings, and have been massively funded by the west's allies.

As for the refugees, one can only feel sorry for the ordinary Syrian people. But I personally believe that this is part of a long-term plan to destabilise Europe, and Isis spokespersons have have stated the same. We now are seriously entertaining the idea of letting millions - that's millions, not just a few hundred - of Muslims into Europe. Viktor Orban, the Hungarian PM, has been villified by the western media, but if you remove the emotional bull he makes a serious point. The West has enough Muslims, and it doesn't need anymore. They don't share our values, they don't share our language, they don't share our culture.

But hey, look - there are countries that do share all of these, and have so far taken zero refugees! Yes, the same countries that are bankrolling Isis. As for there being an Islamic invasion, a story came to light today that really highlighted this. The Saudis and Qataris in particular are funding Isis and have helped create this crisis, and are taking no refugees. Yet, they would rather fund the building of 200 mosques in Germany alone. If this isn't proof of an organised campaign to Islamify Europe, I don't know what is.

This is how I see it -though it will never happen. The West, and the US in particular, should demand that Saudi Arabia and the rich Gulf States (they have plenty of desert space to spare) take all Muslim refugees. If Saudi can set up air conditioned tents for three million visitors to Mecca, I cannot see how they cannot set up something similar for refugees.

Meanwhile the West can take all of the fleeing Syrian Christians and Yazidis, who are clearly being persecuted by Isis.

I was actually shocked at the Mosque-funding story. I didn't find it on some conspiracy website, but the FAZ, which is a well-respected German broadsheet.

http://www.faz.net/aktuell/politik/f...-13789932.html

~~savage560~~ · September 10th, 2015, 08:50 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by ponky

Well... native people of Japan territory are not Japanese. See Ainu and others...

The Ainu, I am keenly aware of.They were once thought to be of Caucasian roots, some suggested Tocharian.But current genetics link them with Asians of the mainland.It does not matter that the true Japanese came latter,they have been there for countless thousands of years now,living with & maybe assimilating some Ainu over the centuries.

Name any country in the world today & there is a good chance indigenous people are no longer there.Like where you are from,Slavs displaced &/or absorbed Ilyrians,Romans, Greeks.In modern times ,with modern countries many want to preserve their language,boarders,customs,laws,religion or lack of religion,if so wanted,genetics, with the identity of their nations.

Again why is this problem only a European & American problem.Why is this migrant problem not taken on by their benevolent, peacefull Islamic brothers in countries that are in riches & splendor, & adhere to the same beliefs like Saudi Arabia, & the other Oil Rich, sparsely populated nations that are like them, Islamics?

**Navvet** · September 10th, 2015, 09:43 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by SanteeFats

The US has only taken 1,500 to 1,800 Syrians so far.
http://www.cnn.com/2015/09/09/politi...gees-pressure/

Sandy where did you get the 70,000 figure I can not find it any where.

Okay I don't mean to seem harsh here but why should the US take more Syrians? How many Hispanic's has the EU taken from Central and South America? We have our own immigration problems IMO as due others.

Thank you Santee Fats, for stating something that has been on the minds of a great many Americans.
Syrians are making their way through southeastern Europe, on their way to Germany. To my knowledge, because of a clause in their constitution, Germany must accept all that apply for refuge. If that's the choice of the German government, so be it, although I'd be surprised if a majority of German citizens feel comfortable with that decision.
In any case, the vast majority of Americans do not want to open the gates for a flood of Syrians or, for that matter, any other large group of immigrants. Although I consider Donald Trump something of a "loose cannon," he is right when he says that America has enough problems with which to deal.
One thing puzzles me, though. Why aren't the countries of the middle east offering to take in the fleeing Syrians? As far as I know, none of the Muslim countries has offered refuge to Assad's victims. Why is it that the "western nations" have to provide some sort of home?
History has shown that whenever America gets involved in middle eastern politics, it only seems to incite the citizens of that region to hate the US even more. That's one of the main reasons that there is an enormous groundswell of feeling among American citizens that we should mind our own business.
I feel for what the Syrians are going through, but I don't believe it's MY responsibility, or America's responsibility to help provide a new life for anyone.

~~savage560~~ · September 10th, 2015, 09:50 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by cicciobuki

I seroiously doubt that IS will put terrorists among those refugees, for several reasons.

It's high risk for the terrorist (people know eachother, if a terrorist gets unmasked he'll be lynched for sure (rightfully so), and the journey isn't peanuts either.
There are plenty of easier ways for them to get terrorists in Europe (like recruiting in Europe)

the only thing i think terrorists need to do (from their point of view) is just declaring they will do it, which is enough (feeding the paranoia and the fear).

IMO, if we Europeans want to keep calling ourselves civilized, we need to help war fugitives, just as others have done this for us in the past.

Is it good for Europe? I think so, yes.

Time will tell,if they will be great for indigenous Europeans.

Why can we not help them in their own countries?Why can we not put them up in camps run in areas like Turkey,which guises itself as secular,but is becoming more of an Islamic state?Its their people in a religious sense,why do they not grant them asylum en masse in Turkey?

