8 ms·

I am still not sure why it is a good idea to let millions get displaced from the ancestral lands, having hundreds of them dying while trying to migrate and then

by g123g 10y ago

I am still not sure why it is a good idea to let millions get displaced from the ancestral lands, having hundreds of them dying while trying to migrate and then the remaining ones living isolated lives in alien countries with those countries supporting them by spending billions of dollars every year and having culture and way of life changed forever. Compare this to taking on ISIS once and for all which numbers about 30,000 - 40,000 fighters. Wouldn't it be better to spend those billions of dollars and take on some inevitable loss of life and annihilate them forever. From where did we all start believing in the defeatist mentality that world cannot take on ISIS? That land belongs to the Syrians and Iraqis and not to some 7th century cult. The best solution is to return that land to whom it belongs rather than taking millions of refugees and creating problems from them as well as for ourselves. If you want to take in refugees then there is no end to it, billions of ppl would like to move to Europe or USA. Whom are you going to deny and on what basis?

manuelflara 10y ago
Taking on ISIS? First, that's easier said than done. They're not an army that you can just take on in open field. See occupation of Irak. But really, the war in Syria and Lybia didn't get started by ISIS and won't end if we "end ISIS", not that I think that's possible anyways. Personally, I think you have a point, and the best way to help somehow fix the clusterfuck that we (the West) created in these countries is send lots of money and help to set up refugees up in other countries in the region (Jordan, etc). But NOT Turkey, which seems to grow every day more and more extremist and I get the feeling refugees are going to be miserable at best there.
- FreedomToCreate 10y ago
  Terrible idea. Just because the west can spend billions of dollars it makes no sense to bring in large populations of a foreign culture and then actively try to assimilate them into another one. It doesn't work and leads to alienation which can be seen in the second and third generation muslims now living in Europe. On top of that, it is extremely hypocritical of the west to spend billions on refugees when most western countries themselves have their own citizens living like refugees in their own country. Over 60 million americans live below the poverty line. Helping the refugees reclaim their land will enable them to maintain their culture and mitigate assimilation issues in the west. Other wise we just add more burden to the social safety net. Do you really believe that a majority of these refugees will be able to find jobs in the west? Their is a small portion of them who are educated and highly skilled, but the majority are not.
- burfog 10y ago
  It's quite easy to wipe out ISIS. The problem is that it is unpalatable to a significant portion of our voters, probably you included. Think back to when the US defeated Germany. We leveled Dresden. It is entirely possible to wipe ISIS from the face of the Earth, sympathizers and supporters included. Regarding the inevitable suffering and death, quick solutions can't hurt more than the current population. There is no such limit if we let things fester forever. Trying to avoid conflict just drags it out, preventing recovery. We could face the suffering and death of many many times the current population.
sveme 10y ago
Well, it isn't ISIS alone. In Syria, you have the Kurds fighting against islamists (ISIS and others), the Turks and against Assad, you have the Free Syrian Army fighting against ISIS and Assad, you have Assad, you have Russians, Iranians, Americans and maybe others I forgot. So defeating ISIS might be possible and is being worked on - however, finding a livable solution for the whole middle east, inclusing Lybia and Iraq, is on a whole different level.
qrendel 10y ago
> Wouldn't it be better to spend those billions of dollars and take on some inevitable loss of life and annihilate them forever. From where did we all start believing in the defeatist mentality that world cannot take on ISIS? You're grossly oversimplifying this. Remember Iraq? Afghanistan? It's easy for a large army to topple a government or kill some leaders. But groups like ISIS and Al-Qaeda are basically ideologies that rely on guerilla warfare (al-Qaeda moreso than ISIS, since ISIS at least wants to establish a caliphate). These wars have been going on for decades and are guaranteed to continue for decades more. Even if ISIS was completely wiped out, there would still remain the ideologies and history that making recruiting for such groups possible. Knocking over governments like in Iraq, Syria, and Libya, just creates even more power vacuums for these groups to grow