Voices
in
Japan

have your say

How should the international community deal with the migrant situation that is currently overwhelming Hungary, Austria and Germany?

94 Comments

©2019 GPlusMedia Inc.

94 Comments
Login to comment

Deport every single one of them. If we let them keep coming it will be the end of Europe, European cultures and Christianity within 30 years. I don't know why all the leftwing morons don't realise that. VOTE UKIP!

-8 ( +19 / -27 )

Calling them what they are - refugees - instead of words that let us pretend we're superior to them would be a good start.

Pretty much every government that mucked around in the Middle East this last couple of decades has a duty to take in a portion of these people. You can't create instability in a region and then quietly walk away when that instability gets too hard to deal with. Our governments played around with Middle East adventurism like it was a game, now it's time to deal with the consequences.

8 ( +16 / -8 )

Not bombing their countries, would be a start.

9 ( +18 / -9 )

"Not bombing their countries, would be a start."

The coalition bombing of Syria, based on a UN resolution, was intended to protect the civilian population, by hitting ISIL and other bad local people who are slaughtering their own neighbors..

But I agree, the west should have never intervened. The MIddle East would still be a murderous horror show, probably worse than now, but at least it would dispel the outrageous narrative that Mideast hatred and violence is the work of the West.

-1 ( +5 / -6 )

Deport every single one of them... end of Christianity within 30 years

Precisely what Jesus would say.

0 ( +8 / -8 )

Morally I think countries should have to take care of them based on the fatness of the finger they used to poke about in the Middle East. Looking at you first America. Then the UK and other assorted poodles.

6 ( +11 / -5 )

They should provide immediate short-term humanitarian relief to these refugees.

They should pressure rich islamic nations UAE, Bahrain, Saudi, Kuwait to contribute funds each fiscal year to these hosting countries.

They should ask Jakarta to accept a few thousand refugees as well.

The international community should quit talking and take action, unite, against radical islam and it's seeds. (Ironically, some of these seeds will be soon planted in Eastern Europe as they settle down.)

7 ( +9 / -2 )

The coalition bombing of Syria, based on a UN resolution, was intended to protect the civilian population,

Jeff, wanna protect them? Then offer them asylum. After all, if you burn my house down, the least you can do is offer me a room in yours

-1 ( +4 / -5 )

If we let them keep coming it will be the end of Europe, European cultures and Christianity within 30 years.

I couldn't care less about the end of Christianity, but otherwise I agree with you. This is yet more Islamification via the backdoor. Many of these people (mostly young men, by the way) have nice clothes, cellphones etc....they are not "refugees". The left-wingers are too blinkered to see what is really happening. This is good for UKIP though, as more and more "ordinary" people are forced to live with these Muslims in close proximity, and thus will soon get sick of pandering to all their "human rights".

0 ( +8 / -8 )

This is good for UKIP though, as more and more "ordinary" people are forced to live with these Muslims in close proximity

that's priceless considering most brits are clamoring to go work in Dubai. what hypocracy!

-5 ( +7 / -12 )

most brits are clamoring to go work in Dubai

I would rather hack off my own arm, personally. Some things are important to me, you know, things like women's rights, not having religion ruling my country....small things like that.

4 ( +6 / -2 )

Japan as usual should do absolutely nothing except throw a few millions and keep clean hands.

4 ( +7 / -3 )

not having religion ruling my country....

ever heard of the church of england

-1 ( +7 / -8 )

European countries should let them in but work on an international resettlement program for countries like the US and Japan to take up some of the pressure off Europe. There should also be more programs in mid-income countries and developing ones too. I can easily see the world going to hell if the migration issue spirals out of control, so rich countries should sanction others to force them to open up.

-1 ( +2 / -3 )

ever heard of the church of england

Is that the best you can come up with?!

3 ( +7 / -4 )

The UN should take the lead and set up and pay for refugee camps for these people. While my heart goes out to people fleeing Syria, we must remember that it is not Hungary, Germany nor Austria's responsibility to solve this catastophe.

5 ( +5 / -0 )

I would rather hack off my own arm, personally. Some things are important to me, you know, things like women's rights, not having religion ruling my country....small things like that.

Been to many cities in ME . . . good and bad. Rather hack off my arm too.

Japan as usual should do absolutely nothing except throw a few millions and keep clean hands.

Ah, the ole' checkbook policy. Perhaps Japan should let in a couple thousand refugees. Isn't there some sort of future labor shortage? I've crossed paths with middle easterners here, they're here already.

-3 ( +2 / -5 )

The tax payers from the countries dealing with the migrants should decide to what extent they are willing to help. Illegal immigration, Immigration and refugee programs in countries like Canada, The US, Australia and many European countries are out of control. It`s slap in the face to hard working tax paying citizens.

