Refugee crisis

JUST A GIRL

This just proves what I meant last time. Can't even donate before being robbed. That's what I said I hoped didn't happen to the other reporter but noooo, that would never happen, right?

https://m.reddit.com/r/gifs/comments/3kbeht/man_tries_to_donate_food_but_bag_gets_stolen/

PJ_Soul

JUST A GIRL said:

PJ_Soul said:

Let's try again!

Somehow it's just not the same now.... but I'll try.

The mayor of Vancouver (Gregor Robertson... he's totally and madly obsessed with bike lanes, but I'll give him some credit today) held a town hall meeting so that people could come and discuss what the real options are for those who want to help the refugees, how much it can cost, what it would take, what hoops have to be jumped through, etc. Very good idea I thought. If every mayor of every major city in North America did the same thing, that would probably be very helpful.

They do sometimes. It's fun, I've been to a few.

I don't understand why everyone's expected to allow them in with open arms. We've all seen the rise in violence due to the influx of illegal immigrants in Texas and New Mexico, we all support building a fence to properly screen and validate every person crossing the border, yet when it happens in a third world country, where violence runs rampant, it's expected to be allowed? Shouldn't it be more restricted and validated even more so there?

I don't blame the countries for building fences around their points of entry. I would lay out row after row of barbed wire.

Ask your self honestly if you would be ok with suddenly 100s of Iraqie immigrants living on the same road as your home, living in the yards, bathing and using the rest room in your drive way. I doubt you would be so welcoming after a very short amount of time.

We all want to pretend we would help, but I think deep down we know the truth. At least I'm honest about it. Unlike 99.9% of the rest of the world who doesn't want to "offend" anyone!

You've been to a few town hall meetings about how to help the refugees, eh? Wow, that is very interesting, lol.

No good Christian would say what you just said.

rgambs

PJ_Soul said:

JUST A GIRL said:

PJ_Soul said:

Let's try again!

Somehow it's just not the same now.... but I'll try.

The mayor of Vancouver (Gregor Robertson... he's totally and madly obsessed with bike lanes, but I'll give him some credit today) held a town hall meeting so that people could come and discuss what the real options are for those who want to help the refugees, how much it can cost, what it would take, what hoops have to be jumped through, etc. Very good idea I thought. If every mayor of every major city in North America did the same thing, that would probably be very helpful.

They do sometimes. It's fun, I've been to a few.

I don't understand why everyone's expected to allow them in with open arms. We've all seen the rise in violence due to the influx of illegal immigrants in Texas and New Mexico, we all support building a fence to properly screen and validate every person crossing the border, yet when it happens in a third world country, where violence runs rampant, it's expected to be allowed? Shouldn't it be more restricted and validated even more so there?

I don't blame the countries for building fences around their points of entry. I would lay out row after row of barbed wire.

Ask your self honestly if you would be ok with suddenly 100s of Iraqie immigrants living on the same road as your home, living in the yards, bathing and using the rest room in your drive way. I doubt you would be so welcoming after a very short amount of time.

We all want to pretend we would help, but I think deep down we know the truth. At least I'm honest about it. Unlike 99.9% of the rest of the world who doesn't want to "offend" anyone!

You've been to a few town hall meetings about how to help the refugees, eh? Wow, that is very interesting, lol.

No good Christian would say what you just said.

You didn't read the part of the Gospels where Jesus said:
"Verily, I will lay down row after row of barbed wire."

callen

JUST A GIRL said:

PJ_Soul said:

Let's try again!

Somehow it's just not the same now.... but I'll try.

The mayor of Vancouver (Gregor Robertson... he's totally and madly obsessed with bike lanes, but I'll give him some credit today) held a town hall meeting so that people could come and discuss what the real options are for those who want to help the refugees, how much it can cost, what it would take, what hoops have to be jumped through, etc. Very good idea I thought. If every mayor of every major city in North America did the same thing, that would probably be very helpful.

They do sometimes. It's fun, I've been to a few.