and recruit in. I'm not sure what the best solution would be. The U.S. and NATO seem content to just keep fighting proxy wars for the upcoming decades. Personally, I'd rather accept refugees and put the effort into successfully integrating them in Western culture. This would probably be much easier in the U.S. which already has a long history of immigration and serving as a "melting pot" of cultures. Maybe more difficult in Europe. Another big problem is the xenophobic and racist attitudes towards immigrants, and it's hard to successfully integrate people when they're forced to live amongst those kinds of people. I'm not saying immigrants should be forced to abandon their cultures, just that leaving them to fester as an outgroup in impoverished countries lacking strong institutions can't possibly help win an ideological war. Many Western countries are already suffering from population decline. Offering a new home where the influence of toxic ideologies is weaker seems a better solution to me than indefinite war with no plan for what happens afterwards.
- dragonwriter 10y ago
  > But groups like ISIS and Al-Qaeda are basically ideologies that rely on guerilla warfare (al-Qaeda moreso than ISIS, since ISIS at least wants to establish a caliphate). The group that later decided to call itself "The Islamic State in Iraq" used to be "Al-Qaeda in Iraq", and both it and its parent organization had the goal of establishing a caliphate then; this has always been an al-Qaeda goal.
  - qrendel 10y ago
nnq 10y ago
That 7th century cult would've been defeated by Syria's military and other forces. How about letting countries defend themselves and fight their own wars and revolutions instead of interfering in their internal politics and making a mess nobody cleans because that kind of "cleanup war" would not be profitable? We don't need to globalize every f conflict by meddling in... And if we don't do this, we won't have to feel morally responsible and give welfare to refugees...
a_j_b 10y ago
What caused ISIS? The war in Afghanistan, and especially Iraq. The dictator was toppled, and not effectively replaced. Saddam may have not been the nicest guy, but he lead a fairly stable country. He was firmly in charge. By not effectively replacing the leader of a country, it leads to a power vacuum, looking for someone to take that power. ISIS grew to fill that void. If you displace them, someone else will come along and take that power, potentially even worse than ISIS
- branchless 10y ago
  Yeah but he's not selling oil in non-USD is he? http://content.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,998512,00.html http://content.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,998512,... Anyhow if we sort ISIS who will they blame for restricting freedoms at a time when rampant inequality is causing domestic unrest?
- Shivetya 10y ago
  I would go much further back than those two wars, simply put this is a situation that had been brewing for many years and simply got to where it was through better organization abilities of the groups and the withdrawing of forces to keep the peace. Our actions in Libya, Syria, and elsewhere, certainly have dug the hole deeper. But lets be honest, go back to the Treaty of Sèvres and subsequent assigning of territory to European countries and how it was done without regard to the religious and ethnic traits of those living there. As in, European Colonialism started this mess as it did in Africa. This did not happen in the last twenty years, this is generation after generation finally reaching a point to where they could act. If you keep arming all sides and leave it is to be expected.
- pmyjavec 10y ago
  I remember when the US captured and murdered Saddam, the violence and hypocrisy of it was something people are still trying to comprehend. They sold it to the U.N., the world bought it and now look what the US has to show for it, smoking holes in the ground...
k-mcgrady 10y ago
>> "the remaining ones living isolated lives in alien countries with those countries supporting them by spending billions of dollars every year" You're just assuming that refugees won't integrate. I know quite a few refugees all of whom are living good lives in their new countries and work in good jobs. Anecdotal evidence of course but you aren't providing any evidence for your statement. >> "taking on ISIS once and for all" What does that mean? It sounds like you think other countries can go in and kill 30-40k people and it'll be over. It's an ideology. Take the head off ISIS and someone else will emerge. They aren't the first extremist group and they won't be the last unfortunately. >> "billions of ppl would like to move to Europe or USA" Again, show me your evidence. From what I've seen a lot of refugees were very happy in their own countries. They had good careers, large families, and lots of friends. They were left with no choice but to leave or die. Your view of countries outside of Europe/the USA is likely heavily tainted by the media.