4 ( +5 / -1 )

People truly fleeing danger should be sheltered, priority given to families with young children. However, there are huge numbers of economic chancers in the mix, who's families remain in their home country and no one should be allowed to simply walk in and demand this n that. I don't care if they are protesting that they want to go to Germany or wherever, they need to do what they are told to do and go where they are told to go. There are a few countries that I too wouldn't mind walking into, be accommodated in and set up by the local government but that simply is not realistic and you won't catch me screaming and shouting about it. The reason why these people are protesting is that many of them have paid money to smugglers who have sold them promises of being set up in Europe without much issue. Any people given shelter should only be accommodated on a temporary basis with a view to resettling them as the earliest chance. .

4 ( +4 / -0 )

Calling them what they are - refugees - instead of words that let us pretend we're superior to them would be a good start.

Most of these people aren't considered "refugees" under the current U.N. Convention. Just because your country is under civil war does not entitle them to be refugees automatically.

1 ( +10 / -9 )

My question is, why aren't any of the Arab countries not trying to take in many of these refugees? They have a lot of resources, money, food. They could relieve a lot of this burden that is overwhelming the Europeans and yet, nothing. Why is that?

8 ( +10 / -2 )

My question is, why aren't any of the Arab countries not trying to take in many of these refugees? They have a lot of resources, money, food. They could relieve a lot of this burden that is overwhelming the Europeans and yet, nothing. Why is that?

Lebanon, Jordan, and Iraq are all housing millions of refugees among themselves.

The other rich gulf nations (Saudi, Kuwait, Bahrain, etc) are not taking refugees because racism and tribalism.

11 ( +12 / -1 )

Once again you show that you don't actually confirm that what you are saying is true before you say it.

Strange, as usual, you're not getting the point, but it's ok, I'm used to it.

The other rich gulf nations (Saudi, Kuwait, Bahrain, etc) are not taking refugees because racism and tribalism.

But there are still ways they could lighten up the burden and do more to help, that's all I'm saying, if there's a will, there's a way.

1 ( +6 / -5 )

http://www.cbsnews.com/news/uniformed-men-accost-refugees-leave-them-adrift-at-sea/

Looks like Greece's Elite Coast Guard is taking action. (above link)

1 ( +1 / -0 )

Yes, the migrants/refugees will have to be resettled in Europe but sooner or later the EU will have to get to the root of the problem which means intervention in the ME.

4 ( +4 / -0 )

Yes, the migrants/refugees will have to be resettled in Europe but sooner or later the EU will have to get to the root of the problem which means intervention in the ME.

That's the real problem. I think the Arab nations should do a lot more because Europe just can't keep taking on more and more refugees, this is really reaching critical mass.

2 ( +4 / -2 )

https://www.amnesty.org/en/latest/news/2015/09/syrias-refugee-crisis-in-numbers/

According to Amnesty Int'l, Turkey has taken in 1.9 million

Iraq 249,463

Egypt 132,375

Qatar, United Arab Emirates, Saudi Arabia, Kuwait, and Bahrain ZERO

Germany and Sweden received 47% of the refugee applications, the remaining EU... 0.2%

Germany has pledged 35,000 spaces but that's likely to go up.

Refugees need to be embraced and not blamed for wanting to stay alive. This is the result of international inaction on the Syrian war so where did you think people would go? For now it's all about humanitarian aid and absorbing some new friends into what must be strange lands. Who knows, maybe the next Steve Jobs among them (yeah, his parents were Syrian immigrants to the USA)

The point is not to fear differences but help out where one can and not be afraid of getting to know people

2 ( +4 / -2 )

@dcog: There should also be more programs in mid-income countries and developing ones too. I can easily see the world going to hell if the migration issue spirals out of control, so rich countries should sanction others to force them to open up.

First it is the world going to spiral out of control because rich countries cannot deal with the crisis. Yet, you think that developing countries will be more adept at solving it? And why do rich countries have the right to sanction the not-so-rich ones given the fact that the “rich” ones were the ones who poked their finger into the region’s affairs and created the crisis many years ago in the first place?

-2 ( +2 / -4 )

Strange, as usual, you're not getting the point, but it's ok, I'm used to it.

You made a point that was incorrect. So yes, I'm not getting your wrong point. I'm pretty used to that too - if you wouldn't make blatantly incorrect statements, we wouldn't have this issue.

What you said:

My question is, why aren't any of the Arab countries not trying to take in many of these refugees?

The truth: http://www.latimes.com/world/europe/la-fg-migrants-scorecard-20150908-story.html

-2 ( +5 / -7 )

Funny first thing that pops up of course religion, which of course is not solely to blame in the situation in the middle east or anywhere but sure makes it easier to act like a barbaric moron doesn't it.