The Pope asked for help from Catholic parishes throught Europe, for them ,why does he not take thousands of them in the vast expanses of the Vatican buildings. Or open up the riches in the Vatican bank & give money to these people?

I'm sure ones who say this is a great thing can open up their homes to take them in!

**rotobott** · September 10th, 2015, 10:03 PM

Many of the oil rich countries, have very small indigenous populations, with most of the work done by migrant workers on short term contracts, so they have no rights. There is no chance of them letting in any of there muslim brothers in permanently, and getting a piece of the action.

**SanteeFats** · September 10th, 2015, 10:42 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by palo5

I don't know if Syrians want to go to Russia or Asia, or if it's easy for them to get there. It may not be. But Russia has accepted 1,000,000+ war refugees from Ukraine in the last 12-15 months, so it's not like they're unreceptive to unfortunate people

Ummm Palo those refugees wouldn't happen to Russian speaking ethnics by any chance.

**SanteeFats** · September 10th, 2015, 10:57 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by scoundrel

Not wanting to be nasty or anything, but the Syrian refugee crisis is essentially America's mess; however, Europe will be the main place lumbered with the problem of tidying it up.

Not sure I can agree. If all of those military aged males stood and fought may be they wouldn't be running away. Please don't say they are not trained either. While they may not have a lot of formal training most of them have grown up with weapons they just IMO don't have the stomach to fight.
If it happened here I would die first before giving up my country but that is just me.

**SanteeFats** · September 10th, 2015, 11:10 PM

To reply to several posts. IMO the reason other Arab nations don't take in the Syrian refugees has a lot to do with which sect they are from. 74% of Syria is Shia so no majority Sunni nation will even want to touch them.
Then there is the way Arab's seem to treat other Arab refugee's, not with the greatest of kindness or empathy. Plus why should they when the soft westerner's will take them in?

**ponky** · September 10th, 2015, 11:55 PM

Guys, did you ever been in Syria? Biker's paradise: interesting roads, specially if you have road-enduro, picturesquely nature and nice people, calm and cordial. All that and many more except any incident in 2011. And Al-Asad, yes. But who cares? Some second option politicans maybe, but average Syrians not so, by seen. And by my opinion guaranteed social care, health care, education, and above all peace and security means lot more than MAYBE more democratic political system (probably newer is not better at all, as seen in Libya, Egypt, even in Iraq).

"Sponsors of terrorism?" Did Yugoslavia attacked Sweden after WW2 because lot of nazi-supporters escaped there and launch several terrorist attacks and assassination? Did a half of World attacked Argentina, Australia or New Zealand because they give asylum to nazists? How about USA which government supported several terrorist groups in Europe and Middle East, with many changes of side - and I talking only about last 25 years or so?

Did Syria, Libya, or Egypt ever attacked USA, Germany, UK or Czech Republic? So what to hell we doing half planet away of our countries? Maybe something good? Doesn't look like it.

I don't like interventionism, but if one chooses to implement it it's better to be sure that you are capable to do it at all. We are not capable, last 4 years are new proof for it.

September 10th, 2015, 08:28 PM	#21
scoundrel Super Moderator Join Date: Jan 2009 Location: England Posts: 26,267 Thanks: 162,482 Thanked 278,835 Times in 26,212 Posts	Not wanting to be nasty or anything, but the Syrian refugee crisis is essentially America's mess; however, Europe will be the main place lumbered with the problem of tidying it up. Britain played her malign part too, and it is mainly for this reason that I personally think Britain has to take in some of these refugees. It is infuriating to see thousands of people totally from outside who never contributed here in their lives getting council houses, benefits and all that shit when there are so many British people born and bred who paid taxes and contributed and can't even get on the waiting list for a council flat, even if they are sleeping on a park bench, as quite a few British people currently do. But it is a fact that Cameron and Osborne connived at Mr Obama's project to depose the Assad regime in Syria for selfish American policy reasons; and the rise of ISIL is in no small part the consequence of this illegal and stupid policy, which Cameron and Osborne not only supported, but still support now. On one point, Mr Cameron is right though. All Britain's refugee quota will come direct from displaced person camps in Syria. These are people who lacked the means and opportunity to escape from the warzone. They are far more deserving than the ones who paid umpteen thousands of dollars to people smugglers and now want to storm the Channel Tunnel because they think we British are bigger suckers than the French and they want to shop around for the cushiest number. I would use all the force necessary to keep these undesireables out of Britain.. Hopefully it won't come to shooting them dead, but if it does, they'll be dying because they tried to force their way into Britain after Britain told them No. The ones stuck in Syria are in much worse danger than the Calais riff raff who want a free house, free car, benefits from the British taxpayer and probably want oral sex from Page Three girls into the bargain. Also, if they are coming from Syria direct, Britain has the opportunity to interview and vet them first and weed out some of the ISIL infiltrators who are bound to try to pass themselves off as refugees. __________________ To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 0 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.

