European take on the Syrian crisis?

[Maturin]

Syria has never been an oil powerhouse and most certainly, in the last ten years or so, they have become more and more an oil importer than an oil exporter.

In any case, saying we bear responsibility for their civil was is akin to saying current-day Americans owe reparations to descendants of slaves.  Nothing but a ridiculous notion.

...

I'll agree that the US, to a certain extent bears responsibility for the current conditions in Iraq, though I wouldn't put it all on Bush and Blair.  Obama certainly screwed things up due to his inaction, the EU...including the UK...abandoned Iraq early on and Iraq, themselves, let their own people down.

But all that really has little to do with the Syrian people fleeing their homes.  That is due more to Syria's own civil war.  You know...Syrians fighting Syrians.  That civil war is an outcome of the so-called "Arab Spring".  Neither the US nor the EU created that.

I didn't say that Syria had oil that America and it's supporters were after. Iraq had the oil. Neither did I say that the West was responsible for the Arab Spring. That Iraqi borne ISIS have capitalised on that civil war and now control vast swaths of Syria is not being debated though? The people who profited from the slave trade and suffered under it are all long dead now. I'm confused why you're drawing that analogy to living refugees. We bear responsibility because we voted for the leaders that lied to us in order to pursue war for profit, how and why did you jump back 200 years to the slave trade?

Syrian refugees have been fleeing ever since the civil war began, however, again the information is there if you care to find it, it has become a torrent of people in the last year because of ISIS. Nor did I mention anything about us bearing the responsibility for the Arab Spring. Not sure where you read that from in my text. This is a forum, not a history lesson, the history of the Middle East is a few short google clicks away. If you want to go through Ozi's post from about a month ago, he summarised it quite well. I won't spend time repeating it. Suffice it to say that all current issues can be traced back to imperial Europe and nascent imperial US policy.

Whoa, there...before you make a fool of yourself, you should be aware that ISIS have yet to "triumph" anywhere.

Woah there before you make this into a personal slanging match of the type that I think everyone is tired of by now.  Triumph in this context is an ironic turn of phrase, simple as that.

LOL!!

I'll admit I'm not an expert on the Geneva Conventions, as you imply that you are, but your contention that they can...or should be able to...take advantage of their "refugee status" forever until they find some country in which they can make the biggest buck...or get the most social benefits...is ludicrous.

I have not implied anything, I have merely stated fact. Whether or not I am an expert on the Geneva Convention does not change its rules that countries have signed up to follow.  As I wrote earlier, refugee status does not grant people citizenship status.  They will find it as impossible to get jobs as they would in Turkey. However, their standard of living will be more than the basic tented accommodation that they could look forward to in that country - until the situation in their countries is reviewd and they are returned. It is rather ludicrous that you are making false assumptions on what I've written in an effort to discredit the Geneva Convention - through a debate with me on Camcaps!

If you are worried about the next world war, do something about it...before it happens...instead of crying about what your choices will be after it happens.

I do what I can actually.  I learned a while ago, on here, not to give out too much personal information about what I do or who I am as the people I generally find myself arguing with like to take the smallest piece of information and use it to turn an original debate into a schoolyard slanging match to score childish points - destroying what could have been an interesting, adult, argument. So forgive me if I don't illustrate the things that I am doing about it (which I'll be the first to admit are insignificant compared to the scale of the problem but at least I'm trying).  The OP wasn't about me - notice that I'm not asking you to tell me what you personally are doing about it.

But don't worry too much.  You can be sure that the US will come and help you...we always have.  Even when you take us for granted.

In World War III, I rather think the US will be one of the main actors from the get go, there's that thing called NATO you see. I would hardly say that the British commitment to NATO by ensuring that it continues to keep it's defence spending at the required 2% is taking things for granted, when other NATO countries are spending 1%, maybe less. A quick google confirms what I thought, that for an island of only 70 million people the UK is has the fifth highest defence budget. But, again, not sure why you chose to get into that here, or the ridiculous notion that people in Europe take the US for granted - feel free to start another thread on it though if it's something that's bugging you.

edit:  I just read an article that shows that the leadership in the EU is now realizing just what they are getting into...especially since the bulk of these "refugees" are not refugees at all.  They are also deciding that they just cannot afford to absorb the hundreds of thousands swarming in.

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-3240010/Number-refugees-arriving-Europe-soars-85-year-just-one-five-war-torn-Syria.html

This is the Daily Mail mate. Whilst it explains a lot to me about where you're coming from, if you believe the trash they post, I need to inform you that the paper has long been considered an absolute joke.

[JoJoGunne]

I didn't say that Syria had oil that America and it's supporters were after. Iraq had the oil. Neither did I say that the West was responsible for the Arab Spring. That Iraqi borne ISIS have capitalised on that civil war and now control vast swaths of Syria is not being debated though?

shrug...