Then talks of the end of christianity and islamafication.. and so on and so forth.. don't care.. both as bad as each other depending on the interpretation of the week/century.

0 ( +2 / -2 )

Temporary shelter and aid should be provided for those who have reached any point in Europe. Job training and other educational programs should be put in place to ensure that the people (be they economic migrants or war refugees) get the necessary qualifications to find work. It has to be made very clear that once the initial period for job training is over, they have to become tax payers, contributors to the welfare of the country they eventually settle in. I believe that those who contribute to the community they live in will be always welcome regardless of faith, cultural background, etc.

-1 ( +1 / -2 )

JaneM.

Are you one of the people paying taxes or contributing, my guess is N0 or your contribution is small .

I donated over 1000USD I had saved for a Motorcycle.i

2 ( +4 / -2 )

@its me

I paid taxes there and made donations when donations were needed when I lived and worked in Europe. I pay taxes in Japan now as I live and work here. My relatives and friends, who still live and work there would appreciate everybody who tries to contribute to their community. I am sure that hospitality has limits and if you want to continue to be welcome you have to learn to deserve to be appreciated. What is your point??

0 ( +2 / -2 )

Build 10 meter-high walls along the borders, perhaps?

5 ( +6 / -1 )

You made a point that was incorrect.

Actually, no.

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

Which I feel they could do more.

So yes, I'm not getting your wrong point.

You mean, you didn't get the point at all.

Many Arabs are turning to social media in anger at their countries’ reluctance to open their doors. A hashtag, “receiving refugees is the people’s demand,” was started by people in Saudi Arabia and features a number of harrowing photos and powerful cartoons, according to Arab spring activist Iyad El-Baghdadi.

http://qz.com/494682/arabs-are-calling-out-their-governments-for-not-doing-enough-to-help-refugees/

I'm pretty used to that too

Then please focus on what I was trying to say.

if you wouldn't make blatantly incorrect statements, we wouldn't have this issue.

But I didn't.

1 ( +4 / -3 )

No bickering please.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

First it is the world going to spiral out of control because rich countries cannot deal with the crisis. Yet, you think that developing countries will be more adept at solving it? And why do rich countries have the right to sanction the not-so-rich ones given the fact that the “rich” ones were the ones who poked their finger into the region’s affairs and created the crisis many years ago in the first place?

@JaneM: I never said anything about anyone being adept at solving it. What I said was that rich countries need to sort out a proper relocation program for all these asylum seekers and a program for migrants too. I can see the situation spiraling out of control if it's only rich countries having to take in everyone as you 'll see a backlash that would make this world much bleaker than it is today. If mid-income and developing countries want to be part of the system, they should be made to contribute to its stability the same way as rich countries do, is what I'm saying.

There's no point whatsoever in appropriating blame for "who poked their fingers in first", there's a situation now to deal with, so governments need to deal with it on a global scale, and not just the Europeans who have always been very welcoming.

-2 ( +0 / -2 )

Many of these people... have nice clothes, cellphones etc....

How dare they!

0 ( +5 / -5 )

The removal of Saddam in Iraq and others in Libya, etc. has contributed greatly and we are seeing the results. What to do ...what to do?

3 ( +4 / -1 )

Bet the likes of hungary and Austria that had nothing to do with the trigger for all this (i.e. removing Saddam and Gaddafi) see this as yet another reason to regret being part of the EU. Tragic it clearly is and many countries are douing what they can (including middle Eastern ones) but no amount of "humanitarian relief" can solve this issue.

0 ( +2 / -2 )

Add to that the conflict that is tearing Iraq and Syria apart and people being dispersed everywhere.

1 ( +2 / -1 )

ever heard of the church of england

Can you tell us how the COE "rules" England? I'm genuinely curious.

7 ( +8 / -1 )

I donated over 1000USD I had saved for a Motorcycle.i

Ah! People who donate to charity and then brag about it...! How gracious!

-3 ( +1 / -4 )

It's really bothering me that I can't easily pick a side with this issue. On one side I think we in the west should do all that we can to help these poor people... I can't imagine the horrors they're fleeing from and to turn our backs would be a crime against humanity... but on the other hand I can also recognize that it's unsustainable for any country to take in thousands and thousands of refugees regularly without a serious negative impact on the host country. I imagine if the world pooled it's resources and spread around the responsibility it could work but that kind of cooperation is a fantasy. Honestly I just don't know, and I'm ashamed of it.

3 ( +4 / -1 )

'Deport every single one of them. If we let them keep coming it will be the end of Europe, European cultures and Christianity within 30 years. I don't know why all the leftwing morons don't realise that. VOTE UKIP!'

Calling people morons and then telling them to vote UKIP?

'that's priceless considering most brits are clamoring to go work in Dubai'

Who? Jim Davidson?