September 10th, 2015, 08:47 PM	#22
Sharkhunter Gusset Man & Jizzmaster Join Date: Jun 2008 Location: Wanking, but not the city in China Posts: 2,043 Thanks: 5,203 Thanked 34,738 Times in 2,027 Posts	For starters, the west should have kept its nose out of Syria when the "rebels" first started rumbling. As soon as there was a sniff of a vacuum, Isis was ready to step into the breach. The problem is that the Americans have a problem with Putin, and as a result were more prepared to risk the complete collapse of the Syrian government and President Assad than maintain stability with Assad still in power and allied with Russia. They could have also kept better control of our co-called "Allies", the Wahhabists in Saudi, Qatar and soon who have bankrolled the extremists. They didn't just come out of nowhere as out media suggests; they have been there for a while waiting in the wings, and have been massively funded by the west's allies. As for the refugees, one can only feel sorry for the ordinary Syrian people. But I personally believe that this is part of a long-term plan to destabilise Europe, and Isis spokespersons have have stated the same. We now are seriously entertaining the idea of letting millions - that's millions, not just a few hundred - of Muslims into Europe. Viktor Orban, the Hungarian PM, has been villified by the western media, but if you remove the emotional bull he makes a serious point. The West has enough Muslims, and it doesn't need anymore. They don't share our values, they don't share our language, they don't share our culture. But hey, look - there are countries that do share all of these, and have so far taken zero refugees! Yes, the same countries that are bankrolling Isis. As for there being an Islamic invasion, a story came to light today that really highlighted this. The Saudis and Qataris in particular are funding Isis and have helped create this crisis, and are taking no refugees. Yet, they would rather fund the building of 200 mosques in Germany alone. If this isn't proof of an organised campaign to Islamify Europe, I don't know what is. This is how I see it -though it will never happen. The West, and the US in particular, should demand that Saudi Arabia and the rich Gulf States (they have plenty of desert space to spare) take all Muslim refugees. If Saudi can set up air conditioned tents for three million visitors to Mecca, I cannot see how they cannot set up something similar for refugees. Meanwhile the West can take all of the fleeing Syrian Christians and Yazidis, who are clearly being persecuted by Isis. I was actually shocked at the Mosque-funding story. I didn't find it on some conspiracy website, but the FAZ, which is a well-respected German broadsheet. http://www.faz.net/aktuell/politik/f...-13789932.html __________________ "Birth Control Tip #2431: Shoot your load in a girl's mouth or on her face instead of inside her sweet bits. Result: no expensive burden, stretch marks or saggy tits". To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 0 or greater. You currently have 0 posts. Last edited by Sharkhunter; September 10th, 2015 at 08:53 PM..

September 10th, 2015, 10:03 PM	#26
rotobott Veteran Member Join Date: Jun 2008 Posts: 32,135 Thanks: 174,873 Thanked 635,135 Times in 31,456 Posts	Many of the oil rich countries, have very small indigenous populations, with most of the work done by migrant workers on short term contracts, so they have no rights. There is no chance of them letting in any of there muslim brothers in permanently, and getting a piece of the action.

September 10th, 2015, 11:10 PM	#29
SanteeFats Super Moderator Join Date: Jul 2013 Location: Santee, Ca Posts: 60,930 Thanks: 282,124 Thanked 815,494 Times in 60,973 Posts	To reply to several posts. IMO the reason other Arab nations don't take in the Syrian refugees has a lot to do with which sect they are from. 74% of Syria is Shia so no majority Sunni nation will even want to touch them. Then there is the way Arab's seem to treat other Arab refugee's, not with the greatest of kindness or empathy. Plus why should they when the soft westerner's will take them in?

September 10th, 2015, 11:55 PM	#30
ponky Vintage Member Join Date: Nov 2012 Posts: 1,445 Thanks: 18,112 Thanked 17,871 Times in 1,341 Posts	Guys, did you ever been in Syria? Biker's paradise: interesting roads, specially if you have road-enduro, picturesquely nature and nice people, calm and cordial. All that and many more except any incident in 2011. And Al-Asad, yes. But who cares? Some second option politicans maybe, but average Syrians not so, by seen. And by my opinion guaranteed social care, health care, education, and above all peace and security means lot more than MAYBE more democratic political system (probably newer is not better at all, as seen in Libya, Egypt, even in Iraq). "Sponsors of terrorism?" Did Yugoslavia attacked Sweden after WW2 because lot of nazi-supporters escaped there and launch several terrorist attacks and assassination? Did a half of World attacked Argentina, Australia or New Zealand because they give asylum to nazists? How about USA which government supported several terrorist groups in Europe and Middle East, with many changes of side - and I talking only about last 25 years or so? Did Syria, Libya, or Egypt ever attacked USA, Germany, UK or Czech Republic? So what to hell we doing half planet away of our countries? Maybe something good? Doesn't look like it. I don't like interventionism, but if one chooses to implement it it's better to be sure that you are capable to do it at all. We are not capable, last 4 years are new proof for it.