Refugee crisis

Monkfish said:
We decided not to arm them as we didn't want to upset the Russians, shall we send all the fit young men back and get them to throw some drowned children at ISIS?
Click to expand...

That's just crass. I've said earlier in the thread that I'd support the temporary fostering of children across Europe - similar to how children were moved from urban to rural areas in the world wars to escape bombing.

But congrats for avoiding the main point - how does Syria avoid becoming overrun by ISIS if it's people aren't willing to fight for their home? And how is any solution sustainable if Syria is lost to the ISIS tyrants?
 
Monkfish said:
Fit young men find walking 1000's of miles in temperatures in the 100's easier than those who are not fit young men, I would imagine the ones who got out are the ones that physically could

And you could of at least read the article before dismissing it
Click to expand...
Monkfish said:
Fit young men find walking 1000's of miles in temperatures in the 100's easier than those who are not fit young men, I would imagine the ones who got out are the ones that physically could

And you could of at least read the article before dismissing it
Click to expand...
I did read the article.
What you are saying is there are no fit young women deserving of asylum, or fit young women are not as capable as fit young men of escaping.
Also, the few children and women that did leave are a lot healthier than those left behind.
Try and give a reason that makes sense.
 
CityStu said:
That's just crass. I've said earlier in the thread that I'd support the temporary fostering of children across Europe - similar to how children were moved from urban to rural areas in the world wars to escape bombing.

But congrats for avoiding the main point - how does Syria avoid becoming overrun by ISIS if it's people aren't willing to fight for their home? And how is any solution sustainable if Syria is lost to the ISIS tyrants?
Click to expand...

No, your complete and utter ignorance of the situation they find themselves in is crass.

I'll try to keep this really simple for you - explain to me how these fit young men with no fighting experience fight a war with no weapons against a highly trained, highly armed and ruthless fighting force?

If you were one of them what would you attack ISIS with? The paddles from your dinghy?
 
Ancient Citizen said:
I did read the article.
What you are saying is there are no fit young women deserving of asylum, or fit young women are not as capable as fit young men of escaping.
Also, the few children and women that did leave are a lot healthier than those left behind.
Try and give a reason that makes sense.
Click to expand...

If you read the article then which one of the 10 points would lead to more people wanting to come over? Were they not all related to helping them stay where they are?

You clearly did not read it did you?

You've also probably not read that 50% of all Syrian refugees are under 18
 
aguero93:20 said:
Apart from the ones that drowned and suffocated.
Click to expand...
Dreadful though that is, it is still not addressing the point.
Fit young men in their hundreds of thousands, a few women and children.
It has just been suggested, that these men are the only ones capable of leaving, young women apparently are not.
 
Monkfish said:
No, your complete and utter ignorance of the situation they find themselves in is crass.

I'll try to keep this really simple for you - explain to me how these fit young men with no fighting experience fight a war with no weapons against a highly trained, highly armed and ruthless fighting force?

If you were one of them what would you attack ISIS with? The paddles from your dinghy?
Click to expand...

As I suggested above, we train them, support them with troops and supply them with weapons. I wasn't aware of any agreement with Russia but I'd support tearing that up.

I just don't understand the end goal of your argument. We accept more and more refugees into Europe until all that's left in Syria is ISIS militants. How is that an end goal that anyone would want to work towards?

And I appreciate that it would be absolutely terrifying for those involved and I'd probably be doing exactly what the people in Hungary are currently doing. There is absolutely no leadership shown from anywhere though.
 
Monkfish said:
If you read the article then which one of the 10 points would lead to more people wanting to come over? Were they not all related to helping them stay where they are?

You clearly did not read it did you?

You've also probably not read that 50% of all Syrian refugees are under 18
Click to expand...
I told you I had read it, it matters not one jot whether you believe me or not.
It is typical Guardian woolly thinking that sounds wonderfully simple but would not stem an immigrant tide.
It asks for Europe to accept 2 million immediately and then set up centres in transit countries from where they can apply to enter legally.
If you think you would satisfy the millions in Africa alone, let alone the middle east, who want to come to Europe, by saying, 'We've let them in but you can apply from Libya'
then you must be as naive as whoever wrote the article. It asks for a common European asylum policy; we have one, it's being ignored across Europe, this is the problem.
 
