Migration crisis in europe due to isis
rohit
Maharrashtra Veteran
Millions of refuge from Sirya, Arab ,Iraq and other countries are entering in Europe through Hungary , Greece. Germany chanceller angella markel ready to welcome 8 lakh refugy but British mockering saying they will not allow swarm in thier countrey. I was thinking same that why would countries allow millions of migrants in their country which would burden their economy budget and social conflict may arise. In addition if muslim migrants may challenge demography of Europe which is already becoming minority in own native land. Yesteeday i read news about this. One kid died at cost of sea and hungerian officer looking that sorrowful moment. In second picrure that officer carried him in hands. That kids parents were Syrian who ran away in boat may be they missed him.
Moment i realised that human have no religion since start then why extrimist making this chaos of cruelity. All this muslim migrants are entering Europian but no muslim countries helping them. Turkey do not allow them to have employment and just offer temporarily shelter.
Soudi arabia rant about muslim brorherhood but do not allow people of different ethnicity to settle in their kingdom including muslims.
Comments
It is really chaos in the middle east, Saddam was not a good man, but he could keep sunni and shia muslims in check...Now we have ISIS which is really extreme, worser then ever before, thanks to US policy in the middle east.
The european union will aslo collaps, due to the high debt in every country, and at the same time all the young educated people dont have any jobs to go to, and all these imigrants floating in, it will be really interesting to see what will happen in Europe in near future.
Italy actually cutted patrol of water and sea rescue from their budget to "save money", now we can see the effect.
http://www.theguardian.com/world/2014/oct/31/italy-sea-mission-thousands-risk
Trying to maintain secure borders is so outdated. The information passes through the internet. The people gather at the fences and storm the gates. Boats swarm the European beaches like it is D-Day. Globalization switches to a higher gear.
This migration has become an invasion. My heart aches for all.
I imagine a world without imaginary borders drawn on a map. We are all people with the same desires and needs. The freedoms of supporting a family should be available to all, not just certain people. I wish humanity could open their hearts and homes rather than build more walls. People seeking better for themselves and their children deserve better. Why do we work so hard to protect what we have? For what? To deny the same to others? What is humanity if we protect ourselves at the cost of so many others?
the boy who died and was found on the beach, his parents and his sibling died as well. Seeking only safety...the thing so many of us take so much for granted. My heart breaks for our lack of human-ness.
Imagine all the people sharing all the world.
We all know this tune, but do we think about the words?
An ideology not really lived by, by their author.
I don't actually like this song because it's hypocritical.....
Are you familiar with the term ad hominem? It's a fundamental fallacy in logical discourse (or sometimes a deliberate disingenuity in debate). Don't confuse the message with the messenger. ML King was a wife beater. Einstein had affairs. Are the concepts of racial equality or relativity diminished? Would Lennon have restricted refugee migration even if it killed them?
10,000 people in Iceland have offered to take Syrian refugees into their homes. Just heard it on the news.
It is heart warming to see people open their homes and resources to truly help. There are 4 million refugees who have already left, and another 12 million still in Syria who still need vast amounts of assistance. Our main election topic in the US right now is how to tighten our borders so we can help fewer people. Sigh. We cause or contribute to a lot of the problems,including our own immigration challenges. We seem to cause more problems than we help solve. It's hard to have such resources at easy disposal and have no control over how they are used. I wonder what our budget would look like if we could allocate our taxes to where we'd like to see them used.
Aren't refugees a second-order problem? What would it cost to remove the conditions in Syria that create refugees in the first place? If it were our money to spend and our choice to make, wouldn't our best buy also be the fastest and most humane solution?
yes, they are "symptomatic" of another problem that needs to be solved. Why are the western powers not doing anything about Al-Asaad? With anything in life, sometimes you need to deal with the symptoms before you can then tackle the root cause. But it must always be dealt with and no one seems to be addressing that
Yes, as a Mod, I'm very familiar with the term 'ad hominem'.
It was just a comment. I just don't like the guy very much. My opinion. It matters little, so just take it as you want.
Imagine there's no countries
It isn't hard to do
Nothing to kill or die for
And no religion too
... no newbuddhist ... yikes ... were would we go for great lyrics, teachings and songs ...
I feel the lyrics are insightful and right on ... man ...
Do we need a quick burst of 'we shall overcome'?
Maybe it will come again (or the first time for many of us). This was the situation in one of the Nordic countries, that had to move to a huge reduction in defense. Forget which country?
I really think it's time for a world wide government.
