Suffer the little children

Mysteryman said :

rubaiyat said :

Mysteryman said :

gazket said :

ISIS said this would happen and infiltrate the refugees with ISIS fighters. The world stood by gas bagging until it happened.

The horse has bolted .It’s too late to drop sandwiches.

Will be Interesting to see how Germany and Angela handle this.

Haven’t you been told? ISIS aren’t a *real* threat. They aren’t even *real* muslims, according to the bleeding heart lefties.

Well, here we are two years later and they’ve certainly created some real problems for the rest of the world to deal with.

Yeah, all caused by those “bleeding heart lefties” who trashed the Middle East just so they can keep shooting up the oil and caused a Multi-Trillion Dollar Global recession that has brought down several countries and killed millions and impoverished 100s of millions more.

Oddly virtually all the “bleeding heart lefties” I know detest ISIS because of its human rights abuses, intolerance, persecution and genocide of minorities, and anti-secularism.

It wasn’t those “bleeding heart lefties” who gave ISIS the motive, munitions, money and opportunity to take over most of Iraq and Syria. You can thank the “hard right” in America for that.

If you could read/post something without your bias blinding you, you’d see I never made any mention of who caused what. That’s not relevant to my point.

Seemed to be “the bleeding heart lefties” according to your unblinded non-bias.

rubaiyat said :

Mysteryman said :

gazket said :

ISIS said this would happen and infiltrate the refugees with ISIS fighters. The world stood by gas bagging until it happened.

The horse has bolted .It’s too late to drop sandwiches.

Will be Interesting to see how Germany and Angela handle this.

Haven’t you been told? ISIS aren’t a *real* threat. They aren’t even *real* muslims, according to the bleeding heart lefties.

Well, here we are two years later and they’ve certainly created some real problems for the rest of the world to deal with.

Yeah, all caused by those “bleeding heart lefties” who trashed the Middle East just so they can keep shooting up the oil and caused a Multi-Trillion Dollar Global recession that has brought down several countries and killed millions and impoverished 100s of millions more.

Oddly virtually all the “bleeding heart lefties” I know detest ISIS because of its human rights abuses, intolerance, persecution and genocide of minorities, and anti-secularism.

It wasn’t those “bleeding heart lefties” who gave ISIS the motive, munitions, money and opportunity to take over most of Iraq and Syria. You can thank the “hard right” in America for that.

If you could read/post something without your bias blinding you, you’d see I never made any mention of who caused what. That’s not relevant to my point.

Mysteryman said :

gazket said :

ISIS said this would happen and infiltrate the refugees with ISIS fighters. The world stood by gas bagging until it happened.

The horse has bolted .It’s too late to drop sandwiches.

Will be Interesting to see how Germany and Angela handle this.

Haven’t you been told? ISIS aren’t a *real* threat. They aren’t even *real* muslims, according to the bleeding heart lefties.

Well, here we are two years later and they’ve certainly created some real problems for the rest of the world to deal with.

Yeah, all caused by those “bleeding heart lefties” who trashed the Middle East just so they can keep shooting up the oil and caused a Multi-Trillion Dollar Global recession that has brought down several countries and killed millions and impoverished 100s of millions more.

Oddly virtually all the “bleeding heart lefties” I know detest ISIS because of its human rights abuses, intolerance, persecution and genocide of minorities, and anti-secularism.

It wasn’t those “bleeding heart lefties” who gave ISIS the motive, munitions, money and opportunity to take over most of Iraq and Syria. You can thank the “hard right” in America for that.

HenryBG said :

chewy14 said :

Any solution that simply focuses on “taking more”, is bound to fail.

And it’s not just a practical failure, it is also a moral failure: by encouraging resettlement, we are making ourselves complicit in the sectarian campaigns of ethnic cleansing that are causing the issue.

The “refugees” should be armed and turned back to fight for their rights in their own land.
The Israelis did it, so can they.

Which Israelis are those? The ones that were resettled from Eastern Europe? I don’t see them being armed and fighting to return…heck, they’re not even returning now, 70 years after their ethnic cleansers were defeated.

Why do you use inverted commas to suggest they are not refugees? If they are fleeing from ethic cleansing, that is exactly what they are.

Of course, we could arm those who are being persecuted, much like the US did in Afghanistan back in the day. How did that end up? Those who were armed ended up being the bad guys down the track because they had been given so much weaponry by the CIA. Encouraging oppressed minorities to “put up a fight” is simply condemning them to death because they are outnumbered and out resourced. If your kid is getting picked on at school by a group of kids, you don’t give him a knife and tell him to fight back. You seek an administrative solution or you move your kid.

How many children have been beheaded in Syria and Iraq over the past couple of years? How many children have died from dehydration in the desert as they fled with their families? Yet there was no media outrage, no mass protests or candle-lit vigils….

Then one picture is published of one child who drowned and suddenly everyone shouts that the government must do something.

chewy14 said :

Any solution that simply focuses on “taking more”, is bound to fail.

And it’s not just a practical failure, it is also a moral failure: by encouraging resettlement, we are making ourselves complicit in the sectarian campaigns of ethnic cleansing that are causing the issue.

The “refugees” should be armed and turned back to fight for their rights in their own land.
The Israelis did it, so can they.

No_Nose said :

Certainly the cashed up Middle East countries could do more and we should be lobbying them to do so. (and our encouraging our allies to also pressure them).

Whilst we make those diplomatic overtures, Australia can also do a lot more to help out here .

We could certainly take a share of these refugees, either temporarily or permanently… 20000 would be a good starting point.

Flying 20,000 of them here would cost – in air tickets alone – more than it would cost to build a fully-staffed, modern, first-world hospital that would cater to the needs of 500,000 refugees in Turkey.

By all means, support the feel-good irrational approach, but don’t try to pretend it is either sensible or compassionate.

wildturkeycanoe said :

No_Nose said :

Whilst we make those diplomatic overtures, Australia can also do a lot more to help out here .

We could certainly take a share of these refugees, either temporarily or permanently… 20000 would be a good starting point.

It is the right thing to do, the moral thing to do, but there is a good reason we cannot do it.
How will these refugees get by whilst they stay in Australia? Welfare. If not welfare, how will they get jobs when highly qualified and educated English speaking Australian citizens are already finding themselves in medium to long term unemployment thanks to the falling number of jobs?
The government is already cutting back and restructuring the welfare system in order to decrease the burden on tax payers, forcing many live well below what is required to be able to buy the essentials for living. Will adding another 20,000 to this system help anybody? Whilst we may be offering a temporary sanctuary to these refugees [if they are indeed proven to be refugees], it will come at a cost to those most vulnerable of our own citizens.
Can we affords to help? If we can, why haven’t we already been doing so up to this point for the unemployed, disabled and homeless who already call Australia home?

Those points – which, I believe, concern many people privately, if not always publicly – may be an argument for offsetting a special increase in the refugee intake against parts of Australia’s still very large regular immigration intake.

We should now be offering asylum to European Jews.

chewy14 said :

This is the problem with looking at this issue from a purely emotional point of view. Taking more refugees for resettlement will not even make the slightest dent in the overall number

It will make a difference to those being resettled. The excuse of “We can’t help all of you…so in order to be fair we will help none of you” is not really the way to go.

chewy14 said :

We need to work harder to solve these problems at their source. Work to reduce and end the conflicts that are causing their displacement and to assist in providing services and aid in the destination countries where these people are initially fleeing to.

Any solution that simply focuses on “taking more”, is bound to fail.

I agree completely with this. Any protection or resettlement scheme should be a part of a holistic approach. There are a number of other diplomatic and military options that can, and should, be running concurrently.