Migrant crises

It was me who mentioned the UN. In previous years we would've had a peace-keeping force in there and a secure area for displaced people that was protected by the military. The UN no longer seems to exist.
 
original guvnor said:
It was me who mentioned the UN. In previous years we would've had a peace-keeping force in their and a secure area for displaced people that was protected by the military. The UN no longer seems to exist.

It is strange. We do, however, have specialist forces on the ground and also in Nigeria. (that I know of). Perhaps the feeling is a dedicated UN force would escalate into war with an unspecified enemy.
 
TitanTim said:
jimmybell said:
TitanTim said:
I'm suggesting their are grown up adults ie young men who would be perfectly capable of fighting in their own country if that was needed
...
Tim.

Fighting who?

Do you even know what's going on in Syria?

I assume their own Government, its not the only country in the world where the populas has overthrown their own Government throughout history.

I don't think the answer is multiple countries i.e. Europe opening its gates to take a flood of migration from the east which once it starts and the situation in countries such as Syria deteriorates even further will only get worse.

Perhaps I don't wear rose tinted spectacles but look at these things realistically.

And no I don't study Syria's problems, I'm not that interested to be honest :)

Tim.

Aside from starting the thread and having some pretty strong opinions about what the Syrians should do.. yeah, you're clearly not interested.

Put yourself in their shoes, your government is a savage dictator, your country is in a pretty bad way and chances are someone in your family is in some prison for most likely something they didn't do (or if they did, you'd not consider it a crime). A rebellion rises up, overthrows (somewhat) this regime. But no, the regime is backed by Russia, he isn't going anywhere.

Meanwhile, ISIS sees this recently destabilised territory as a great place to setup a base of operations, so waves of foreign terrorists move in, setup camp, start doing who knows what to the local population.

Existing groups in the country (internationally regarded as terrorists, for fighting, as you suggest they do, for what they perceive to be their country), are fighting both groups, on both fronts.

The US, Nato etc (that's us), is bombing .. well.. we're bombing ISIS, but killing innocents, quietly aiding the group we previously regarded as terrorists and somehow trying to avoid aggravating Russia by helping remove Assad.

Then there's little old you, sat in your house, going about your business, not aligned with any of the groups, didn't like your dictator, but don't exactly prefer ISIS, someone in your family has been bombed accidentally and the guys you used to despise for many generations (the kurds) are the only guys stopping ISIS from taking over your town. Your kids are at threat of being shot on a daily basis, and there's no food to go around. You pick up an AK, who you gonna shoot? there's 4 enemies, and then there's the looters, none of which you can actually do anything about as you're massively out numbered and over half of the local population have left.

Don't know about you, but Europe looks like a fking brilliant idea to me.
 
Hungarian riot police have tried to force migrants and refugees off a packed train that had left Budapest's international rail station, hours after police had finally let migrants into the station building.
Migrants had hoped the train would take them close to the Austrian border, but it was stopped at the town of Bicske where there is a transit camp.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-34136334

I predict a riot :(
 
original guvnor said:
Syria - we haven't helped to mess up Syria at all (unless you consider Parliament's unwillingness to get involved messing it up or unless you consider the general public's deep unhappiness about getting involved messing it up). Syria is where most are apparently coming from (and Eritrea which we've done absolutely nothing to cause either). Of course they are fleeing ISIL or whatever you call that bunch these days but this is the same ISIL that nobody has the stomach to take on. .

I don't get your slant there Steve :?
ISIS / ISIL has grown from extreme factions of Al Qaeda that have been allowed to expand & flourish in areas previously under Saddam's dictatorship
If the west (Blair) hadn't removed him they would be operating on a much smaller level & therefore not capable of driving out hundreds of thousands of innocents from Syria/Irag
No one could forsee this 12/13 years ago but they sure stirred up a hornets nest by removing him & it's looking like only a major offensive in the area will change things & who wants that ? ? Indeed its not exactly a coincidence that as the UK/US withdrew military prescence from Iraq 3/4 years ago then ISIL rapidly expanded their regime ?
Really grim future for the area & consequently longterm for the countries that will no doubt have to take in possibly millions of refugees
 
Postby dans6490 » Thu Sep 03, 2015 8:54 am

Religion has a lot to answer for.
Couldn't agree more and without wishing to appear bigotry, I'm guessing that more than 90% of the migrants are from a form of Muslim religion. We are all aware that there are numerous groups of Muslims throughout the world who are vowed to eliminate western and other non-Muslim cultures (and people) and this massive tide of migration is part the overall plan.
Pictures showing the migrants in Europe are predominantly male, young looking, mostly healthy and not apparently short of money if one believes that human traffickers have been paid to get them to Europe.
Surely the more that are permitted to reside in Europe will only mean that more will be arriving and clearly it needs sorting very quickly.
I don't know what status migrants are given if allowed to reside in UK, but I would bet they would be allowed dependants to join them

Incidently the term 'migrants' infers a form of permission has been granted to be in a country, a refugee is defined as someone fleeing their country in order to escape war, persecution, or natural disaster, neither of these terms are correct in this instance and illegal entrants would seem a better description.
 
Why aren't any of the other Arab states taking in Migrants? Maybe they should come forward and offer safe havens.

You can let in millions of migrants and it won't solve the wider issue which us West should have sorted years ago.

All I can think of is EU should set up refugee camps across Europe to temporary hold them for however long it takes until they can return home.

Tim.
 
mr wilks said:
original guvnor said:
Syria - we haven't helped to mess up Syria at all (unless you consider Parliament's unwillingness to get involved messing it up or unless you consider the general public's deep unhappiness about getting involved messing it up). Syria is where most are apparently coming from (and Eritrea which we've done absolutely nothing to cause either). Of course they are fleeing ISIL or whatever you call that bunch these days but this is the same ISIL that nobody has the stomach to take on. .