I don't understand why everyone's expected to allow them in with open arms. We've all seen the rise in violence due to the influx of illegal immigrants in Texas and New Mexico, we all support building a fence to properly screen and validate every person crossing the border, yet when it happens in a third world country, where violence runs rampant, it's expected to be allowed? Shouldn't it be more restricted and validated even more so there?

I don't blame the countries for building fences around their points of entry. I would lay out row after row of barbed wire.

Ask your self honestly if you would be ok with suddenly 100s of Iraqie immigrants living on the same road as your home, living in the yards, bathing and using the rest room in your drive way. I doubt you would be so welcoming after a very short amount of time.

We all want to pretend we would help, but I think deep down we know the truth. At least I'm honest about it. Unlike 99.9% of the rest of the world who doesn't want to "offend" anyone!

What rise in crime in Texas. I'm here. Don't see it. Haven't seen any stats. Please enlighten me.

Now see them building houses and buildings. But they pretty much keep to themselves and do all they can to not draw attention.

Annafalk

ldent42 said:

This is the shit that really pisses me off:

Gulf countries including Qatar, United Arab Emirates, Saudi Arabia, Kuwait, and Bahrain have offered zero resettlement places to Syrian refugees.

I know it's not an entirely fair comparison to democratic countries like in the EU and NA but for Chrissakes these are wealthy as hell nations. The region has recent history of abuse of migrant workers (basically slavery) but under EU guidance they ought to be taken in legitimately and not forced into slavery.
Basically the entire "first world" ought to be helping out with this.

I have thought much about this too. These countries isn't even so far away from Syria and Irak they also speak the same language and have the same religion.

Kat

One opinion piece on that
http://www.bloombergview.com/articles/2015-09-04/why-don-t-gulf-states-accept-more-refugees-

Drowned Out

In the previous thread, there was some discussion about the virtue of pointing fingers and discussing who's to blame...and a question as to whether that was productive in helping refugees.... I think it's immensely important as the conflicts causing the crisis are still going on. We can't approach this as something we can find a solution for in the here and now, without looking at how to prevent additional refugees. The situation in Yemen is now six months old, and the entire country is falling toward a total humanitarian disaster of the exact same proportions as Syria. Where are the calls from the West to put an end to the Saudi bombings? Oh wait....all Iran's fault. Right.
The situation in Syria is a proxy war. The media and some AMT members can call it a civil war all they want, but it most definitely is NOT. This cannot be boiled down to 'our countries accept some blame for causing this in the beginning, but now it's all on ISIS and Assad'. Way, way too simplistic and naive to assume that the international players no longer hold a stake. I don't know why anyone would think that. The US has just finished training and unleashed new 'moderate rebels' into the Syrian theatre, and Obama has promised to defend them with air strikes if they come under attack by anyone - including Assad. This puts the US directly on the warpath with Assad. Turkey (the same country who has been allowing ISIS reinforcements into Syria via their border), has said they are working to implement an ISIS-free / no fly zone in Northern Syria, and there have been renewed calls for Syrian no-fly zones since the years-old refugee crisis became so much more en vogue in the week since that horrific picture was published. Hawks are politicizing the crisis for all it's worth, and msm is acting as the megaphone, as always. Assholes like Stephen Harper and Chris Alexander in Canada couldn't get thru a single interview about refugees without mentioning the need for more militarism to take out the terrorists....This kind of (perfectly natural) heart-string-tugging opens the public discourse to more direct (read: military) action. Remember the chemical attacks and the red line? Same shit - we keep hearing one sided reporting on the situation on the ground there, with the only option to resolve the situation causing the crisis being the military choice.
Think about who would benefit from a Syrian no fly zone. How big a threat is the ISIS air force? What happened in Libya after the no fly zone was implemented? (Ghaddafi was ousted, the country became a failed state, a homebase for extremists, and a continuing source of refugees).
The West is openly training/funding/arming 'moderate' rebels to oust Assad. ISIS is working to oust Assad. The West is using air strikes in Syria to take out ISIS. Does anyone think all of three of these scenarios can play out in the best case simultaneously? The desired outcome all along has been the fall of Assad. As long as the Iran/Russia backed Assad government clings to power, and the West and her regional allies refuse to back down in their bid to install a regime that is not aligned with Iran and Russia, there will continue to be more refugees.
Russia has said they will veto any no-fly zone presented to the UNSC. There have been reports over the last week of Russian marines arriving in Syria. The proxy war is going to come down to who blinks first. Considering the depth of ties between Iran/Syria/Russia, which make a lot more sense based on geography and recent history than any ties between Syria and gulf monarchies or US led coalitions ever could, I think we can see who the aggressors are, and who should be the ones to blink in order to allow these people a chance to rebuild in peace, and stem the tide of additional refugees.