- primodemus 10y ago
  http://www.gallup.com/poll/124028/700-million-worldwide-desire-migrate-permanently.aspx http://www.gallup.com/poll/124028/700-million-worldwide-desi... http://openborders.info/polling-data-on-migration/ http://openborders.info/polling-data-on-migration/
  - k-mcgrady 10y ago
    Don't have time at the moment to look at the second link but the data in the first one is pretty useless. Those 700m people who want to move abroad probably includes half of my friends in the UK who are moving simply because they like another country. Not because of any real problem in the UK. The also have good jobs and won't be a drain on the economy. Not very relevant to the current discussion therefore.
- usrusr 10y ago
  > You're just assuming that refugees won't integrate. I know quite a few refugees all of whom are living good lives in their new countries and work in good jobs. The pressing question is wether that is getting harder or easier with rising numbers and by how much.
hasenj 10y ago
The Syrian Crisis dates back to before ISIS taking over. ISIS just amplified it. Syrians were fleeing their country by the millions even before then. Millions of refugees went to Turkey and Jordan due to the civil war and the brutal campaign led by the local ruling dictatorship.
leephillips 10y ago
"Whom are you going to deny and on what basis?" A 1951 treaty, that most civilized countries are now signatories to, defines what a refugee is and what these countries' obligations are: http://www.unhcr.org/en-us/1951-refugee-convention.html http://www.unhcr.org/en-us/1951-refugee-convention.html Note that most of the people referred to as "refugees" by the media may not fit the definition.
- Xylakant 10y ago
  The "read the convention" link points to a .local domain. :(
clumsysmurf 10y ago
Many of these people are also climate change refugees. Syria has been suffering drought for around 40 years through poor conditions, overuse, mismanagement, etc. It used to be the pistachio capital of the world. The collapse of its agriculture sector was a factor in all this. This is also a warning. It has just begun. Based on climate models it seems north Africa and the Mediterranean will be hit hard by climate change. There will be many more people fleeing their lands.
FreedomToCreate 10y ago
Just to add, but a lot of responsibility is being dumped on western nations who are acting out of humanity. But no one is mentioning the complete failure of extremely rich and near by Muslim nations from doing anything (Saudi Arabia, Iran, UAE, Qatar, Bahrain, Singapore). Countries with the same underpinning religion as a majority of refugees won't even accept them, and this really shows their own values. For humanities sake, we accept refugees, but don't be a fool and think its going to go well.
- hasenj 10y ago
  OT nitpicking but Singapore is neither nearby nor culturally similar.
  - FreedomToCreate 10y ago
    Yeah you are right. I meant to write Malaysia which is a Sunni Muslim nation.
    - hasenj 10y ago
      Still geographically far and culturally different. Although sharing religion does create some familiarity but in reality I don't think the culture is similar.
      - jb613 10y ago
        what is culture other than behaviors, beliefs, values? In those respects, Malaysia is much more similar than any European or western country.
- nommm-nommm 10y ago
  >Saudi Arabia, Iran, UAE, Qatar, Bahrain, Singapore Singapore? Singapore doesn't belong on that list.
- mrow84 10y ago
  Non-western countries also take large numbers of refugees: "Turkey hosts 2.5 million refugees from Syria, more than any other country worldwide Lebanon hosts approximately 1.1 million refugees from Syria which amounts to around one in five people in the country Jordan hosts approximately 635,324 refugees from Syria, which amounts to about 10% of the population Iraq where 3.9 million people are already internally displaced hosts 245,022 refugees from Syria Egypt hosts 117,658 refugees from Syria" https://www.amnesty.org/en/latest/news/2016/02/syrias-refugee-crisis-in-numbers/ https://www.amnesty.org/en/latest/news/2016/02/syrias-refuge...
ewams 10y ago
Absolutely. https://heartiste.wordpress.com/2016/05/31/civilizational-death-dance/ https://heartiste.wordpress.com/2016/05/31/civilizational-de... "...Never before in the entire course of human history, has an entire culture, race and civilization decided to hand over its lands, social capital, heritage and identities to competing and intruding cultures without a fight..."
- tehrei 10y ago
  Or if they have, we have no records of them.
duaneb 10y ago
Isis isn't just a group of terrorists, it's symptomatic of anti-western sentiment. Even (especially?) if we kill all of them, that's not going away.

