The Refugee Crisis - a crisis of conscience - The Something Awful Forums

The Something Awful Forums > Discussion > Debate & Discussion > The Refugee Crisis - a crisis of conscience

Red and Black: Sep 5, 2011

WorldsStrongestNerd posted:

There are certain things that are integral to western culture and western dominance. Democracy, individual rights, including the rights of women. Europe is letting in people who, on average, don't believe that all men and women are equal, and who think that god, not the government is the highest authority. It amazes me that just as the western world has finally broken the stranglehold of Christian fundamentalism on society (certain parts of the USA excluded) Europe decides to willing import thousands of devout Muslims. I could understand spending millions and using military force to create and maintain a safe camp in Syria, but this idea of taking a million people of different language and culture, and settling them in your population is just bizarre. Migrants self select. You get people who are tired of thier poo poo culture who might be interested in adopting yours. These refugees don't want to assimilate, they want to escape. I can't blame them, but Germany is not obligated to do a thing for Syria. If citizens or private groups want to help then fine, but the government of a people is only obligated to the people that elected it, no one else.

You forgot to mention how they're stealing all the white women

# ¿ Sep 4, 2015 23:48

Adbot: ADBOT LOVES YOU

# ¿ Apr 27, 2024 12:00

Red and Black: Sep 5, 2011

Dmitri-9 posted:

Maybe because the experiment has already happened and importing muslims from third world countries causes disorder, riots, rapes and violent culture clashes. Is it a liberal value to tolerate women being treated worse than animals?

Have you considered not getting your news from neo-nazi websites?

# ¿ Sep 5, 2015 00:18

Red and Black: Sep 5, 2011

lmaoboy1998 posted:

121 Syrian refugees in 2014. I accept that there's only a thin sliver of coast where brown people can actually live without fear of persecution but really, you guys are letting the side down.

As an American, the US has a horrible immigration policy and absolutely should absolutely accept more refugees. That said :lol:

at your naked attempt to distract from the moral failings of your own government by turning the discussion to US policy.

# ¿ Sep 5, 2015 00:48

Red and Black: Sep 5, 2011

icantfindaname posted:

Why should a country a thousand miles further away across an ocean take them in, instead of the even larger, just as wealthy region a thousand miles closer, not across an ocean? Like just from a logistical perspective this is a baffling complaint

Well for one, the US had a direct hand in creating the refugee crisis through its military action across the middle east.

# ¿ Sep 5, 2015 01:24

Red and Black: Sep 5, 2011

tumblr.txt posted:

I propose an alternate solution: Accept 10x the current migrant intake, give them all the support they need, but Women and Children under 10 Only. It worked then and it could work now.

I don't know, your plans have a pretty bad track record.

# ¿ Sep 5, 2015 01:42

Red and Black: Sep 5, 2011

Volkerball posted:

And its military inaction, given 10 million people fled Syria before ISIS was prominent. No corner of the country was safe for IDP's thanks to a systematic bombing campaign by the regime on residential areas. A NFZ would have been a huge asset in limiting the scale of this crisis, and many, many refugees still advocate for one today. It isn't just republicans that have to wear this.

Not really. While in theory, a no fly zone could be positive for Syria, historically such actions tend escalate into bids at regime change (see: Libya) which would almost certainly destabilize the country further.

# ¿ Sep 5, 2015 02:10

Red and Black: Sep 5, 2011

Volkerball posted:

The US had a NFZ in Iraq for a decade prior to Iraq and all it did was prevent a second al-Anfal campaign, but feel free to try and explain to a Syrian who's family was killed by a barrel bomb that we can't stop the regime from dropping them indiscriminately because that's a gateway bomb.

Separate from other US policies at the time the Iraq NFZ was arguably a Good Thing, but the US didn't really have a group it wanted to replace Saddam. In the case of Syria, the US clearly supported the rebels, and it's pretty hard to believe a NFZ over Syria wouldn't have developed along the lines of military intervention in Libya. Also at the time the US was enforcing a NFZ over Iraq it was also enforcing a starvation blockade. So yeah, its worth considering that even if a small portion of US policy was good, overall its intervention had a pretty horrific effect on Iraq, even before the 2003 invasion.

# ¿ Sep 5, 2015 02:44

Red and Black: Sep 5, 2011

Volkerball posted:

No it's not, because this is a really dumb way to try and act like ignoring Syria was a good idea. It was predicted by many people right from the get go that there was no ignoring it, and obviously we're seeing that prediction come to fruition now.

Your argument depends on the US being a good faith actor that would implement a Syrian air campaign in a way that mitigates civilian casualties, rather than one that maximizes the opposition's chances of winning the civil war. That assumption is at best laughably naive. Perhaps if the US didn't have such a long history of cynical foreign policy (almost always under the guise of humanitarianism), it would be easier to accept the idea of a US administered no fly zone.

Also the US didn't ignore Syria. It pumped millions of dollars worth of weapons and equipment into the Syrian opposition, essentially fueling the conflict, and also contributing to the rise of ISIS. In case you forgot.