You are the one who places blame for events in Syria on things that Europeans and Americans did decades ago.  Don't get upset and defensive when I point out what the real causes of Syria's problems...such as their own civil war.

The people who profited from the slave trade and suffered under it are all long dead now. I'm confused why you're drawing that analogy to living refugees. We bear responsibility because we voted for the leaders that lied to us in order to pursue war for profit, how and why did you jump back 200 years to the slave trade?

You are the one who place the blame for Syria's situation on people who are dead...the Austro-Hungarian Empire.  That's why I presented my slave reparation analogy.

btw, I'm beginning to think you are a conspiracy nut when you start talking about "war for profit".

Syrian refugees have been fleeing ever since the civil war began, however, again the information is there if you care to find it, it has become a torrent of people in the last year because of ISIS.  Nor did I mention anything about us bearing the responsibility for the Arab Spring. Not sure where you read that from in my text. This is a forum, not a history lesson, the history of the Middle East is a few short google clicks away. If you want to go through Ozi's post from about a month ago, he summarised it quite well. I won't spend time repeating it. Suffice it to say that all current issues can be traced back to imperial Europe and nascent imperial US policy.

Again, you were the one who placed the blame for Syria's situation on all kinds of things...but didn't see fit to mention the primary cause:  The Arab Spring.  And I said nothing about us bearing responsibility for the Arab Spring.  Your strawman is irrelevant.

In regard to Ozi's post from a month ago, I see no reason for you to bring it up...especially if you aren't going to refer to it.  If it's important to you, link it.  If it's not important to you, then don't bother to mention it.  In any case, whatever Ozi said in his post is his words and opinions.  I'm not concerned with it.

Woah there before you make this into a personal slanging match of the type that I think everyone is tired of by now.  Triumph in this context is an ironic turn of phrase, simple as that.

LOL!!

Okay...fair enough.  You should know that "irony" doesn't come through well in text.  If you meant "triumphs" as an ironic turn of phrase, you probably should have done something to make that clear.  Quotes would have helped.

I have not implied anything, I have merely stated fact. Whether or not I am an expert on the Geneva Convention does not change its rules that countries have signed up to follow.  As I wrote earlier, refugee status does not grant people citizenship status.  They will find it as impossible to get jobs as they would in Turkey. However, their standard of living will be more than the basic tented accommodation that they could look forward to in that country - until the situation in their countries is reviewd and they are returned. It is rather ludicrous that you are making false assumptions on what I've written in an effort to discredit the Geneva Convention - through a debate with me on Camcaps!

shrug...

You are the one citing Geneva Convention rules that state that refugees can continue to use that status to move from country to country for reasons other than what caused them to become refugees in the first place.  I'm not familiar with all the rules, so I have to bow to your expertise...even if I suspect you might be wrong about those rules.

I do what I can actually.  I learned a while ago, on here, not to give out too much personal information about what I do or who I am as the people I generally find myself arguing with like to take the smallest piece of information and use it to turn an original debate into a schoolyard slanging match to score childish points - destroying what could have been an interesting, adult, argument. So forgive me if I don't illustrate the things that I am doing about it (which I'll be the first to admit are insignificant compared to the scale of the problem but at least I'm trying).  The OP wasn't about me - notice that I'm not asking you to tell me what you personally are doing about it.

Well, you are to be commended for whatever efforts you make and, believe me, I don't really care to know what you are doing.  I would suggest, though, that you also take a very careful look at the possible results of your EU taking in hundreds of thousands of refugees.

In World War III, I rather think the US will be one of the main actors from the get go, there's that thing called NATO you see. I would hardly say that the British commitment to NATO by ensuring that it continues to keep it's defence spending at the required 2% is taking things for granted, when other NATO countries are spending 1%, maybe less. A quick google confirms what I thought, that for an island of only 70 million people the UK is has the fifth highest defence budget. But, again, not sure why you chose to get into that here, or the ridiculous notion that people in Europe take the US for granted - feel free to start another thread on it though if it's something that's bugging you.

Once again...you are the one who brought up WWIII...not me.  It's not something that's bugging me.  Maybe it's something YOU might be more inclined to start a thread about, eh?

This is the Daily Mail mate. Whilst it explains a lot to me about where you're coming from, if you believe the trash they post, I need to inform you that the paper has long been considered an absolute joke.

Oh...here we go:  When you don't want to...or, more likely can't...address the facts, quotes and data, it's always best to bad-mouth the messenger...in this case, the Daily Mail.

Really...that's a more disingenuous tactic than raising strawmen.

[Maturin]

It takes ages to write a reply using quotes so I won't bother doing it from now on unless the reply warrants it. The only thing that really stands out as worthy of reply there is WWIII. I mentioned that to show that we all have the potential to become refugees, and who will look after us if we have set such an uncompassionate example with current events. You turned that into some comment about America to the rescue, not relevant. My point was the old adage of doing unto others as you expect others to do unto you.