by g123g 10y ago

manuelflara 10y ago

Taking on ISIS? First, that's easier said than done. They're not an army that you can just take on in open field. See occupation of Irak. But really, the war in Syria and Lybia didn't get started by ISIS and won't end if we "end ISIS", not that I think that's possible anyways. Personally, I think you have a point, and the best way to help somehow fix the clusterfuck that we (the West) created in these countries is send lots of money and help to set up refugees up in other countries in the region (Jordan, etc). But NOT Turkey, which seems to grow every day more and more extremist and I get the feeling refugees are going to be miserable at best there.

FreedomToCreate 10y ago
Terrible idea. Just because the west can spend billions of dollars it makes no sense to bring in large populations of a foreign culture and then actively try to assimilate them into another one. It doesn't work and leads to alienation which can be seen in the second and third generation muslims now living in Europe. On top of that, it is extremely hypocritical of the west to spend billions on refugees when most western countries themselves have their own citizens living like refugees in their own country. Over 60 million americans live below the poverty line. Helping the refugees reclaim their land will enable them to maintain their culture and mitigate assimilation issues in the west. Other wise we just add more burden to the social safety net. Do you really believe that a majority of these refugees will be able to find jobs in the west? Their is a small portion of them who are educated and highly skilled, but the majority are not.
burfog 10y ago
It's quite easy to wipe out ISIS. The problem is that it is unpalatable to a significant portion of our voters, probably you included. Think back to when the US defeated Germany. We leveled Dresden. It is entirely possible to wipe ISIS from the face of the Earth, sympathizers and supporters included. Regarding the inevitable suffering and death, quick solutions can't hurt more than the current population. There is no such limit if we let things fester forever. Trying to avoid conflict just drags it out, preventing recovery. We could face the suffering and death of many many times the current population.

sveme 10y ago

Well, it isn't ISIS alone. In Syria, you have the Kurds fighting against islamists (ISIS and others), the Turks and against Assad, you have the Free Syrian Army fighting against ISIS and Assad, you have Assad, you have Russians, Iranians, Americans and maybe others I forgot. So defeating ISIS might be possible and is being worked on - however, finding a livable solution for the whole middle east, inclusing Lybia and Iraq, is on a whole different level.

qrendel 10y ago

> Wouldn't it be better to spend those billions of dollars and take on some inevitable loss of life and annihilate them forever. From where did we all start believing in the defeatist mentality that world cannot take on ISIS? You're grossly oversimplifying this. Remember Iraq? Afghanistan? It's easy for a large army to topple a government or kill some leaders. But groups like ISIS and Al-Qaeda are basically ideologies that rely on guerilla warfare (al-Qaeda moreso than ISIS, since ISIS at least wants to establish a caliphate). These wars have been going on for decades and are guaranteed to continue for decades more. Even if ISIS was completely wiped out, there would still remain the ideologies and history that making recruiting for such groups possible. Knocking over governments like in Iraq, Syria, and Libya, just creates even more power vacuums for these groups to grow and recruit in. I'm not sure what the best solution would be. The U.S. and NATO seem content to just keep fighting proxy wars for the upcoming decades. Personally, I'd rather accept refugees and put the effort into successfully integrating them in Western culture. This would probably be much easier in the U.S. which already has a long history of immigration and serving as a "melting pot" of cultures. Maybe more difficult in Europe. Another big problem is the xenophobic and racist attitudes towards immigrants, and it's hard to successfully integrate people when they're forced to live amongst those kinds of people. I'm not saying immigrants should be forced to abandon their cultures, just that leaving them to fester as an outgroup in impoverished countries lacking strong institutions can't possibly help win an ideological war. Many Western countries are already suffering from population decline. Offering a new home where the influence of toxic ideologies is weaker seems a better solution to me than indefinite war with no plan for what happens afterwards.