callen

Drowned: so maybe I missed it in your post but what do you believe should be the strategy going forward in Syria? Specifics?

Drowned Out

I posted the youtube link (reposted on page 2) because I like the ideas Syrian Girl has to help. You obviously didn't read my long-ass post and watch a 13 minute youtube link in five minutes, so why come at me as if I've presented nothing in the way of a solution?
It's pretty evident from my posting history on Syria that I think our involvement there needs to be cut back to humanitarian only. Pressure our allies to stop supporting the rebels in Syria. Pay reparations to the countries we've helped destroy so that they can rebuild and provide jobs for these people. End sanctions. Support Syrian charities instead of western ones. And yes, accept more refugees.

Kat

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/german-toddler-syrian-refugee-girl-candy_55f042a0e4b03784e277437e

Kat

I believe the procedure for linking to a youtube video that will only be a link is to first click on the little link icon above the text message box, enter your youtube (or other) link and press enter. It will be entered into your post and not be hotlinked to the video. Don't forget your warning text with it if the video is graphic. Thank you.

ldent42

Kat said:

One opinion piece on that
http://www.bloombergview.com/articles/2015-09-04/why-don-t-gulf-states-accept-more-refugees-

I read this and I watched the video that was on the HuffPo website too and it just pissed me off even more. What I didn't know was that these countries have such teeny tiny populations. I understand that they abuse migrant workers, those guys that come over from Bangladesh and Thailand thinking they're getting construction work and instead wind up becoming slaves for the contractors doing the luxury buildings. I get that they don't want to risk opening the refugee can o' worms cuz then all the migrant workers are gonna try to get in on that deal. That's why I'm saying under the EU's guidance there's got to be a way for them to legitimately (and legally) take in refugees in such a way that it won't affect the migrant workers already currently in their countries.
Yea, for this scenario I'm throwing the migrant workers under the bus. Yea, I know that's fucked up. No, I don't think the way they are treated is acceptable, but it is what it is. Ideally, there would be a solution for both - and frankly I don't think it's even that hard to come up with one. Here's one: second class citizenship. Right to live and work but not to claim all social benefits. I'm pretty sure we have that here in the US. It's called residency. (I think - what's the one where your social security card says "for work only" and you can't get unemployment if you're laid off or disability if you're injured?) This way they get to keep their slave labor work force, conditions for them would improve slightly, but it wouldn't be as drastic and immediate a slash in the ruling families' wealth. Plus it would help taking some pressure off of the EU countries.

I'm not caffeinated enough for this discussion.

Drowned Out

#RefugeeCrisis: What The Media Is Hiding, Help #SyrianRefugees Go Home
*warning - graphic
https://youtube.com/watch?v=pHFnvFbThDE

dankind

Drowned Out said:

#RefugeeCrisis: What The Media Is Hiding, Help #SyrianRefugees Go Home
*warning - graphic
https://youtube.com/watch?v=pHFnvFbThDE

Thanks for reposting.