# ¿ Sep 5, 2015 03:39

Red and Black: Sep 5, 2011

The left-leaning media watchdog group Fairness and Accuracy in Reporting (FAIR) has put out a new article on the refugee crisis. Essentially, a number of pundits have been trying to exploit the crisis to call for more US/NATO military action in Syria.

quote:

It didn�t take long for the universal and entirely justified outrage over a picture of a dead three-year-old to be funneled by the �do something� pundits to justify regime change in Syria. The �do something� crowd wants us to �do something� about the refugee crisis and �solve� the �bigger problem,� which, of course, involves regime change. To create the moral urgency and to tether the refugee crisis to their long-standing warmongering, these actors have to insist the US has �done nothing� about Syria. Here�s the Guardian editorial from Thursday:

quote:
The optimism of the Arab spring is spent. Colonel Gaddafi was a tyrant, yet Libya has unravelled violently in the aftermath of his removal. The refusal to intervene against Bashar al-Assad gave the Syrian president permission to continue murdering his people.

Here�s London Mayor Boris Johnson in the Telegraph:

quote:
I perfectly accept that intervention has not often worked. It has been a disaster in Iraq; it has been a disaster in Libya. But can you honestly say that non-intervention in Syria has been a success? If we keep doing nothing about the nightmare in Syria, then frankly we must brace ourselves for an eternity of refugees, more people suffocating in airless cattle trucks at European motorway service stations, more people trying to climb the barbed wire that we are building around the European Union.

And here�s an op-ed by Michael Gerson in the Washington Post from the same day:

quote:
At many points during the past four years, even relatively small actions might have reduced the pace of civilian casualties in Syria. How hard would it have been to destroy the helicopters dropping barrel bombs on neighborhoods? A number of options well short of major intervention might have reduced the regime�s destructive power and/or strengthened the capabilities of more responsible forces. All were untaken.

But this is all a fantasy. The US has been �intervening� in the Syrian civil war, in measurable and significant ways, since at least 2012�most notably by arming, funding and training anti-Assad forces. According to a report in the Washington Post from June:

quote:
At $1 billion, Syria-related operations account for about $1 of every $15 in the CIA�s overall budget, judging by spending levels revealed in documents the Washington Post obtained from former US intelligence contractor Edward Snowden.

US officials said the CIA has trained and equipped nearly 10,000 fighters sent into Syria over the past several years � meaning that the agency is spending roughly $100,000 per year for every anti-Assad rebel who has gone through the program.

In addition to this, the Obama administration has engaged in crippling sanctions against the Assad government, provided air support for those looking to depose him, incidentally funneled arms to ISIS, and not incidentally aligned the CIA-backed Free Syrian Army with Al Qaeda. Regardless of one�s position on Syria�or whether they think the US is somehow secretly in alliance with Assad, as some advance�one thing cannot be said: that the US has �done nothing in Syria.� This is historically false.

Most of those advocating for the removal of Assad probably know this, but can�t say �the US should do more,� or �they haven�t done enough,� because this would raise the uncomfortable question of what they have done already. And the answer to that, as is with most US meddling in other countries, is a lot of covert programs US officials�and thus their court press�can�t openly acknowledge. So those in the establishment media are left to do a strange dance: at once ignoring all the US has already done while insisting the US should join a fight it�s been a party to for over three years.

Another idea being advanced, for instance in the Guardian op-ed above, is the creation of a no-fly zone to help stem the tide of refugees:

quote:
To begin restoring that hope will inevitably mean international intervention of some kind. The establishment of credible safe havens and the implementation of a no-fly zone must be on the table for serious consideration.

Two things before discussing this further:

A) A no-fly zone would only be applied to Assad because anti-Assad forces don�t have an air force.

B) While it may sound like a simple humanitarian stop gap�and that�s no doubt how it�s being sold�literally every no-fly zone in history has eventually led to regime change. Which is fair enough, but those pushing for one should at least be honest about what this means: the active removal of Assad by foreign forces. Indeed, if one recalls the NATO intervention in Libya was originally sold as a no-fly zone to prevent a potential genocide, but within a matter of weeks, NATO leaders had pivoted to full-on regime change.

But here again, there�s some serious fudging going on by the Guardian. While there�s no doubt many of the refugees are escaping Assad�s bombing of cities, the boy in question, Aylan Kurdi, wasn�t: He was escaping ISIS and the US bombing of his hometown of Kobani, far from anything the Assad government is doing. A no-fly zone would not have saved his hometown. An absence of fueling jihadists by the United States and the subsequent bombing of said jihadists by the United States? Perhaps.

Once again, the disease becomes the cure, because a holistic diagnosis is not being advanced by Western media�only an evil dictator vs. freedom fighter cartoon. And why wouldn�t it? These nuances complicate the messy narrative of �If we get rid of Assad we can solve the crisis,� which has been US and UK orthodoxy since 2011. But the Guardian still has all their work ahead of them: If the West removes Assad, then what? Will the tens of thousands of radical, medieval wahabbists that have flooded in simply go away? Will the US bombing of ISIS simply stop?