The Nordic Four average around 1.5% of GDP. Sweden is lowest at 1.2% but is gearing up for a sharp increase due to anticipation of worsening Russian aggression. Two of the four are NATO members, but all four agreed last winter on mutual defensive cooperation against Russia.
If you expand to include Iceland, their military expenditure is about 0.1% of GDP.
The expanding US economy has reduced the percentage spent on the military as a % of GDP, now down to around 3.5%.
http://data.worldbank.org/indicato/MS.MIL.XPND.GD.ZS
I worry that the cultural impacts in various countries would be lost with a world government. How would places like Bhutan have any sort of input (which we could probably use) when you have the big countries who would push their way into having the most control? How to decide on a world government? It intrigues me, but I don't know how to make it work. I am not a political strategist by any stretch! Some countries use religion as a basis for their government, others claim they don't but still do to an extent. How to make laws that account for so many cultural differences around the world and expect anyone to agree on it? Government even on a small, local basis can't even agree on what to do for their varying populations. It just seems like it would be US government on a global scale because of the same reasons-trying to bring together so many different cultures under one umbrella and meet all their needs.
I think our behavior and everyday experience is much more a result of our culture than our government and laws. So our laws need to give us only what our culture does not.
Since cultures vary so vastly, it would be monumentally unwieldy and probably impossible to unify them under a common government. Some existing governments seem too big for the cultural diversity they span.
I think that would depend on how we remove the conditions. One innocent killed by "friendly fire" can create a whole new breed of militants thirsting for blood and vengeance.
If it were strictly my money and my choice, I would get the decent people out of the region and trap the rest in. Then cut them off until they starve.
Gene Roddenbury captured what the future will be like if we start working together instead of having all these little countries vying for power.
I think eventually it will work the same as it does with the USA and Canada where the borders reflect a preference of living only and I highly doubt a place like Bhutan would even be affected much.
We pretend we are all so different but we all fly flags and it's really all the same currency or it wouldn't translate.
I would imagine some places would opt out and these spots could be preserved as long as they don't start trying to kill anyone.
I really think nationalism pitted against itself is the ultimate example of stupidity and self sabotage.
Not only nationalism, but everything for the masses including religions.
Buddhism.
Today on a Buddhist forum I read this:
"I would get the decent people out of the region and trap the rest in. Then cut them off until they starve."
I'm not making that up; I really did read it on a Buddhist forum.
To borrow a hypothetical time-traveling introduction from another recent thread, "ourself, meet Adolf. I'm sure you two have lots of interesting things to talk about."
Migration crisis in europe due to isis
I have a perfectly simple Solution...which involves the individual that makes up the whole...
Let's all start to be nice to each other (I told you it was simple
) and do what we can NOW this moment to help each other, and not waste brain cells by conjuring up illusions of what ifs ie, trying to make known the unknown...
My daughter (along with most of the world) found the image of the young dead Syrian boy "Aylan" quite disturbing, she was quite upset....
She's at uni studying and volunteers in her free time helping refugees/asylum seekers/migrants settle into NZ, ie, English language Partners and another voluntary organisation..She's also been lobbying the NZ government (along with many other Kiwis) to increase the quota on refugees allowed into NZ....
I told her that the works she's doing ie, working with families, is in a sense helping all refugees (if one cares to look at the refugee situation holistically )
If we all stuck to the above plan, ie, "Love the "one" you're with NOW" there would be no unknown if you get my drift...
And there's no time like the "PRESENT"
I did say it was simple....because "I" (who represents part of the whole) like to keep things simple....
Peace comes from within (and world peace starts with the individual).... the more we help each other the more peaceful we all become....
Metta is just a heart beat/click away "
"
That was pretty funny, thanks.
I maybe should have clarified that I would mean to starve them of attention along with any and all trade, not execute them.
Education and compassion would serve as better allies than more violence in the long run.
Like it or hate it, we are a global community.
It's about time we started acting like it.
I'm fully on board with a global community. I just don't know how it would work on a political scale. It would require the leaders of that area to be in a place emotionally and spirtually that most of them are not. Judging by the support for Trump in the US, half of Americans aren't ready, either. Looking at the conflict in a lot of the major population centers in the world, it seems to be the same. I don't see, any time soon, China's government coming to a place where they agree their citizens have particular rights.
For change to happen on a global level, it needs to reach a mass effect of people willing to push the tumors aside. I don't think we are there yet, and I don't know how to make it happen faster. I am all for it. But when you bring it up and get a blank stare by SO many others, I don't know how to get them on board. And how to change such a conflicted political spectrum.