1 ( +3 / -2 )

that's priceless considering most brits are clamoring to go work in Dubai. what hypocracy!

The key word here is "work". Not "suckle off the taxpayers' teat" and then call the rest of us a bunch of rooster suckers for not believing in Islam.

2 ( +3 / -1 )

Japan should take in a lot more refugees than the handful it does.

-1 ( +5 / -6 )

Everyone looking at America to do more can stuff it. Japan takes next to no one.

And my god, America has taken in millions and millions and millions of immigrants and refugees, some legal a ton illegal. That is all we do is taken in people. Forget about Mexico, the Dominican, the Bahamas, Cuba, the Chinese, Indians, and everyone else?

You think 800,000 is bad try taking in 11 million.

I'm just wondering why all of the migrants flocking to Europe don't seek asylum in someplace closer? Why not Saudi Arabia, United Arab Emirates, Egypt, Jordan, Qatar, Dubai or even Turkey itself? There is plenty of oil money in the Middle East to take care of them.

Where is Saudi Arabia and all the other oil rich countries whose leaders have 100 Rolls Royce's, 200 wives, gold bathrooms? Jordan, Qatar, Oman all these oil rich countries? They have the means to take all these people in.

Now we see that many of the migrants are destroying their identification cards and adopting new identities. Europe has no idea what they are letting into their countries.

Don't be fooled by the carefully selected photographs of struggling families and crying children.

This is an invasion.

2 ( +5 / -3 )

As for Japan keeping its hands clean of this mess - great idea. Nothing wrong with clean hands.

3 ( +6 / -3 )

camnai, Why Japan? How about China? Russia? Those UN Permanent Member countries but not paying enough contribution. They have lots of space..

2 ( +4 / -2 )

'Don't be fooled by the carefully selected photographs of struggling families and crying children.

This is an invasion.'

This isn't the first time I've heard this on this site. Is there as source telling us the age, family and gender make-up of these people? I honestly haven't come across it and I'd honestly like to see it if it's there. It may help in this debate. Drawing conclusions from 'carefully selected' photos which show fit 20-something men striding along with smartphones or other photos with doe-eyed babies sounds a bit dodgy to me.

If anyone has this source, please post a link.

Thanks in advance.

-3 ( +1 / -4 )

@Savethegaijin

Let me help you make up your mind =). The fact is, many countries actually need more people. For example, the population of Germany is in fact shrinking. They can take in many many refugees and give them a new life. We can easily absorb many many thousands of refugees without ill effect.

As for my opinion on this topic:

Take a few minutes to imagine how life is when you are literally, and justifiably, scared for your life every minute of every day. How would you want other people to treat you if you left that place in search of a better life? If you can honestly say "I wish they would turn me away and force me to wander forever, even though I am an intelligent and smart professional" then please, make a case to not help them. If you think actually, maybe it would be nice to be helped, then find ways to help them. We can easily help them, it does not take much if we do it together, the problem is that these are "Other People's Problems". The majority will not do a thing and just complain. Shameful really.

If you are Christian, or even just a decent person of any religion or belief, I think the words "treat others as you wish them to treat you" apply in all cases.

I myself am an Atheist, I also live abroad (as I suspect many people reading this also do). I did not give up on my own culture, or beliefs. I took that with me. Just as these people will. Just as we ALL will. And the fact is, we will still have our own cultures and beliefs regardless of our neighbors beliefs.

Using words such as "Islamification" is just a way to justify your own bigotry. People are people. Who cares if we believe different things, eat different foods or dress differently. You treating them different because of their cultural beliefs is exactly what can cause extremism and hatred in the shunned. This isn't a religious reaction, it is a human one (albeit obviously misguided and terrible). Extend a hand and maybe help someone.

1 ( +2 / -1 )

If daily or weekly bombs and death had been all around you almost non-stop for four or five years, most would take any chance they could to get away. Keeping your family alive is a pretty strong motivator. Not sure what the solution is but Europe and other countries need to help until things settle down, even if that means 5-10 years or more. One would think that eventually people would hope to return to their own country in peaceful times.

1 ( +1 / -0 )

JeffLee

The coalition bombing of Syria, based on a UN resolution, was intended to protect the civilian population, by hitting ISIL and other bad local people who are slaughtering their own neighbors.. But I agree, the west should have never intervened. The MIddle East would still be a murderous horror show, probably worse than now, but at least it would dispel the outrageous narrative that Mideast hatred and violence is the work of the West.

