Welcome to refugees

No point sending any to the US, cops will shoot em within a week

11000 Icelandics have volunteered to take refugees into their homes, as far as I know Iceland had **** all to do with creating that pile of **** called the middle east where the west and it's chums get to massacre civilians over and over and it's cool, Saddam was hanged for 129 people, not the 5000 gassed by german and US multinational gas and equipment, just the 129, cos they did not want Saddam talking about where his gas came from, not with Germany's history n all that.


@Dirtyfrank
While I agree with the post colonial stuff Iraq Afghanistan Libya are all pretty recent. These are refugees of direct consequence of UK actions. The million plus lives already spent is bad enough without even getting into refugees. Everyone knew this would be the outcome, that can be proven by the very people who started the invasion, being on film in 1994 saying doing what they did in 2003 would create a huge problem.. so they knew exactly what would happen. So yes responsible I would say, the gov and state.. people as usual pay the actual price. With all the money already stolen by the banks, there is not enough lying around to give a few war torn ****s a bit of a break.

I hear this so often used for Germans after WWII, you voted em in so..

 

Hypocrisy is amazing...

We were happy to colonise and use the Middle East (and world) for two centuries... we were in Palestine, in Afghanistan and Iraq (multiple times), involved in many other conflicts and regime changes along with the USA... we feed weapons and aid to different and often opposing groups. We create or at least facilitate war, regime change and instability. We don't stop the weapons trade (UK merchants even sell torture equipment abroad).

Then as soon as the victims appear on our fine shores we dehumanise them once more and say we're 'protecting Britain' - what from?

We want to stop IS? Want to bring people together? Maybe we should treat refugees as people... a little common humanity. I'd rather see some of the Trident money go on saving thousands of lives and potentially many more in the future.

 

Yep, no arguments from me about the recent meddling and it's consequences although I see it as a continuation from colonial to to cold war to oil in these areas.

But what to do. 10000 refugees taken in while obviously making a direct impact on those specific lives does not even dent the 4 million SO FAR from Syria alone. It's the same old tokenism.

But what to do? More military intervention? It's the same mistake over again. Support the Kurds. While looking good now, recent history tells us that will backfire twenty years from now.

Pump money into the area? Whatever their origins and who is to blame IS now exist and are medieval with oil money of their own.

Actually think there's only one option but it will never be stomached. Iran takes control of the region. The rest Saudis Israel etc wouldn't tolerate it. The west would have to switch sides.

 

What about just saying feck it, we are sorry we helped feck you up in the past but we did try to help you guys sort it and yes (with the benefit of hindsight) its probably made things worse so err its probably best if we just stay the feck out of the area and leave you folks to sort out between yourselves.

ps you really think america could go against Israel?

 

Not a fecking chance mate.

It would mean giving up the pretense that we are the nice liberal west. I mean watch the weeping over that poor little boy washed up on the beach, like the starving Ethiopian baby 30 years ago. Only the activists have been crying over the thousands dying unphotographed We'll cry, donate money to ease our guilt but still stay the resource hungry folk that allows our govts to justify dabbling in these areas for resource control.

Can guarantee very few of those outraged in this country would take in a refugee genuine or not. Good on the Icelanders if they put their homes where their mouths are.

So we'll tear our clothes and then buy new ones from India and China who are taking over our asset stripping in these areas quite nicely.

I'm not criticising. It's the way it's always been. Someone will come along and do it to us (again) at some point.

 

Spot on!! My sentiments exactly regarding Trident!! Waste of money that would be better spent on other projects including infrastructure here like transport, education, encouraging start-up projects, engineering and so on!!

 

You need to question how IS who are essentially Syrian, came about and got to where they are. They were nothing but a hodge podge of idiots with no power until the Americans and NATO got involved, where does on think all of their money and weapons came from. NATO armed the "rebels" for 2 years knowing they were sharing everything with ISIL and that all of the effective fighting was being done by ISIL against Assad, oh and also eating hearts and having children behead captives.. these are the people NATO knowingly supported.