But, people are hungry for change on both sides, with many going outside a typical party response to politics just in the US. (I am not assuming the US is the most important in the global community, it is just the perspective I see things from right now). People seem to realize they want something different. But, the sides are more polarized than ever in the differences of what they want.
It's the same here in Canada and you can really see it in this issue.
You're right but I still say it's the wisest option. When I talk the idea to most people they start talking about dictatorship and NWO, lmao.
The wisest option would be an anarchist model, which is an opposite for the centralised power. But people are too lazy for it.
I hate to say it but anarchy would only lead to more "might is right".
I picture global anarchy and I see Mad Max. I picture global and democratic socialism and I see Star Trek.
Immortan Joe is definetely not an anarchist! Anarchism is the best model in such a small scale where people are in the same level of compassion. And, unfortunately, the Nordic democratic socialism has been ruined a long time ago.
I like the idea of layers. Each country or region has a government suitable to its culture. The government runs the country in accordance with its needs. There can be layers under the national government (regions, states). We have this now but it can be improved. Countries can be as big or small as culturally appropriate.
Over the top of this is an oversight layer. The UN is a very small step toward this. The "World Council" allows governments to run their countries, with a few rules:
1. Each government must be democratically elected, and no resident may be excluded from voting for any reason.
2. The Council intervenes if a government fails in human rights, finances, other welfare issues, etc.
3. countries may have police forces, and must commit participation in the "World Guard," which is the only permissible military.
4. Borders can be redistricted, but with restrictions (including a birthrate restriction).
Such a system would intervene and thereby prevent the wholesale slaughter in Syria. It would also have prevented the Russian annexation of Crimea, the genocide in Rwanda, the English invasion of Iceland (not to mention the rest of that war), and the Colonists' conquest of North America. Free and fair elections would mean Putin would be in power, as would Mohammed Morsi, Yingluck Shinawatra, and Ang Sun Su Chi (sorry, not checking these for spelling).
Many people on the planet might support such a system, but few existing governments would.
ourself: you should know that an anarchist society is extremely well organised. So extremely, that it can't work in a larger scale.
I always figured an anarchist organization would be an oxy-moron.
If it can't work on a larger scale it is of no use for a global community.
It could work in a society of one but we depend on each other.
I am having some difficulty aligning your statement with this:
How do any of the definitions and synonyms, tally up with your comment that,
And how in and of itself, does your comment further link with the second part of your assessment, namely -
...?
I think people are confusing the brand of socialism that Kropotkin called Anarchism with chaos.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anarchist_communism
Re. the migration out of northern Africa and the Middle East I always liked the observation made by a Somali intelligence officer who said when asked about the piracy occurring off his coast, "If you do not share your wealth with us, we will share our poverty with you."
I don't think the suggestion relates to any grand economic or political theory (Marx and others can be set aside) but rather to the imperative anyone might feel towards his children and family: Never mind chit-chat infused with sweeping generalizations ... let's talk about water and bread and how to protect my children.
And when it comes to the roots of the so-called Islamic State, it is hard not to consider the neo-conservative flag-waving of the United States and others. If I were asked who created Al Qaida and Islamic State, I think Dick Cheney, Karl Rove and similar exceptionalists might be forced to bear a large part of the responsibility. Call it the Downton Abbey Effect.
If you've studied history--not the memorize a few names and dates nonsense, but the big sweep of nations and cultures type of history--you will know the refugee crisis and invading brutal militias in third world countries is completely normal. It's the history of humanity, business as usual.
It doesn't matter what brand of government you subscribe to, by the way. When conditions deteriorate to the point where people are dying and the government is no longer able to function, people vote with their feet. In Syria, the problems can mostly be traced to a long term brutal drought that forced people into the cities, where still they starved and a brutal dictatorship lost control. Warlord driven militias like ISIS are taking advantage of this. Knowing this doesn't help. You can't bring back the rains that are gone forever due to climate change. You can't rebuild cities where two brutal groups are engaged in a destructive civil war. You either let the fleeing families into your homes or you force them back to die in the carnage.
We're so good at killing each other. We've had a hundred thousand years of practice to get good at it.
Yes, you had once again really big problems in understanding. Anarchism is based on the fact that everyone takes part in looking after their community. Everyone, equally. Everyone is equal, no leaders, no parasites. That works only in a relatively small group of people with the same values. Educate yourself.
Highly organised community = people with the same aims take part, talk, plan, and work especially in their special fields. No bullies and freeloaders. That's also the best way to get the best results in a university unit.