Are you kidding me? You think this was really to protect civilian population to begin with? The fact is, all the US-led interventionism in the Middle East was never about "freedom and democracy". They opened a can of worms going into Iraq, and now the mess has spread to other parts of the region. It wasn't a "murderous horror show" before the intervention. Now you seem to imply that people of the Mideast are a bunch of wild animals to begin with. Typical. Before they tried to hit ISIL, they supported ISIL through training, equipment, and recruitment. Makes you wonder what the true intentions are/were. The US and the Gulf States should take a huge amount of refugees. Turkey should take in more too. They're largely responsible for this mess and they should be taking them in because they "care about the people", right?

0 ( +2 / -2 )

The world should wipe out the violent thugs and so called governments who are causing refugees to flee. There is no place in the world for a culture that thinks keeping little girls as rape slaves, whipping those girls to death for being raped, slave auctions genocide, burning people alive, murdering everyone not following their religion all of it they justify with holy books, tradition and at the command of so called holy men. This idea of legitimacy that violent animals like that get to exist because the world cringes and says we can't do anything, it's their country, it is all cowardice. These people are fleeing animals and the world is justified to put animals like that down. Kill off the islamo psycho leaders, militias and warlords, the refugee problem disappears.

0 ( +2 / -2 )

How to fix the problem?

End the civil war in Syria.

3 ( +3 / -0 )

Deport every single one of them. If we let them keep coming it will be the end of Europe, European cultures and Christianity within 30 years.

This is exactly what's going to happen. France, Sweden, Amsterdam, and other European countries as well as the U.K. are already experiencing societal problems as a result of their loose immigration policies of letting Muslims into their nations. Have these countries that are taking these refugees (not migrants) not learned any lessons from their neighboring countries?

The pressure should be on these rich, Arab states to help out. Ironically, or should I say not surprisingly, it's Saudi Arabia that is funding Wahhabism, a fundamentalist form of Islam that breeds extremism, and sends imams to preach it in mosques in Europe. Incidentally, these same mosques that are cropping up all over Europe are also built and financed by Saudi money. Surprise. One can pretty much figure out what the endgame is here.

Wake up, Europe, before it's too late.

1 ( +2 / -1 )

Today, we can only welcome them. It's a short term thing, a no brainer, they are all homeless without food nor shelters, crowds in need, just like after any disaster. The questions are about future actions. That's not so much about the refugees but the others. Half of Syria fled, ok, but the biggest issue is the other half. That will become a new hell like North-Korea (and not so long ago. Vietnam, Myanmar...) ? How many zones like that can the planet bear ?

it's Saudi Arabia that is funding Wahhabism,...Wake up, Europe, before it's too late.

Do what ? You think we can do air strikes on the best buddies of America without getting nuked "à la Hiroshima" over Paris ? The world is not thanking the US, for sure. Their stupid wars, starting in Cold War era (when they transformed mountain goat farmers into Islamic warrior just to p... off USSR) till their partnership with the Gulf countries were the biggest factor of development of these escalating chaos and fights.

The US and the Gulf States should take a huge amount of refugees.

I'd prefer if they started taking their responsibilities and stopped playing the apprentice wizards that created Ben Laden and co.

If we let them keep coming it will be the end of Europe, European cultures and Christianity within 30 years.

So we can gain 30 years. Because if we let them die (at war, in deserts, in the sea...), that means Europe, cultures and Christianity have already ended.

-1 ( +1 / -2 )

Actually, no.

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

That article is regarding gulf states. Let's review your original comment:

why aren't any of the Arab countries not trying to take in many of these refugees?

You weren't talking about the gulf states, you were talking about Arab countries. As a "journalist", I would expect that you would know the difference. Arab countries are taking in more of the refugees than anywhere else. So again, your statement was incorrect.

-1 ( +0 / -1 )

We are witnessing the creation of Europe's newest social underclass. Those sweet little children we see in the news clips will grow up alienated and victims of discrimination. In about 15 years they'll be shooting up magazine offices and throwing grenades at kosher butcher shops.

1 ( +1 / -0 )

coskuriSep. 10, 2015 - 03:07AM JST

It's a short term thing

Oh so you wish. The fact is it's going to take another five to ten years and by then the refugee will have had developed their basis of life in the nation they had taken refuge and will be reluctant to move back knowing all the things they had left behind is not going to be where they had left so they will have to rebuild their basis of life all over again. At this point the refuge nations would start wanting for the refugees move back and the refugees would be fighting back stating they had made their base of living in Europe.

They will also not be willing to change to fit the ways of European life style or culture so permanent miniture Islamic community like China town starts cropping up all over Europe and once that becomes the norm, the new residents will start demanding more Islamic rules to be supported within their refuge nations.

Chinese didn't have any set of unique religious laws they had to follow so development of china town was over looked. Korean town in the US was similar but local communities like Glendale started developing their own statues that had nothing to do with US heritage and/or history which became a political incident between Japan.