dragonwriter 10y ago
> But groups like ISIS and Al-Qaeda are basically ideologies that rely on guerilla warfare (al-Qaeda moreso than ISIS, since ISIS at least wants to establish a caliphate). The group that later decided to call itself "The Islamic State in Iraq" used to be "Al-Qaeda in Iraq", and both it and its parent organization had the goal of establishing a caliphate then; this has always been an al-Qaeda goal.
- qrendel 10y ago

nnq 10y ago

That 7th century cult would've been defeated by Syria's military and other forces. How about letting countries defend themselves and fight their own wars and revolutions instead of interfering in their internal politics and making a mess nobody cleans because that kind of "cleanup war" would not be profitable? We don't need to globalize every f conflict by meddling in... And if we don't do this, we won't have to feel morally responsible and give welfare to refugees...

a_j_b 10y ago

What caused ISIS? The war in Afghanistan, and especially Iraq. The dictator was toppled, and not effectively replaced. Saddam may have not been the nicest guy, but he lead a fairly stable country. He was firmly in charge. By not effectively replacing the leader of a country, it leads to a power vacuum, looking for someone to take that power. ISIS grew to fill that void. If you displace them, someone else will come along and take that power, potentially even worse than ISIS

branchless 10y ago
Yeah but he's not selling oil in non-USD is he? http://content.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,998512,00.html http://content.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,998512,... Anyhow if we sort ISIS who will they blame for restricting freedoms at a time when rampant inequality is causing domestic unrest?
Shivetya 10y ago
I would go much further back than those two wars, simply put this is a situation that had been brewing for many years and simply got to where it was through better organization abilities of the groups and the withdrawing of forces to keep the peace. Our actions in Libya, Syria, and elsewhere, certainly have dug the hole deeper. But lets be honest, go back to the Treaty of Sèvres and subsequent assigning of territory to European countries and how it was done without regard to the religious and ethnic traits of those living there. As in, European Colonialism started this mess as it did in Africa. This did not happen in the last twenty years, this is generation after generation finally reaching a point to where they could act. If you keep arming all sides and leave it is to be expected.
pmyjavec 10y ago
I remember when the US captured and murdered Saddam, the violence and hypocrisy of it was something people are still trying to comprehend. They sold it to the U.N., the world bought it and now look what the US has to show for it, smoking holes in the ground...

k-mcgrady 10y ago

>> "the remaining ones living isolated lives in alien countries with those countries supporting them by spending billions of dollars every year" You're just assuming that refugees won't integrate. I know quite a few refugees all of whom are living good lives in their new countries and work in good jobs. Anecdotal evidence of course but you aren't providing any evidence for your statement. >> "taking on ISIS once and for all" What does that mean? It sounds like you think other countries can go in and kill 30-40k people and it'll be over. It's an ideology. Take the head off ISIS and someone else will emerge. They aren't the first extremist group and they won't be the last unfortunately. >> "billions of ppl would like to move to Europe or USA" Again, show me your evidence. From what I've seen a lot of refugees were very happy in their own countries. They had good careers, large families, and lots of friends. They were left with no choice but to leave or die. Your view of countries outside of Europe/the USA is likely heavily tainted by the media.