@polja we experimented with communes (what you are describing) here in the USA during the 60s and 70s. Both the hippy "free love with drugs" type and the "We do this for the Enlightened Master" type. Dismal failures, every one. If nobody was in charge, no vital work got done because everyone was too busy doing their own thing to takeout the trash and people wandered off when they got tired of being hungry and the drugs disappeared. If the work for the Master type, eventually the inner circle started treating everyone else as peasants that belonged to them and the Master.
Someone has to enforce the rules. And someone has to decide what those rules are. And some method has to be used to decide who does what in a society. That's always been dancing on the edge of a cliff when it comes to the stability of a society.
I am a first generation American. Last couple of summers visited Northern Europe and got envious of what they have: no visible poverty, great public transportation, clean and generally just more humane all around. Thinking about this latest situation, though, I can't see this ending very well for these quaint countries unless mass migration abates.
Suddenly I am feeling grateful for being on the other side of the Atlantic ocean, whatever issues we may have here. Suddenly our freeways and malls that I usually see as oppressive monstrosities feel so safe and comforting in their famiarity.
It is astonishing how flaky the mind is, grasping at the first shiny thing that comes its way. It is mindblowing how objects around me have little inherent qualities, except those my mind colors them with...I have so much work to do to learn to be grounded in what is rather than being lost in ephemeral musings of what could have been.
Then whatever you are describing is not anarchy, because it is not I who misunderstands the classical dictionary-defined term.
Your definition seems to be at great odds with the literal meaning....
Don't tell me to educate myself.
After all, English is my first language.
It isn't yours.
It seems to be the rule that where everything-is-for-everybody, someone invariably gets screwed.
Sadly they were not considered refugees by the UNHCR as they had found safe haven in Turkey already. The father survived and the revealed the reason they were on the way to Europe was because he and an uncle wanted dental work in Germany. It makes it no less tragic, as I think anyone who feels putting their child at risk of death on the sea rather than stay where they are would not do so at the drop of a hat.
Australia are announcing how many we will take permanently later on today. As was pointed out, and I think it's important to note, Germany will be processing the 800,000 they have welcomed, not temporarily or permanently resettling them. They will only be taking 20,000. Austria have closed their borders, reneging on their promise over the weekend. Australian government have stated that they will permanently take more refugees focusing on persecuted minorites, women, children and families. It's a dire situation and hopefully a good solution can be discovered.
_ /\ _
Thank you for that information @dhammachick.
The US is taking in...oh, wait, we aren't even considering it at this point.
A city I used to live in took in 350 refugees from Africa I think (not 100% sure) in the past year or so and the citizens in town are passing around a petition to stop them from taking in more, effectively saying "I recognize these people might die if we don't take them in, and I'm ok with that" because they don't want their money going to help anyone but themselves. Bravo. The kicker is most of them are Christians who want to put a stop to a Christian social service agency from helping others. Good job! Jesus would be proud.
Karasti, that is completely disgusting and completely believable, sadly.
What a world.
Ha!
We already have three layers of government here.....please don't add another!
So much so, that their bodies were transported back to their homeland for burial.... Safe or unsafe...? What am I missing here? I take it they were buried in Turkey...?
The longer we keep things as they are the longer we stifle our own growth.
We do need different layers. It's what makes state and provincial laws be able to change depending on preference but keeps a standard across the board.
If we want to be able to decide as a global community that things like this are no longer acceptable and be able to enforce it as a global community then we need to be democratic about it.
That means a global layer that includes every voice.
We may not be quite ready but that's just growing pains.
We have to grow up as a species eventually.
I'm just quoting the news source. They were buried with family though. It showed the funeral with aunts and uncles surrounding the family. They were in Turkey for three years though so I honestly don't know. It was shown on Al-Jazeera.
_ /\ _
The literal meaning is based on Greek, not in English, although it's Yours first language. And the literal meaning is about something like "without an ruler". As you should know, the best way to co-operate in a group of people is not a hierarchic one. There are always plenty of d*ckheads aroud you
, so the smoothest, nicest way to live in a community is of people who respect and know you well enough. Can't be a large amount of human beings, I think so.
It may well be Greek in origin, but that's irrelevant, because we're not speaking Greek, we're using English, and you have the English definition confused.
Well, if you're talking about newbuddhist, it is not a democracy, there IS a hierarchy, there is a ruler, and there are rules.
We expect respect in this community as a matter of course, not because of how the place is run.
I think we should draw this discussion to a close as it's going off topic.
Thanks for your comments.
Probably time.