2 ( +2 / -0 )

That article is regarding gulf states. Let's review your original comment.

http://www.businessinsider.com/heres-why-rich-arab-gulf-states-wont-welcome-syrian-refugees-2015-9

But if social media are bristling over the fact the rich Arab Gulf states do not offer the same welcome, there seems little likelihood the situation will change. The reason is the Gulf Arab states' aversion to granting refugee status, not just to Syrians but to anybody.

http://www.france24.com/en/20150907-gulf-arab-states-under-fire-not-accepting-syrian-refugees-migrants

"The bottom line is that in terms of resettlement, the Gulf states have not stepped up in accepting refugees," said Geoffrey Mock, the Syria specialist for Amnesty International USA, told USA Today. "They have offered zero resettlement places ... and this is shameful."

http://www.aljazeera.com/indepth/opinion/2015/09/refugee-crisis-gulf-countries-150905085458691.html

You weren't talking about the gulf states, you were talking about Arab countries. As a "journalist", I would expect that you would know the difference. Arab countries are taking in more of the refugees than anywhere else. So again, your statement was incorrect

incorrect? Hardly. Strange, forget about the semantics and euphuisms you know exactly what I was talking about. Has nothing to do with journalism or are you saying journalists are above making mistakes, if you think so, we could be talking about msnbc all day. So there you go. As I said, they're not doing enough. Humanitarian aid is not the only things that they can do.

1 ( +2 / -1 )

Strange, forget about the semantics and euphuisms you know exactly what I was talking about.

Yes, I know exactly what you were talking about, because you wrote it:

why aren't any of the Arab countries not trying to take in many of these refugees?

As I have pointed out, and you refused to acknowledge, this statement is incorrect, as Arab countries are taking in more refugees than anywhere else.

There are no semantics or euphemisms here. You used very clear language and that language was very clearly incorrect.

-2 ( +0 / -2 )

Yes, I know exactly what you were talking about, because you wrote it.

Again, the Arab countries as a whole have not been doing as much as they could.

As I have pointed out, and you refused to acknowledge, this statement is incorrect, as Arab countries are taking in more refugees than anywhere else.

They are not.

!There are no semantics or euphemisms here. You used very clear language and that language was very clearly incorrect.

Actually it wasn't, but you may think whatever you wish.

-2 ( +1 / -3 )

You used very clear language and that language was very clearly incorrect.

Actually it wasn't

I see we need to review once again. Your claim:

why aren't any of the Arab countries not trying to take in many of these refugees?

You questioned why there wasn't even a single Arab country taking in refugees (you do understand the meaning of 'any', correct?). Lebanon and Jordan, both Arab countries, have taken in many refugees.

So you were very clearly incorrect with your premise that no Arab countries are taking in refugees, as some Arab countries are most definitely taking in refugees.

-1 ( +1 / -2 )

You questioned why there wasn't even a single Arab country taking in refugees (you do understand the meaning of 'any', correct?). Lebanon and Jordan, both Arab countries, have taken in many refugees.

But the fact of the matter is, the Arabs aren't doing enough and they could and should do more, bottom line.

So you were very clearly incorrect with your premise that no Arab countries are taking in refugees, as some Arab countries are most definitely taking in refugees.

My main point was not as many.

-1 ( +1 / -2 )

My main point was not as many.

Really? Because here was your comment:

why aren't any of the Arab countries not trying to take in many of these refugees?

I don't see any references to 'not as many'. I see the premise that none of them are taking in refugees. So I have to disagree with the above quote that that was your point. Your point was that no Arab nations were taking in refugees, when clearly some are.

As I have pointed out multiple times, you were wrong in your premise.

-1 ( +2 / -3 )

I don't see any references to 'not as many'. I see the premise that none of them are taking in refugees. So I have to disagree with the above quote that that was your point. Your point was that no Arab nations were taking in refugees, when clearly some are.

Again, not the point, the point is MOST of the Arab nations are not doing enough when they clearly could.

As I have pointed out multiple times, you were wrong in your premise.

I wasn't wrong on the Arabs lack of responsibility for taking in more refugees.

-1 ( +2 / -3 )

Again, not the point, the point is MOST of the Arab nations are not doing enough when they clearly could.

And again, that wasn't the point you made. The point you made was incorrect. You may have intended to make the point above, but you didn't.

I wasn't wrong on the Arabs lack of responsibility for taking in more refugees.

Except that you were, and you are again. There isn't a lack of Arab responsibility, as can be seen by Lebanon and Jordan. There is a lack of responsibility among some Arab nations, but the statement cannot correctly be made as a blanket statement about all Arab nations. Yet you've incorrectly stated it in the first point that I've been pointing out as being incorrect, and you are doing it again in the quote here.

0 ( +3 / -3 )

And again, that wasn't the point you made. The point you made was incorrect. You may have intended to make the point above, but you didn't.