Nice to get some inside perspective on how to help.

rgambs

Drowned Out said:

In the previous thread, there was some discussion about the virtue of pointing fingers and discussing who's to blame...and a question as to whether that was productive in helping refugees.... I think it's immensely important as the conflicts causing the crisis are still going on. We can't approach this as something we can find a solution for in the here and now, without looking at how to prevent additional refugees. The situation in Yemen is now six months old, and the entire country is falling toward a total humanitarian disaster of the exact same proportions as Syria. Where are the calls from the West to put an end to the Saudi bombings? Oh wait....all Iran's fault. Right.
The situation in Syria is a proxy war. The media and some AMT members can call it a civil war all they want, but it most definitely is NOT. This cannot be boiled down to 'our countries accept some blame for causing this in the beginning, but now it's all on ISIS and Assad'. Way, way too simplistic and naive to assume that the international players no longer hold a stake. I don't know why anyone would think that. The US has just finished training and unleashed new 'moderate rebels' into the Syrian theatre, and Obama has promised to defend them with air strikes if they come under attack by anyone - including Assad. This puts the US directly on the warpath with Assad. Turkey (the same country who has been allowing ISIS reinforcements into Syria via their border), has said they are working to implement an ISIS-free / no fly zone in Northern Syria, and there have been renewed calls for Syrian no-fly zones since the years-old refugee crisis became so much more en vogue in the week since that horrific picture was published. Hawks are politicizing the crisis for all it's worth, and msm is acting as the megaphone, as always. Assholes like Stephen Harper and Chris Alexander in Canada couldn't get thru a single interview about refugees without mentioning the need for more militarism to take out the terrorists....This kind of (perfectly natural) heart-string-tugging opens the public discourse to more direct (read: military) action. Remember the chemical attacks and the red line? Same shit - we keep hearing one sided reporting on the situation on the ground there, with the only option to resolve the situation causing the crisis being the military choice.
Think about who would benefit from a Syrian no fly zone. How big a threat is the ISIS air force? What happened in Libya after the no fly zone was implemented? (Ghaddafi was ousted, the country became a failed state, a homebase for extremists, and a continuing source of refugees).
The West is openly training/funding/arming 'moderate' rebels to oust Assad. ISIS is working to oust Assad. The West is using air strikes in Syria to take out ISIS. Does anyone think all of three of these scenarios can play out in the best case simultaneously? The desired outcome all along has been the fall of Assad. As long as the Iran/Russia backed Assad government clings to power, and the West and her regional allies refuse to back down in their bid to install a regime that is not aligned with Iran and Russia, there will continue to be more refugees.
Russia has said they will veto any no-fly zone presented to the UNSC. There have been reports over the last week of Russian marines arriving in Syria. The proxy war is going to come down to who blinks first. Considering the depth of ties between Iran/Syria/Russia, which make a lot more sense based on geography and recent history than any ties between Syria and gulf monarchies or US led coalitions ever could, I think we can see who the aggressors are, and who should be the ones to blink in order to allow these people a chance to rebuild in peace, and stem the tide of additional refugees.

EXCELLENT post!

brianlux

JUST A GIRL said:

PJ_Soul said:

Let's try again!

Somehow it's just not the same now.... but I'll try.

The mayor of Vancouver (Gregor Robertson... he's totally and madly obsessed with bike lanes, but I'll give him some credit today) held a town hall meeting so that people could come and discuss what the real options are for those who want to help the refugees, how much it can cost, what it would take, what hoops have to be jumped through, etc. Very good idea I thought. If every mayor of every major city in North America did the same thing, that would probably be very helpful.

They do sometimes. It's fun, I've been to a few.

I don't understand why everyone's expected to allow them in with open arms. We've all seen the rise in violence due to the influx of illegal immigrants in Texas and New Mexico, we all support building a fence to properly screen and validate every person crossing the border, yet when it happens in a third world country, where violence runs rampant, it's expected to be allowed? Shouldn't it be more restricted and validated even more so there?

I don't blame the countries for building fences around their points of entry. I would lay out row after row of barbed wire.

Ask your self honestly if you would be ok with suddenly 100s of Iraqie immigrants living on the same road as your home, living in the yards, bathing and using the rest room in your drive way. I doubt you would be so welcoming after a very short amount of time.

We all want to pretend we would help, but I think deep down we know the truth. At least I'm honest about it. Unlike 99.9% of the rest of the world who doesn't want to "offend" anyone!

Point of entry check points are always going to exist in almost every country but the notion of building a fence or wall along an entire border is absurd, short sighted, foolish and cruel. Much has already been said about how doing so interferes with migratory patterns of wild life. Let's not forget that we are not the only species that inhabits this planet and that we* are all, literally, interdependent.