NATO also cooked up imaginary Daesh to get their airstrikes going, more than one journalist has spoken to people on the ground there and no one ever heard of Daesh, someone Obama and Cameron was telling us were more dangerous than IS


Then one needs to question how in a world of total banking controlan d surveillance that ISIL can do the following.
Extract oil, the oil fields are known, ISIL do not have secret unknown oil fields and if anyone tries tell me NATO cannot take those out I'll piss myself laughing.
Refine Oil
Sell oil, much of it goes to Turkey and then to Israel and out of the middle east. The media aren't reporting this. Who is buying ISIL oil?
Make banking transactions
Get videos viral
Run operations and have a large presence on the internet without detection yet the NSA and GCHQ know when we take a piss.

Also, and most importantly if it is so easy to go off and join ISIL as we are led to belive, then why are they not completely infiltrated by foreign agents to te point that NATO knows where and what they are attacking?


A year ago we were talking a force 30.000 strong at most. When it was calculated how much we (you and I) spend per militant killed it is something like a few million £ per head in cost in airstrikes.

But.. don't we know since WWII that you cannot win a war with air power, you can sway it but not win it. Then there is the inevitable civilian deaths which almost always are higher casualty rates than the actual militants. This is true throughout air warefare history so I cannot accept any excuses of military ignorance or "good intentions" excuses.

Now, it continues via a proxy in Yemen and the Saudis who are massive buyers of US and UK made weaponry. You are involved in Yemen because the UK are selling the soudis weapons that are indescriminately massacring civilians as we speak creating hundreds of thousands of more refugees.

It's pretty simple, stop the weapons going to the region, stop the money going to militant factions. The Gulf states, the same ones that have been buying double hte arms they were 5 years ago, also fund the militants, Saudi Arabia and gulf states are the biggest funder of militants and terrorism globally, but they are allis of NATO.. go ****ing figure.

As for the refugees. We have become so ****ing callous. Self absorbed and pathetically individualistic. Yes we personally did not create the conditions but the people we voted for did and we remained mainly silent as they committed these atrocities. Just like the Germans did when the Nazis committed theirs. Iraq sanctions were genocide 100%, a million children dead as a result

No bombs no money no war but.. no massive profits and no geopolitical strategy.

ISIL are and have been allowed to do what they are doing, NATO wants Assad gone and will let ISIL do it, or go as far as to leave Syria needing the UN and NATO, who then become heroes after letting this go on and in fact supplied the weapons to make a civil war go two years longer than it should have because the FSA were all but defeated in 2013 before ISIL were given masses of weapons and funds, this turned the war around, but they are foreign proxies, not Syrians, many fo these were in Afghanistan and Libya. NATO's handy terrorists. They currently run Libya.


Anyone who is not mentally lacking can see Iraq the middle east, Libya and Afghanistan were better off before NATO smashed the countries.
Of course the fact the taliban all but wiped out opium production which was about 90% of the world's supply, had nothing to do with that invasion, it was mere coincidence that the crops reached record harvests under NATO occupation and again Afghanistan is a supplier of most of the drugs junkies consume globally. War and the global opium supply, we are talking some serious money. The war on drugs is yet another money spinner from a problem the same people create.


**** responsibility, refugees from war torn places should be taken in, without question. The fact that our militaries or governments trashed their country is irrelevant both morally and ethically

Rant over, sorry you had to read it Frank.

Here is a good piece on Yemen the curent NATO\Proxy disaster. This is life for them. The Intercept was started by Glenn Greenwald after he had to flee the UK and Guardian news paper after the Snowden leaks. They dare to do some actual investigative journalism
https://theintercept.com/2015/09/01/yemen-hidden-war-saudi-coalition-killing-civilians/

 

It's the reality created by the market... ****ing sad. It doesn't 'have' to be this way but change is so unlikely.

