Syrian Refugee Crisis--Symptom-Solution

Daryl wrote:

biochem wrote:On the Syrian refugees. Why exactly are we accepting able bodied men of military age as refugees? Women & children, the elderly I get but Syria is THEIR country and THEY need to be the ones fighting for it. (Incidentally this opinion of mine preceded Paris).

I've read this opinion before elsewhere and wonder at the logic. Firstly a bit sexist and ageist, why only males of a certain age?
Secondly, how are they going to fight for their country? Which of the many religious sects will they join? What if they are atheist, christian, or buddist?
If they don't fit into a mould they wouldn't last a day, and even if they did it would just make the multi sided conflict worse. A couple of young Australians (male & female) went stupidly over there a year ago, joined an islamic armed group and were dead in a week when their group were exterminated by a bigger faction over some ideology.

biochem wrote:On the Syrian refugees. Why exactly are we accepting able bodied men of military age as refugees? Women & children, the elderly I get but Syria is THEIR country and THEY need to be the ones fighting for it. (Incidentally this opinion of mine preceded Paris).

Daryl wrote:I've read this opinion before elsewhere and wonder at the logic. Firstly a bit sexist and ageist, why only males of a certain age?
Secondly, how are they going to fight for their country? Which of the many religious sects will they join? What if they are atheist, christian, or buddist?
If they don't fit into a mould they wouldn't last a day, and even if they did it would just make the multi sided conflict worse. A couple of young Australians (male & female) went stupidly over there a year ago, joined an islamic armed group and were dead in a week when their group were exterminated by a bigger faction over some ideology.

thinkstoomuch wrote:Another Question for this whole thing.

Why is the "West" having to accept refugees when places like Egypt, the UAE, Saudi Arabia ... are not.

T2M

The E wrote:Might want to reread the data about the syrian refugees there, mate.

There are an estimated 4.2 million syrian refugees. Fully half of them is in Turkey. Another million in Lebanon. Another half million in Jordan. 250000 in Iraq. 130000 in Egypt. The refugees that reach the western world are the exception, a small minority really, and you guys in the US are getting up in arms over the 10 or 20000 that may end up in the continental US?

If those few people are a danger to your society, your society may need some help.

The E wrote:I'm sorry, I've been seeing this rhetorical progression far too often on the internet these days. "Why are there so many refugees?" "Why are they coming to the EU/the US/the West, why aren't they staying in more culturally compatible countries?" Followed by "We don't want them here, they'll just bring problems."

The problem is, and this is something I expect anyone knowledgable about history to recognize, is that that same rhetoric was used about 80 years ago with regards to Jewish refugees fleeing from Germany.

So basically, if you're asking whether a country should accept refugees despite those refugees "not fighting for their country!!!!!", I have to ask whether refusing jewish refugees was, in hindsight, the correct decision.

Matt P wrote: wrote in message news:n2p865$npa$1@bar-test.baen.com...

I'm not sure that both sides haven't lost their minds.

I basically agree with what Pete said: the idea of denying admission to, say, 10,000 people because some terrorists might slip through the cracks is, at bottom, just stupid. It is hysteria overwhelming what little capacity for rational thought, let alone conditional probability calculations, the average sheep has.

On the other hand, I can't think of a single good reason to admit any of these people. I think it is bad policy to say, "oh, hey, let's take 10k people just because they are refugees."

What we should be doing is following the normal legal procedure, and accepting political asylum requests from people who can prove to an immigration judge's satisfaction that their life or freedom would be in jeopardy if they were returned to Syria.

I have twice testified as an expert witness in such proceedings. They are a fair and humane method of individually selecting people who face a legitimate chance of being killed or imprisoned for their political beliefs in their homeland.

I think this short-circuited process we seem to be employing is equally crazy as saying "OMG! Terrorists!"

I also agree with Drak in a back-handed way. We KNOW that Christians from Syria are subject to persecution if they return to Syria. They are the group (along with other religious minorities such as Jews and yazidi) at the greatest risk, and it is absolutely insane that we are not moving them en masse to the front of the line for admission. Not because they are Christians like us, but because they are at the most risk. The only muslims that should be with them at the front of the line are those who can prove they have fought IS.

But, of course, none of this will happen, because politics has completely taken over a process that normally functions in an apolitical and judicial fashion. The left has an agenda I don't fully understand, but seems to be "muslims are good cuz they hate Christians as much as we do," and the right has a very clear agenda that all muslims are terrorists.

So, yeah, there's no shortage of insanity here.


-- Official KratSKeller Jerk-in-Residence

thinkstoomuch wrote:Another Question for this whole thing.

Why is the "West" having to accept refugees when places like Egypt, the UAE, Saudi Arabia ... are not.

T2M