*we as in, all species

ldent42

brianlux said:

JUST A GIRL said:

PJ_Soul said:

Let's try again!

Somehow it's just not the same now.... but I'll try.

The mayor of Vancouver (Gregor Robertson... he's totally and madly obsessed with bike lanes, but I'll give him some credit today) held a town hall meeting so that people could come and discuss what the real options are for those who want to help the refugees, how much it can cost, what it would take, what hoops have to be jumped through, etc. Very good idea I thought. If every mayor of every major city in North America did the same thing, that would probably be very helpful.

They do sometimes. It's fun, I've been to a few.

I don't understand why everyone's expected to allow them in with open arms. We've all seen the rise in violence due to the influx of illegal immigrants in Texas and New Mexico, we all support building a fence to properly screen and validate every person crossing the border, yet when it happens in a third world country, where violence runs rampant, it's expected to be allowed? Shouldn't it be more restricted and validated even more so there?

I don't blame the countries for building fences around their points of entry. I would lay out row after row of barbed wire.

Ask your self honestly if you would be ok with suddenly 100s of Iraqie immigrants living on the same road as your home, living in the yards, bathing and using the rest room in your drive way. I doubt you would be so welcoming after a very short amount of time.

We all want to pretend we would help, but I think deep down we know the truth. At least I'm honest about it. Unlike 99.9% of the rest of the world who doesn't want to "offend" anyone!

Point of entry check points are always going to exist in almost every country but the notion of building a fence or wall along an entire border is absurd, short sighted, foolish and cruel. Much has already been said about how doing so interferes with migratory patterns of wild life. Let's not forget that we are not the only species that inhabits this planet and that we* are all, literally, interdependent.

*we as in, all species

Don't engage b-lux.that's what it wants.

brianlux

ldent42 said:

brianlux said:

JUST A GIRL said:

PJ_Soul said:

Let's try again!

Somehow it's just not the same now.... but I'll try.

The mayor of Vancouver (Gregor Robertson... he's totally and madly obsessed with bike lanes, but I'll give him some credit today) held a town hall meeting so that people could come and discuss what the real options are for those who want to help the refugees, how much it can cost, what it would take, what hoops have to be jumped through, etc. Very good idea I thought. If every mayor of every major city in North America did the same thing, that would probably be very helpful.

They do sometimes. It's fun, I've been to a few.

I don't understand why everyone's expected to allow them in with open arms. We've all seen the rise in violence due to the influx of illegal immigrants in Texas and New Mexico, we all support building a fence to properly screen and validate every person crossing the border, yet when it happens in a third world country, where violence runs rampant, it's expected to be allowed? Shouldn't it be more restricted and validated even more so there?

I don't blame the countries for building fences around their points of entry. I would lay out row after row of barbed wire.

Ask your self honestly if you would be ok with suddenly 100s of Iraqie immigrants living on the same road as your home, living in the yards, bathing and using the rest room in your drive way. I doubt you would be so welcoming after a very short amount of time.

We all want to pretend we would help, but I think deep down we know the truth. At least I'm honest about it. Unlike 99.9% of the rest of the world who doesn't want to "offend" anyone!

Point of entry check points are always going to exist in almost every country but the notion of building a fence or wall along an entire border is absurd, short sighted, foolish and cruel. Much has already been said about how doing so interferes with migratory patterns of wild life. Let's not forget that we are not the only species that inhabits this planet and that we* are all, literally, interdependent.

*we as in, all species

Don't engage b-lux.that's what it wants.

I'm just giving my tongue a break. I keep biting it.

callen

Wow. Well "obviously" you misinterpreted my tone in question. Have a nice day.

Drowned Out

Fair enough. You said you 'might have missed it', that's where I sensed sarcasm...it's been a bit of a theme around here lately (not from you) to question the actions, integrity, and intentions of posters who try to share information.....felt like mine was being called out. Since that's not the case, I apologize for the tone in my response.

(edit: not sure why you edited your post. I did misinterpret your tone - this post is my apology for the tone in my response).