Migrant crisis: Pakistanis, others dumping IDs to become 'Syrian'

[Boiler 47,526]

Some certainly should, not sure why they have not applied.

[Sousuke 1,214]

So what do you think about Syrian refugees then? Should they be granted asylum?

I know you've mentioned that the US and the UK have the greatest responsibility due to Iraq war but I respectfully disagree. Whereas the Iraq invasion may have uncapped a brewing issue, its been an issue for quite awhile.

Here is an argument. Syrian refugees should be split amongst the following countries for historic reasons:

1. Turkey

2. Austria

3. Hungary

4. Czech Republic

5. Germany

6. France

[We Keep Receipts 9,238]

I wonder when some people here will pony up and actually say what they really think, rather than hide behind veiled references. I think it's because deep-down, The TOS their conscience won't let them.

Fixed for you.

Trust and believe, it's not their conscience that stops them short from saying what they're really thinking. The members that feel this way have let it be known what they think about certain types of people over the years. What you are asking for is a flat out admission, which is something they won't do since if they get booted here, where else could they go? Being married to a foreigner disqualifies them from any site that espouses what is said here.

Nobody wants to be labeled a bigot(well almost nobody, since at least one member has deemed themselves as the head racist for this site).

[Trumplestiltskin 5,791]

I know you've mentioned that the US and the UK have the greatest responsibility due to Iraq war but I respectfully disagree. Whereas the Iraq invasion may have uncapped a brewing issue, its been an issue for quite awhile.

Here is an argument. Syrian refugees should be split amongst the following countries for historic reasons:

1. Turkey

2. Austria

3. Hungary

4. Czech Republic

5. Germany

6. France

Errrr no. I believe the UK and the US fronted war in Iraq is responsible for creating a power vacuum that has allowed ISIS to take control of large areas of land and resulted in the death and displacement of thousands of people. It has exacerbated a situation that has created increased instability across the middle east.

As far as asylum for refugees - that's a matter for the entire international community. All I object to is the debate about whether or not to accept refugees being conflated with bogus right-wing red herring arguments.

Edited September 8, 2015 by Trumplestiltskin

[Sousuke 1,214]

Errrr no. I believe the UK and the US fronted war in Iraq is responsible for creating a power vacuum that has allowed ISIS to take control of large areas of land and resulted in the death and displacement of thousands of people. It has exacerbated a situation that has created increased instability across the middle east.

As far as asylum for refugees - that's a matter for the entire international community. All I object to is the debate about whether or not to accept refugees being conflated with bogus right-wing red herring arguments.

But that power vacuum was initially formed at the fall of the Ottomans. Putting dictators in power is like a band aid.

One could argue that Enver Pasha started the gears moving.

Edited September 8, 2015 by Sousuke

[Trumplestiltskin 5,791]

But that power vacuum was initially formed at the fall of the Ottomans. Putting dictators in power is like a band aid.

One could argue that Enver Pasha started the gears moving.

Well sure, if you want to avoid any discussion about the tangible effect of modern day foreign and military policy on modern-day geopolitical situations - you can relativise the entire thing into meaningless insignificance.

Seriously, we don't need to go back to look at dead empires when the event that kicked off the current situation took place little over 10 years ago.

[JohnR! 5,495]

Fixed for you.

Trust and believe, it's not their conscience that stops them short from saying what they're really thinking. The members that feel this way have let it be known what they think about certain types of people over the years. What you are asking for is a flat out admission, which is something they won't do since if they get booted here, where else could they go? Being married to a foreigner disqualifies them from any site that espouses what is said here.

Nobody wants to be labeled a bigot(well almost nobody, since at least one member has deemed themselves as the head racist for this site).

[Sousuke 1,214]

Well sure, if you want to avoid any discussion about the tangible effect of modern day foreign and military policy on modern-day geopolitical situations - you can relativise the entire thing into meaningless insignificance.