I would take a refugee if I could. But if I'm not allowed pets I'm probably not allowed a Syrian...

 

EU refugee crisis: World mourns Syrian toddler as Andy Burnham calls for emergency Parliament debate - latest
As the world reacts to the image of the dead three-year-old, police leave the main station in Hungary's capital where refugees are sleeping outside. Follow the latest developments
.newGigyaShare { display: none !important; }

please log in to view this image

A policeman carries a baby to safety as migrants try to enter Macedonia near Gevgelija after crossing the border with Greece Photo: REUTERS

 

I think we are on relatively the same page on what caused and prolonged this crisis BBF

I've tried to think about this personally.

I think this country has had a tradition of accepting in asylum seekers more than most of Europe now trying to paint us as the evil partner. Up until May we allowed in more asylum seekers than 17 other European countries combined. Only France, Italy, Sweden and Germany let in more.

We also match Germany with net migration for all migrants including economic despite having an economy Ill suited and the fact that Germany needs immigration economically speaking much more than we do.

So I believe Cameron has guessed wrong on this one. The people might grumble about economic migrants even erroneously at times but we are always willing to do or bit as a people to help others. As I said in the previous post it's probably tokenism dwarfed by our resource hungry habits which are actually causing the problems but it still needs attempted.

I do think the open border policy of Europe is a mistake. It's an imbalanced vehicle due to the make up of the participating states. If we had tighter control on the annual economic migration we could actually be in a position to comfortably allow more actual refugees in from around the world.

My only note of caution is about bringing in a large population displaced with violence from an area we helped cause to become unstable. They can't become second class citizens in menial jobs and poor housing. Take the example of French Algerian's as a stark example.

As for those countries boasting about taking in refugees it will be interesting to see the final numbers and how many once naturalised remain in those countries rather than then become economic migrants who head elsewhere.

 

Bayern Munich are to set up a 'training camp' for refugees coming into Germany and will donate 1m euros (£730,000) for refugee projects.
http://www.bbc.com/sport/0/football/34142261

 

Has one picture shifted our view of migrants?

please log in to view this image

A huge online conversation is taking place around the picture of a dead 3-year-old Syrian boy from Kobane, washed up on a Turkish beach. Will it change the way the world views Syrian migrants?
Warning: This article contains a distressing image
The picture was of Aylan Kurdi, one of 12 Syrians who drowned off the coast of Turkey as they tried to reach the EU by boat. They were heading towards the Greek island of Kos.
A Turkish news agency shared the picture of his lifeless body being washed up and carried ashore by a Turkish policeman and it has sparked a huge - and global - surge on social media.
Here are five of the biggest talking points.
1. 'Humanity washed up ashore'
This Turkish phrase was used as people first began to share the picture using a Twitter hashtag ("#kiyiyavuraninsanlik"). It has been used 200,000 times in the past 24 hours. Other tags, such as "where children die in the world," also trended.
Turkish internet users commented on the moral issues the picture raises. "You should be quiet when kids are asleep, not when they die," said Ba Bacio. "Forgive us child, we did not care about you as much as we do for beached whales," said Burak Ates.
In English, debates soon emerged over whether the picture would change the way Europe views its refugee crisis, and debating how this image was different from the other graphic pictures that emerged from Syria.
2. Here is how we should remember him
Images that seem to show Aylan Kurdi and his 5-year-old brother Galip alive, and in happier times, soon emerged onto social media.
It's not clear where these images were first used, although Canada's National Post featured the pictures alongside an interview with the children's aunt who lives in Vancouver, and other journalists have said family members shared these pictures.
Online, many people are sharing these images and many are commenting that it's a better way to remember Aylan Kurdi. His name has now been used 50,000 times on Twitter.