Ancient Citizen said:
Dreadful though that is, it is still not addressing the point.
Fit young men in their hundreds of thousands, a few women and children.
It has just been suggested, that these men are the only ones capable of leaving, young women apparently are not.
Click to expand...

Its a long, arduous journey. What man is going to let his wife, sister, daughter do that? The men will make the journey, then send back for the women and children.
 
M18CTID said:
Send back? And how are the women and children going to get over? By making the same journey that you've just deemed to be too long and arduous for them?
Click to expand...

What are you actually getting at here? That the majority of these people, as they are men aged 18-30, are scroungers?
 
CTID1988 said:
What are you actually getting at here? That the majority of these people, as they are men aged 18-30, are scroungers?
Click to expand...

I've not said anything of the sort. I'm asking you a genuine question - you've just stated that the journey is too long and arduous for women and kids to undertake yet in the next sentence you're saying that the men will "send back for them". Exactly how are they going to send back for them if the journey that the men have made is too long and arduous for the women and kids to undertake? Does the journey magically become easier once the men have reached their destination? You haven't thought this through have you?
 
CTID1988 said:
Its a long, arduous journey. What man is going to let his wife, sister, daughter do that? The men will make the journey, then send back for the women and children.
Click to expand...
What man would flee from dreadful danger, as we're constantly told that is what they're fleeing from, and leave all his family behind?
If this country was being subjected to what we are hearing is terrible war and persecution and everyone is in immediate fear of their lives,
would you set off for America, or elsewhere, leaving your family members to their fate?
 
M18CTID said:
I've not said anything of the sort. I'm asking you a genuine question - you've just stated that the journey is too long and arduous to undertake yet in the next sentence you're saying that the men will "send back for them". Exactly how are they going to send back for them if the journey that the men have made is too long and arduous for the women and kids to undertake? You haven't thought this through have you?
Click to expand...

David Cameron has said himself that we will be taking refugees direct from camps to provide a more direct route to England "rather than risking the hazardous journey which has tragically cost so many of their lives". So the ones that were already making this journey and do make it to England, i presume the prime ministers words will be put into action and their familys will be provided with a direct route to England.
I expect to see a reduction in people making this journey in the first place now the beginnings of some kind of plan are being put into place.
 
CTID1988 said:
David Cameron has said himself that we will be taking refugees direct from camps to provide a more direct route to England "rather than risking the hazardous journey which has tragically cost so many of their lives". So the ones that were already making this journey and do make it to England, i presume the prime ministers words will be put into action and their familys will be provided with a direct route to England.
I expect to see a reduction in people making this journey in the first place now the beginnings of some kind of plan are being put into place.
Click to expand...

It will help in future but Cameron's only just come out with that which begs the question why so many of the men were prepared to leave their families behind before these measures were announced.
 
M18CTID said:
It will help in future but Cameron's only just come out with that which begs the question why so many of the men were prepared to leave their families behind before these measures were announced.
Click to expand...

Why do you think they did it?
 
CTID1988 said:
Why do you think they did it?
Click to expand...
Anyone who has left a 'warzone' and discarded his family leaving them in mortal danger would be called quite a few things.
The point being made is, as the vast majority are young men, they must be economic migrants, people are refusing to accept this.
Screaming 'Germany, Germany' from another EU country tells its own story.
 
Ancient Citizen said:
What man would flee from dreadful danger, as we're constantly told that is what they're fleeing from, and leave all his family behind?
If this country was being subjected to what we are hearing is terrible war and persecution and everyone is in immediate fear of their lives,
would you set off for America, or elsewhere, leaving your family members to their fate?
Click to expand...

I think there are multiple answers to this. the main one being that young men are the ones that get kidnapped and forced into battles against there will. so family's will send there young men away first to get them out of the danger zone quicker.. the other being they are young and fit so have travelled faster than the families so we are seeing mostly young men at Calais so people automatically think its only young men running.


Plus I would think that families are more likely to resist the move of uprooting and running away until there is no other option, dont forget these people probably didn't believe war would effect them, just like we dont think that this could happen to us!.

seems pretty fitting on that last point to link to this.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Unread Posts

Don't have an account? Register now and see fewer ads!

SIGN UP
Back
Top