Seriously, we don't need to go back to look at dead empires when the event that kicked off the current situation took place little over 10 years ago.

How can you understand the current situation without looking back at how the area formed into its modern state?

[JohnR! 5,495]

In that case we need to look at the arbitrary drawing of borders the allies engage in the aftermath of WWII. We drew lines in the sand - literally.

Edited September 8, 2015 by JohnR!

[Sousuke 1,214]

In that case we need to look at the arbitrary drawing of borders the allies engage in the aftermath of WWII. We drew lines in the sand - literally.

I agree. Since 1918 (or winter of 1915 depending on how you look at it) the Ottoman Empire was through. The area never had an opportunity towards self determination. War has been inevitable since. This situation was inevitable.

I guess you could argue the US just sped things up. There is no guarantee that the Baathists would retain power when Saddam eventually died for instance.

Not to alarm anyone, but some type of war will eventually come to North Korea in the next 70 years as well.

[Trumplestiltskin 5,791]

How can you understand the current situation without looking back at how the area formed into its modern state?

The politicians who took us to war in 2003 had nothing to do with the creating the sectarian divisions in the middle east, however they did inherit the decisions of their predecessors. Decisions that have supported tin-pot dictatorships and propped up monarchies of dubious provenance.

However, given that those politicians did make significant far reaching decisions - why do we need to go back to WW2 or before to understand the effect of a decision made in 2003?

I think you need to clarify which point you're trying to make.

I agree. Since 1918 (or winter of 1915 depending on how you look at it) the Ottoman Empire was through. The area never had an opportunity towards self determination. War has been inevitable since. This situation was inevitable.

I guess you could argue the US just sped things up. There is no guarantee that the Baathists would retain power when Saddam eventually died for instance.

Not to alarm anyone, but some type of war will eventually come to North Korea in the next 70 years as well.

What had more of a bearing on events in Syria in 2015?

The Iraq war of 2003 or the Winter of 1915?

Edited September 8, 2015 by Trumplestiltskin

[Sousuke 1,214]

What had more of a bearing on events in Syria in 2015?

The Iraq war of 2003 or the Winter of 1915?

Arguably 70/30 in favor of 1915 IMO.

[Sousuke 1,214]

However, given that those politicians did make significant far reaching decisions - why do we need to go back to WW2 or before to understand the effect of a decision made in 2003?

I think you need to clarify which point you're trying to make.

Because the decision of 2003 was effectively a reversal of policy from 1918 until 2003. Yes the genie was let out of the bottle, but he was going to escape at some point either way.

[Trumplestiltskin 5,791]

Arguably 70/30 in favor of 1915 IMO.

The Iraq war created ISIS as we know it today - the organisation started as Al Qaeda in Iraq. Al Qaeda wasn't in Iraq prior to the start of the Iraq war - it followed the coalition.

The people in those extremist organisations might well be nursing genrations worth of resentment about foreign interference and sectarian/tribal hatreds - but it was the 2003 war that enabled them, equipped them and gave them opportunity.

1915 is context. The Iraq War is cause and effect.

Because the decision of 2003 was effectively a reversal of policy from 1918 until 2003. Yes the genie was let out of the bottle, but he was going to escape at some point either way.

At some point.

[Sousuke 1,214]

The Iraq war created ISIS as we know it today - the organisation started as Al Qaeda in Iraq. Al Qaeda wasn't in Iraq prior to the start of the Iraq war - it followed the coalition.

The people in those extremist organisations might well be nursing genrations worth of resentment about foreign interference and sectarian/tribal hatreds - but it was the 2003 war that enabled them, equipped them and gave them opportunity.

1915 is context. The Iraq War is cause and effect.

At some point.

Al Qaeda in Iraq formed from existing militants though.

Effectively the current world line we see today started in 1915. It is the cause. The effect was delayed by western powers propping up of dictators that could keep their thumbs on militants whereas a democratic society could not.

Edited September 8, 2015 by Sousuke