please log in to view this image

Image copyright Michael Weiss/ Twitter
3. Is it even right to share this image?
The BBC has chosen to publish only one photograph of Aylan, in which he is being carried by a Turkish police officer and is unidentifiable. However, several news organisations have published more graphic images of the boy.

please log in to view this image

Image copyright AP
Image caption The boy's lifeless body was captured in a series of images released by a Turkish news agency
On social media there was a similar debate about what purpose was served by retweeting or sharing such a graphic image. A blog post by human rights watch was widely shared, arguing the image being shared might influence European leaders. But many others urged people not to share the image, as it was too heartbreaking and graphic to take in.
4. 'The Arab conscience is dead'
There was an even bigger conversation about the pictures in Arabic than English, with 300,000 messages on Twitter using the tag "A Syrian Child Drowns". Many shared cartoons and memes commenting on the moral issues raised.

 

The only armies in the region capable of wiping out IS are Iran and Israel. If either intervened the area would explode even more. It's a mess caused by Bush and Blair and their interference in the region. Yes Saddam and other despots in the region were not particularly decent people, but what has replaced them is a lot worse for the average person in the region.

 

I never thought I would write this.

Germany has shown the UK how they've taken the leadership of Europe in all respects. Economically, leadership, morally.

We can only applaud what Germany is doing when faced with a human crisis of unseen (recently) proportions. They and their people have mobilised. They've said that they will welcome the refugees in their homes and will make sacrifices if necessary.

Yet again Cameron and other politicians in Britain have misjudged the mood of the nation. When we are all wanting to help these desperate people all Cameron was thinking about was how to keep the doors locked. When it became obvious that the mood was for humanity and for us to engage with a huge common humanitarian effort, he relented. It looks that he is only doing this because he us being forced to do it rather than showing true leadership.

He had the opportunity to take the moral high ground when he was faced with this tragedy. He flunked it.

Well done Germany. You are the true leaders of Europe.

 

There was a very worrying way of thinking that had crept in and taken hold in the UK. There was once a minority but it had grown, fed by media manipulation and ignorance. The minority is still there, some who had joined their ranks in some way will have changed after seeing that child washed up on a beach lifeless and cold. It should never take this kind of sacrifice, we should not have to see an innocent boy killed for us to stop and think and change.

 

please log in to view this image

 

Refugees are people who are displaced through war or persecution, they flee their homelands driven by fear and desperation.

The most common way of reacting to streams of refuges fleeing over a border is for camps to be created where these people can be cared for until such time that it's safe for them to return.

These people have decided that they want Germany or the UK as their residency of choice by the sounds of it, and they're tramping across many free and perfectly safe countries in order to achieve their goal. This makes them opportunists for me, they're not merely running for their lives, they're seeking an opportunity to gain free access into countries that they ordinarily wouldn't be allowed entry to.

 

Damned if you do damned if you don't, Finland's PM pledges his previous family home for refugees he's faced a lot of cynicism here, reading the comments, I thought I was a cynical ****, seems I ain't that bad

He's giving up his own gaff, he currently lives in Finland's version of N.10

No doubt property mogul Blair who created part of this mess will be out shortly with his offer.


http://www.independent.co.uk/news/w...is-home-to-accommodate-refugees-10488580.html

 

The true asylum seeker will ask for permission to stay in the first safe country they arrive in. Any that travel through several safe countries are really economic migrants. If this rule was imposed by all countries then they would know that if they don't claim asylum in the first safe country they arrive in they will be refused point blank in any future countries they may try to claim asylum in. The true asylum seeker would not be penalised by this, and countries could always agree to share the cost if say Greece or Italy bore the brunt of claims. Once the claims were investigated the people could either be given permission to stay, and then would be able to travel throughout the Eu, or kicked back out to their country of origin.

The fact that a lot of the "asylum seekers" shown on the news seem to be single young men suggests to me that there are a lot of economic migrants trying to get in with the genuine asylum seekers, and the more of the former who are allowed in means there is less chance of the latter getting in.