“Speaking of ignorance”. Who? Me? I don’t recall using the word ‘ignorance’.
I can’t be bothered to look back at many of your posts, but your first reply to me made what could be considered a sweeping claim about British troops.
You said the people got gunned down in Morocco, when it was clearly Tunisia. You Sir, are quite ignorant.
It’s a fair cop, guv…
If a nation is not ready to handle problems when it needs to, it has already “self-destructed”. Are the refugees going to cause problems? Sure they are. They do already. We’ll handle it.
It would definitely be easier to take your approach and look the other way while weaker nations like Turkey or Jordan carry all the burden of helping the refugees (no double quotes). Even easier to wholesale villainize all of them as the future destroyers of our civilization. If we paint them as the bad guys we do not need to feel bad about not lending a hand, right?
Easy.
You know what? Easy does not equal right.
What is right is ensuring that your country, your people, and your culture survive. It’s not morally virtuous to dote on a bunch of healthy young men who should be battling the evil that their far-away homeland brewed.
This can be entirely consistent with helping/taking in refugees and migrants. American culture (and the country and people) have been strengthened over its history by taking in immigrants, migrants, and refugees.
I’m saying it indeed, not you, pay attention.
It was indeed a reply to your idea that all liberals do not react to terror attacks, I was thinking about the British troops that are training the fighters that are currently fighting against Daesh (ISIS) and the airmen that are hitting them for awhile now. They for sure do keep those examples of terror attacks that you mentioned in their minds.
And while the support for that was not there coming from the majority of Britons, the latest I saw is that opinions are beginning to change about doing more about the terror that it is also causing the refugee crisis.
Source?
It’s a moral claim.
Except that America no longer favors assimilation, having replaced it with liberal multiculturalism. Moreover, pre-1965 immigration to America was overwhelmingly European, while today’s education is an eclectic mix of non-Whites.
iiandyiiii took care of the first part of your reply. Here I have to comment that many of those young men are also fathers taken their families to safety.
There is also the fact that in a civil war with religious and sectarian factors like in this case, the factions in conflict are not close to having any resemblance to the ideals the refugees have or their faith is the “wrong” one; this happens, for example, to the many Christians that had to flee from Syria and there were a lot of secular (or close to that) Muslim people that dislike Asad but they are also in the gun sights of Isis (Daesh).
Oh sorry, I see now.
So the reason that all these people are fleeing Syria (or in a lot of cases Turkey) is because half a dozen RAF pilots are working with the USAAF and we’ve got some military advisors training the Kurds.
So they’ve got no problem with ISIS killing western aid workers and journalists, murdering POWs, stoning adulterers, throwing gays off high buidings and treating women as chattel then?
Let’s give them all a warm welcome.
They’re not mutually exclusive – American culture is pretty diverse and multi-faceted, and most immigrants that I know (including members of my family) have assimilated rather well into this diverse and multi-faceted culture.
Neither variety is superior, in my view. America has been strengthened by European immigration and it has been strengthened by immigration from Latin America, Asia, and Africa.
I actually prefer even sven’s post to yours. I’m going to give her the benefit of the doubt that she did not appreciate that I was only addresses the legal issues. I was not making a moral argument, and as I noted later on if I were in their place I’d probably be doing the same thing.
That is very funny, in places like Arizona multiculturalism has been removed from the schools, and many other government areas. So by that logic we should see then a move by conservatives over here to invite more refugees.
Nah, too many hypocrites over here.
I have seen some articles lending support into accepting more refugees, but virtually nothing from the local government.
:rolleyes:
Yeepers, and I’m blamed of not making sense.
That was a response to ISIS, and by the time it was done already the refugee crisis had taken place.
Who are “they” kimosabe?
Willful ignorance about what one is referring to it is what you are posting here then.
“They” refers to your line “They for sure do keep those examples of terror attacks that you mentioned in their minds.” I was assuming that “they” referred to asylum seekers, although, not being a mindreader I sometimes find your posts hard to follow.
Be a good chap and put it in plain English next time please.
(That said, it’s getting late in Blighty, so it might have to wait until tomorrow)
75% of refugees are men. They’re not fleeing to take care of their families. They’re abandoning their families in a war zone or in refugee camps because they want welfare and are too cowardly to fight.
And as usual I do notice that the ones that concentrate on the grammar of an opponent do not have much to counter against the points of the opponent.
BTW it is clear that your confusion came from your sorry idea that refugees=terrorists.
What I said was that I was thinking about the British troops that are training the fighters that are currently fighting against Daesh (ISIS) and the airmen (What ISIS or terrorist airmen?) that are hitting them for awhile now. They (the British troops, and nowhere in the post I referred to the refugees) for sure do keep those examples of terror attacks that you mentioned in their minds.
The subject was the British troops training the fighters, and the British airmen, Daesh was mentioned only as their target.
So much ignorance, many are indeed sent away by their families so they will not be captured and forced to take sides that they do not believe in. Indeed, men with an age to become cannon fodder.
True history: when WWI took place one of my ancestors was given just a belt with some gold coins hidden and told to leave, his family did not believe in the cause the Ottoman Empire was embarking to but they thought that the elderly and the ones left farming would be left basically alone. As it happened his journey involved working in ships that eventually took him to a small Central American nation.
Speaking about cowardice, one should point out that a lot of what is happening is caused by people not having weapons, support or training. What you call cowardice in reality was demanding that they commit suicide. No thanks. And the problem would remain, we would not be sure what side would end up getting the weapons and the allegiance of the ones being trained. Better IMHO to get any would be forced fighters away from the conflict.
If I didn’t know better, I would think that was satire.
“Sent away by their families?”
In traditional cultures like Syria, men are the heads of their families. They alone enjoy agency and are exclusively responsible for their actions. They left because they chose to, not because they were forced. And as for being captured, a young healthy man is far less likely to be captured than any other class of person. The migrants flooding into Europe are those with the least need to do so.
Men being cannonfodder is par for the course of history. Better that Syrian men die for the problems of their country and their culture than American troops.
“Not having weapons?”
I mean, I’m a second amendment absolutist like many Americans. But if Syrians didn’t arm themselves, that’s no one’s fault but their own. It isn’t the West’s responsibility to make up for Syrian’s cowardice and lack of planning.
It’s still cowardice to flee from danger, even if fighting is difficult and dangerous.