I don't get your slant there Steve :?
ISIS / ISIL has grown from extreme factions of Al Qaeda that have been allowed to expand & flourish in areas previously under Saddam's dictatorship
If the west (Blair) hadn't removed him they would be operating on a much smaller level & therefore not capable of driving out hundreds of thousands of innocents from Syria/Irag
No one could forsee this 12/13 years ago but they sure stirred up a hornets nest by removing him & it's looking like only a major offensive in the area will change things & who wants that ? ? Indeed its not exactly a coincidence that as the UK/US withdrew military prescence from Iraq 3/4 years ago then ISIL rapidly expanded their regime ?
Really grim future for the area & consequently longterm for the countries that will no doubt have to take in possibly millions of refugees

Al Qaeda have been around a lot longer than from the time Saddam was deposed Mr W. As have the Taliban. They are sworn enemies of ISIL. Their rise in Syria hasn't really made things worse than it already was to be honest. Remember, our inactivity when Assad was gassing and carpet bombing his own people? When the rebels were also committing atrocities on a daily basis? How many cute dead babies blown to smithereens then? None of whom were packaged into bite size news items for the West to consume. Those people and media outlets who are making a big deal of these baby photos are exactly the same people who opposed military action to prevent genocide. These parents left Turkey, where there are refugee camps, and put their children into unsafe vessels for a perilous sea crossing and now it's all our fault?
 
The parents were actually fleeing from Syria & the threat of ISIL
I was under the impression ISIL/ISIS were Iraqi based & originated from under Al Qaeda's sponsorship which was later withdrawn as they became more radicalised ?
I'm not making any deal out of pro[aganda pics or stories , it happens , its tragic but its old news tomorrow
My point was a vast majority of the current problems would not be happening if the west had left Gadaffi , Assad & Saddam to rule their own
My personal thoughts are that the refugees should be given haven in other muslim countries that can support their beliefs , not their pockets , its quite clear from the way our country is heading that the varied cultures & religions settling here will be its ultimate downfall
 
A worry I have is, that if asylum is granted in whichever country gives it, when they become dissatisfied with a situation in that country, they will react in a similar fashion.
 
Sorry I didn't mean to imply you were attempting to make propaganda out of the photos Mr W. Apologies if it came across like that. :thumbsup: .

I've got a arse on though at the media outlets and people like Richard Bacon trying to do just that today.
 
ronk said:
A worry I have is, that if asylum is granted in whichever country gives it, when they become dissatisfied with a situation in that country, they will react in a similar fashion.

Yeah give it a year living in Brum, Manchester or wherever they'll start moaning and telling us how the country should be run.

Tim.
 
i haven't read the thread .... but the image of that little boy on the beach has actually haunted me tbh. i have a son close to his age and honestly...... this actually brought a level of sadness that hit me deep to the core. How on earth have things got to this? unreal.
 
Beedub said:
i haven't read the thread .... but the image of that little boy on the beach has actually haunted me tbh. i have a son close to his age and honestly...... this actually brought a level of sadness that hit me deep to the core. How on earth have things got to this? unreal.

Yes very sad to see but what haunted me more was the Syrian regime chemical bombing schools last year I think, it was then I feel America and the West should have acted, maybe then Europe wouldn't be faced with the current crises.

I think using images of dead children is very wrong to make countries feel morally obliged to act, as Cameron has implied today we are morally obliged and that is to act on the source of the problem which lies in Libya and Syria.

Tim.
 
I have a couple of questions about the unfortunate infant.
How were the media able to track down the kids father so soon after this has happened?
There were photos of the kid on the news of the boy while alive.
Why was the father not with the kid?
He seems to still be in his home country.
Where is the mother? Is she dead in the sea also?
I dont trust the media one bit to tell the truth and wonder if most of this story is just not true. Anything for a front page headline.
 
The father paid 5,000 euros to 'smugglers' to try and get his family to Canada.... EDITED - he was on the same boat as them... I am pretty sure he will feel like he killed his family for the rest of his days.

Personally I think that picture had to be printed. And I applaud the media for doing it. All we have seen all summer is the trouble at Calais (presented more as a huge inconvenience to travellers, and yes I was one of the indignant...), and pictures of boats of refugees being saved by the Italians. We've heard stories of people dying, but that photo really brings it home - it touched me in a way similar to Beedub. The kid just looks like he's sleeping, it's heartbreaking, as all I can see is my own child in that picture. The point is not specifically that kid, but what he represents. Paraphrasing what a friend posted on Facebook, no parent puts their family in a boat unless the water is safer than the land.

I'm finding my views on whether we should help or not swinging towards the 'help them' argument. But the source has to be dealt with, something has to be done about Syria .... And the other affected countries. What, I don't know - kind of above my pay grade.... But the government must also be much, much better at receiving and managing refugees / asylum seekers when they arrive. I'm sure they can make a positive contribution to our economy, but we need to make sure they do just that and don't just 'disappear', or live off the benefits system. Not that it's so easy to do that now, but that's a different debate.
 
Soooo... help them, or don't help them?

For me, Help them as much as we can without putting our country into ruin doing it. We need a real, global, long term solution to help these people, and it should probably be UN driven.
 
I don't understand why there is so much media attention today, yes the photo of the child is heartbreaking yet when children were being filmed after their school had been chemical bombed in Syria and the pitiful scenes the west turned a blind eye effectively. Now it's all much closer to home we throw our hands in the air on how terrible it all is and we should now be standing at Dover with open arms.

Don't forget this country and you as a taxpayer is already contributing millions towards refugee camps to help the migrants.

Tim.
 
Back
Top Bottom