But I did.

Except that you were, and you are again. There isn't a lack of Arab responsibility, as can be seen by Lebanon and Jordan.

But they could do a lot more and haven't.

There is a lack of responsibility among some Arab nations, but the statement cannot correctly be made as a blanket statement about all Arab nations.

I think it can and has been established by the entire Western media, now if you want to say, they are all wrong, be my guest, but it's not a coincidence.

Yet you've incorrectly stated it in the first point that I've been pointing out as being incorrect, and you are doing it again in the quote here.

You think so? Sorry, I think you're wrong.

-2 ( +1 / -3 )

You think so? Sorry, I think you're wrong.

I guess we have to review once again:

Your claim:

why aren't any of the Arab countries not trying to take in many of these refugees?

You questioned why there wasn't even a single Arab country taking in refugees (you do understand the meaning of 'any', correct?). Lebanon and Jordan, both Arab countries, have taken in many refugees.

As you can see, you were wrong, not me.

0 ( +3 / -3 )

bass4funk and Strangerland, please do not address each other any further on this thread. You are just going around in circles.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Fair enough, but I am more outraged that countries like Qatar and Bahrain have more than enough resources and they literally haven't taken in a single refugee. I find it outrageous that many of these oil rich nations just sit on their rear ends and would allow the slaughter and persecution of these people! It's just mind blowing!

1 ( +3 / -2 )

It's kind of difficult for the refugees to cross the dessert ala Lawrence of Arabia style to reach the Persian gulf.

0 ( +1 / -1 )

There was a great idea way back when called indentured servitude. It got a bad name because of the selfishness and greed of some people.

But it could bridge a lot of gaps, and find these people shelter and food. It could save a lot of lives.

Who among us could not use a cheap nanny and grounds keeper? Who among them would not be grateful to do those things to escape famine and death?

-1 ( +1 / -2 )

how about we bomb the neighbouring Arab and Turkish and Kurdish states until they agree to take more refugees?

0 ( +0 / -0 )

'This is exactly what's going to happen. France, Sweden, Amsterdam, and other European countries'

Your knowledge of Europe needs a bit of work.

0 ( +2 / -2 )

@ThePBotS

You are right on.

-1 ( +0 / -1 )

'Fair enough, but I am more outraged that countries like Qatar and Bahrain have more than enough resources and they literally haven't taken in a single refugee. I find it outrageous that many of these oil rich nations just sit on their rear ends and would allow the slaughter and persecution of these people! It's just mind blowing!'

I fully agree. I'm sure as a citizen of the US, you'd be prepared to accept people on the receiving end of slaughter and persecution. After all, the actions of the US and its allies are partly to blame for the utter mayhem in this part of the world.

1 ( +2 / -1 )

I fully agree. I'm sure as a citizen of the US, you'd be prepared to accept people on the receiving end of slaughter and persecution. After all, the actions of the US and its allies are partly to blame for the utter mayhem in this part of the world.

Or...why not go back further to the Sykes Picot agreement that was the real underlining reason for all the Chaos that the Brits and the French caused.

-1 ( +2 / -3 )

basfunk

countries like Qatar and Bahrain have more than enough resources and they literally haven't taken in a single refugee.

Not Bahrain. It's not rich and is a mess with a majority population one sect and the ruling an (the) other. It's a puppet state of Saudi. If you include Saudi, the UAE and Kuwait along with Qatar as nations that should take in refugees, I agree with you.

1 ( +1 / -0 )

'Or...why not go back further to the Sykes Picot agreement that was the real underlining reason for all the Chaos that the Brits and the French caused.'

The Brits and the French are accepting these people.

You didn't answer my question. I'll try again. Seeing as the US and its allies are partly responsible for the current chaos, do you think the US should take in some of those in danger of persecution or even slaughter?

-1 ( +0 / -1 )

Well it seems my idea of indentured servitude did not go over well. But has anyone offered a solution besides deport the lot? You cannot just take thousands of displaced people into your country without consequences you know. If they have no homes and no jobs they will turn to criminal behavior to obtain cash, building materials and food and become homeless people living on our sidewalks and parks.

I would happily take in a small family if they earn their keep for a few years doing things around the house. As I am not the type of person to renege on a deal or attempt to become a slave master, I don't see the problem with that. It seems to me to be a much higher form of charity than sending a few bucks to UNICEF. These people really do need help, not just an open border.

0 ( +1 / -1 )

You didn't answer my question. I'll try again. Seeing as the US and its allies are partly responsible for the current chaos, do you think the US should take in some of those in danger of persecution or even slaughter?

Yes, but very carefully and methodically with certain conditions.

0 ( +2 / -2 )

How should the international community deal with the migrant situation that is currently overwhelming Hungary, Austria and Germany?