The US funded, armed and fueled the very crisis its partisan media are now calling for it to swoop and in save. The moral ADD required by those pushing further US involvement in the Syrian civil war in the face of this fact is severe. That some in the media, eager to settle old scores, would so blatantly ignore history to indulge this fantasy is as pernicious as it is predictable.

Red and Black fucked around with this message at 10:57 on Sep 6, 2015

# ¿ Sep 6, 2015 10:42

Red and Black: Sep 5, 2011

Volkerball posted:

Kurdi's family fled from Damascus to Aleppo in 2012 after his father was detained by the regime and tortured, and then to Kobani after fighting in Aleppo picked up. He and his family were absolutely displaced by Assad. Fairness and Accuracy in Reporting.

That is a serious oversight by FAIR, but it doesn't really detract from the salient point. The US is already heavily intervening in Syria, in ways that have fueled the humanitarian crisis. To call Syria a consequence of military inaction (as you yourself have done) is plainly incorrect.

Red and Black fucked around with this message at 02:58 on Sep 17, 2015

# ¿ Sep 6, 2015 11:26

Red and Black: Sep 5, 2011

Volkerball posted:

I would agree with you that if your strategy was to try and limit your exposure to this crisis, the US shouldn't have done anything militarily, because if you aren't going to provide a game-changing amount of aid, you're just going to prolong the conflict with a middling, rudderless strategy that does nothing. But we still see the end result here with a limited US role in the war, and it's worst case scenario, so doing literally nothing likely wouldn't have resulted in Syria looking much different.

OK, so your opinion is that the US should have injected yet more weapons and military aid (more than the $1B that was sent) into an unstable war zone, and on top of that conducted a bombing campaign on behalf of the opposition forces. Am I misrepresenting your standpoint? because that seems to be what your saying here. How exactly does this all pan out in your dream scenario?

# ¿ Sep 6, 2015 12:36

Red and Black: Sep 5, 2011

PerpetualSelf posted:

But not that I care. I'm a American. gently caress the pissant little Europeons. Seen so many people compare this event to the growth in France from immigrants and people pointing to that failure as a reason it can never worked all while ignoring how loving insular French society is in the first place and how loving xenephobic their culture is from the outset.

Weren't you pretending to be Colombian just like a day ago in the Venezuelan thread?

# ¿ Sep 7, 2015 06:55

Red and Black: Sep 5, 2011

gradenko_2000 posted:

What would be some reputable organizations to donate to that are involved in helping refugees at this time?

You could donate to the International Committee of the Red Cross.

e: You can read more about their role, and other potential organizations to donate to here.

Red and Black fucked around with this message at 14:45 on Sep 7, 2015

# ¿ Sep 7, 2015 14:42

Red and Black: Sep 5, 2011

Unknown Dyne posted:

Do you think the German people will sit idly by while traitors in their own Government cause the forced dissolution of German culture and of the very German people themselves?

I think so, yeah. Also go back to /pol/ please.

# ¿ Sep 9, 2015 07:38

Red and Black: Sep 5, 2011

Dead Reckoning posted:

Wait, how does the US and NATO fighting a war in Afghanistan that can be laid squarely at the feet of the Taliban make Europe responsible for Syrian refugees?

Indeed. The war in Afghanistan, which was initiated by NATO, can be laid squarely at the feet of the Taliban.

# ¿ Sep 17, 2015 00:56

Red and Black: Sep 5, 2011

Arglebargle III posted:

maybe you could work towards getting your own rear end-backwards country to do its share instead of posting shrill historically-illiterate complaints about how the US ruined the middle east.

# ¿ Sep 17, 2015 02:50

Red and Black: Sep 5, 2011

Canine Blues Arooo posted:

The principle that resources are finite.

Finite, but in the case of Europe and the United States, abundant, and more than enough to settle the refugee crisis.

e: Also despite being ultimately finite, a country's resources can grow and shrink. Refugees themselves are human resources and with proper handling could be an economic boon.

Red and Black fucked around with this message at 05:39 on Sep 18, 2015

# ¿ Sep 18, 2015 04:54

Red and Black: Sep 5, 2011

Arglebargle III posted:

You heard it here first everyone: $3 trillion is not a lot of money.

He quite clearly said that $3 trillion is not enough to bankrupt the US or even cause a decline in our standard of living. Not that 3 trillion isn't a lot of money.

# ¿ Sep 19, 2015 02:02

Adbot: ADBOT LOVES YOU

# ¿ Apr 27, 2024 12:00

Red and Black: Sep 5, 2011

Narciss posted:

Genocidal Magyars try to poison refugees with non-Brioche sandwiches:

I too use facebook as my primary news source.

# ¿ Sep 20, 2015 01:20

The Something Awful Forums > Discussion > Debate & Discussion > The Refugee Crisis - a crisis of conscience