primodemus 10y ago
http://www.gallup.com/poll/124028/700-million-worldwide-desire-migrate-permanently.aspx http://www.gallup.com/poll/124028/700-million-worldwide-desi... http://openborders.info/polling-data-on-migration/ http://openborders.info/polling-data-on-migration/
- k-mcgrady 10y ago
  Don't have time at the moment to look at the second link but the data in the first one is pretty useless. Those 700m people who want to move abroad probably includes half of my friends in the UK who are moving simply because they like another country. Not because of any real problem in the UK. The also have good jobs and won't be a drain on the economy. Not very relevant to the current discussion therefore.
usrusr 10y ago
> You're just assuming that refugees won't integrate. I know quite a few refugees all of whom are living good lives in their new countries and work in good jobs. The pressing question is wether that is getting harder or easier with rising numbers and by how much.

hasenj 10y ago

The Syrian Crisis dates back to before ISIS taking over. ISIS just amplified it. Syrians were fleeing their country by the millions even before then. Millions of refugees went to Turkey and Jordan due to the civil war and the brutal campaign led by the local ruling dictatorship.

leephillips 10y ago

"Whom are you going to deny and on what basis?" A 1951 treaty, that most civilized countries are now signatories to, defines what a refugee is and what these countries' obligations are: http://www.unhcr.org/en-us/1951-refugee-convention.html http://www.unhcr.org/en-us/1951-refugee-convention.html Note that most of the people referred to as "refugees" by the media may not fit the definition.

Xylakant 10y ago
The "read the convention" link points to a .local domain. :(

clumsysmurf 10y ago

Many of these people are also climate change refugees. Syria has been suffering drought for around 40 years through poor conditions, overuse, mismanagement, etc. It used to be the pistachio capital of the world. The collapse of its agriculture sector was a factor in all this. This is also a warning. It has just begun. Based on climate models it seems north Africa and the Mediterranean will be hit hard by climate change. There will be many more people fleeing their lands.

FreedomToCreate 10y ago

Just to add, but a lot of responsibility is being dumped on western nations who are acting out of humanity. But no one is mentioning the complete failure of extremely rich and near by Muslim nations from doing anything (Saudi Arabia, Iran, UAE, Qatar, Bahrain, Singapore). Countries with the same underpinning religion as a majority of refugees won't even accept them, and this really shows their own values. For humanities sake, we accept refugees, but don't be a fool and think its going to go well.

hasenj 10y ago
OT nitpicking but Singapore is neither nearby nor culturally similar.
- FreedomToCreate 10y ago
  Yeah you are right. I meant to write Malaysia which is a Sunni Muslim nation.
  - hasenj 10y ago
    Still geographically far and culturally different. Although sharing religion does create some familiarity but in reality I don't think the culture is similar.
    - jb613 10y ago
      what is culture other than behaviors, beliefs, values? In those respects, Malaysia is much more similar than any European or western country.
nommm-nommm 10y ago
>Saudi Arabia, Iran, UAE, Qatar, Bahrain, Singapore Singapore? Singapore doesn't belong on that list.
mrow84 10y ago
Non-western countries also take large numbers of refugees: "Turkey hosts 2.5 million refugees from Syria, more than any other country worldwide Lebanon hosts approximately 1.1 million refugees from Syria which amounts to around one in five people in the country Jordan hosts approximately 635,324 refugees from Syria, which amounts to about 10% of the population Iraq where 3.9 million people are already internally displaced hosts 245,022 refugees from Syria Egypt hosts 117,658 refugees from Syria" https://www.amnesty.org/en/latest/news/2016/02/syrias-refugee-crisis-in-numbers/ https://www.amnesty.org/en/latest/news/2016/02/syrias-refuge...

ewams 10y ago

Absolutely. https://heartiste.wordpress.com/2016/05/31/civilizational-death-dance/ https://heartiste.wordpress.com/2016/05/31/civilizational-de... "...Never before in the entire course of human history, has an entire culture, race and civilization decided to hand over its lands, social capital, heritage and identities to competing and intruding cultures without a fight..."

tehrei 10y ago
Or if they have, we have no records of them.

duaneb 10y ago

Isis isn't just a group of terrorists, it's symptomatic of anti-western sentiment. Even (especially?) if we kill all of them, that's not going away.