Idiot John Kerry & Obama admin have suggested taking in 10,000 refugees. Oh great.

Hope congress can stop this or reduce that burdensome figure.

Meanwhile those islamic refugees shout out 4-letter profanities and "Allahu Akbar" as they march to either of their western country destinations.

The # 10,000 makes me sick to my stomach.

-2 ( +1 / -3 )

I see some religious concerns listed in the comments. A quick Bing search tells me that 10% of Syria is Christian, first off -- and my impression is that it's a Christian's imperative to extend warmth and hospitality to those in need. Jesus fed the five thousand, right?

It's not like we're on different teams. We are the human race. We love our families. We want the ability to live reasonably safe, productive, fulfilling lives. When we try drawing lines in the sand to divide people, we are making ourselves feel unsafe (by turning other people into villains) and we are wasting productivity that we could spend on fruitful, fulfilling pursuits that benefit everyone.

-2 ( +1 / -3 )

@bass4funk

Or...why not go back further to the Sykes Picot agreement that was the real underlining reason for all the Chaos that the Brits and the French caused.

The French and British plans to carve up the Ottoman empire's lands before WW1 ended showed their colonial mentality, their cynical desire to add to their own empires. So many of the global problems today can be traced back to Ottoman, British, French, Russian, Austrian-Hungarian etal colonialism. Those powers invaded and occupied lands throughout the Middle East North African regions (plus other places), taking resources and killing off opposition.

Then the Germans and Austrians (later joined by the Ottomans) started the military action which brought WW1, which led to WW2, pretty much ending colonialism but leaving behind the messes we're seeing now.

WW2 ended 70 years ago. The Allies drew up borders for states in MENA without regard for ethnic composition (just like the colonial powers had done).

The question many are asking is should the colonial powers that drew up the borders and got richer off the MENA states be obligated to take in refugees (and migrants) because of their invasion of these states. Posters say the refugees won't fit in, they'll alter the culture. But didn't the colonial powers alter cultures they invaded and occupied?

On another note, I definitely think the US should methodically and carefully take in refugees. The US invasion of Iraq was a catalyst to the mess.

-3 ( +0 / -3 )

"The question many are asking is should the colonial powers that drew up the borders"

Turkey, yes. Europe no.

The British and French went into the region around 1915 because the Ottoman empire was collapsing, and the great Muslim empire was reacting by instigating three (three!) genocides against infidels: Armenians, Assyrians and Greeks.

No, the Europeans didn't take any colonies despite the common belief by the PC apologists. Instead they worked with the most reasonable and rational local leaders like King Faisal to try to get a semblance of administration, so the Ottoman collapse wouldnt be an even more horrific orgy.

It didnt go perfectly as planned, but nothing in the hate-filled region ever does. Religion and tribalism are the causes of Middle Eastern misery. The West cant do anything about that, and after a century should realize that by now.

-1 ( +1 / -2 )

@jefflee

The British and French went into the region around 1915 because the Ottoman empire was collapsing, and the great Muslim empire was reacting by instigating three (three!) genocides against infidels: Armenians, Assyrians and Greeks.

Assyrians? Your sense of history differs from mine. Modus vivendi Is this OK moderator?

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Your knowledge of Europe needs a bit of work.

Your knowledge of making a witty response needs more than a bit of work.

In other news, more surprises lay in the future for European countries accepting these refugees with open arms.

http://www.express.co.uk/news/world/555434/Islamic-State-ISIS-Smuggler-THOUSANDS-Extremists-into-Europe-Refugees

-1 ( +1 / -2 )

Could be more easier start a WW3 with a lot allies and end once at all this religious groups leaders and terrorize the world if you're not with them your against them. What kind of religion is this? This reminded me about Adolfo Hitler if you wasn't aria race you need to be exterminated. Even ISIS is conquer all Middle East and more they should exterminate them and bring peace in Middle East like they did in Europe in WW2, millions will die but the future of humanity will be better. I'm advocate of peaceful development talk but sometimes war is justified? In this case it's.

1 ( +1 / -0 )

I find it more than coincidental that there should be so many conflicts in or near oil producing states....

0 ( +0 / -0 )

According to the U.N. refugee agency, the vast majority of those fleeing are Muslim, seventy-two percent are men, only 13% women and 15% children. Not all are fleeing war. Some are fleeing poverty.

72% Muslim men? What could possibly go wrong?

0 ( +1 / -1 )

makes the world a better place to be so people do not need to leave their countries.

1 ( +1 / -0 )

Login to leave a comment

Facebook users

Use your Facebook account to login or register with JapanToday. By doing so, you will also receive an email inviting you to receive our news alerts.

Facebook Connect

Login with your JapanToday account

User registration

Articles, Offers & Useful Resources

A mix of what's trending on our other sites