Ah one more actually, not sure why I have to restate this again but here goes - ISIS are responsible for the massive surge in refugees that Europe is struggling to cope with. The situation that has led to ISIS can be traced back through the trail I've mentioned. Lots of countries in the Arab Spring suffered violence from either governments or rebels on the other side and that also created a comparatively small number of refugees. Egypt and Tunisia for example have not had their revolutions followed up by the overwhelming hammer blow of these ISIS fucknuts. Who knows, Assad might have put down the rebellion by now and there might be no refugees. It is not the Syrian civil war that caused the refugee crisis in the regions of Iraq, Afghanistan and Syria.

I've turned in for the night so am not going to search and read through the Geneva Convention at this time! If you are on US time perhaps you can go through it and find some facts about that, or indeed anything I've stated, to prove me wrong. Opinion pieces in discredited newspapers do not, and should never, count!

[JoJoGunne]

While I'll continue to quote your words, I'll take the action of deleting any of your words that I don't feel inclined to address.

Ah one more actually, not sure why I have to restate this again but here goes - ISIS are responsible for the massive surge in refugees that Europe is struggling to cope with.

Actually, the massive surge in refugees that Europe is struggling to cope with is not because of ISIS...it's because refugees who are already in other countries are not happy with their lot in those countries and they are trying to get to better countries.

I've turned in for the night so am not going to search and read through the Geneva Convention at this time! If you are on US time perhaps you can go through it and find some facts about that, or indeed anything I've stated, to prove me wrong. Opinion pieces in discredited newspapers do not, and should never, count!

I hope you get a good night's rest because, if you want to support your contentions regarding the Geneva Conventions, you are going to have to do your own homework.  I'm not going to do it for you.

Facts are facts...quotes are quotes.  Regardless your opinion of a particular newspaper you'll need to actually dispute the facts and quotes themselves...if you can.

[Foamy T. Squirrel]

In American English, this entire situation is called a "Cluster Fuck."

[jaf53]

In American English, this entire situation is called a "Cluster Fuck."

I'm with the Squirrel.... and the situation is world wide...

[Maturin]

Sorry JojoGunne, I'm not going to dispute quotes. If the quote is directly referencing a fact then I might well do, depending on the source of the fact. The Daily Mail is not an entity I would even consider taking on their clickbait for just to read up on something in order to dispute it.  For some reason you mentioned conspiracy theories and I regard that newspaper in much the same way as a right wing person would regard Alex Jones.  Were I to quote him or one of his "facts" I'd be well prepared for someone to tell me to do one.

Now, disputing what I say needs to run a little deeper than saying that you doubt whether what I said about the GC is actually true.  It's a tried and tested tactic of people, who already know that their minds won't be changed, to mildly disagree with anything that doesn’t match their world view. For a lot of people on both sides of this argument that will be an incredible amount of things to mildly disagree on. This is a blocking technique that puts the person they have chosen to engage and "debate"* with on the back foot from the start as they will then have to back pedal all the time to deal with and correct gaps in the other person's supposed lack of knowledge, rather than the issue - opening up more lines of contention that the "unknowledgable" person can dispute and dilute further.  As the issue becomes more diluted it will invariably lead to the person that is trying to educate the other slipping up on a, by this point, trivial piece of information, which for some reason will be claimed as a "victory" for the whole argument by the diluter.

I don't think you are stupid, neither do I think you are incapable of conducting a modicum of research before you state something or disagree with things. So I will do you the courtesy of not questioning the validity of everything you write in an attempt to frustrate you so much that you give up. Where I do disagree with something you say, I will look into it, if you are using rational sources, research it for myself and tell you the why's and whatfors as to why you're incorrect.

Soooo, - I have done my homework regarding the Geneva Convention, which is why I stated it. If you think I am incorrect then tell me why, if you have proof.

*debate - That is of course ironic, as a refusal to even acknowledge the other person's argument can hardly be regarded as intelligent discourse, can it? Reference the paragraph I wrote about understanding why some Americans might be unsympathetic towards refugees - that's part of this thread, I'm not going to provide a link to it however.

As an iteration to this, I'll also give you the benefit of the doubt regarding your understanding of irony, so I won't be using quote marks again unless their use is properly warranted.

[JoJoGunne]

Sorry JojoGunne, I'm not going to dispute quotes. If the quote is directly referencing a fact then I might well do, depending on the source of the fact. The Daily Mail is not an entity I would even consider taking on their clickbait for just to read up on something in order to dispute it.  For some reason you mentioned conspiracy theories and I regard that newspaper in much the same way as a right wing person would regard Alex Jones.  Were I to quote him or one of his "facts" I'd be well prepared for someone to tell me to do one.

Now, disputing what I say needs to run a little deeper than saying that you doubt whether what I said about the GC is actually true.  It's a tried and tested tactic of people, who already know that their minds won't be changed, to mildly disagree with anything that doesn’t match their world view. For a lot of people on both sides of this argument that will be an incredible amount of things to mildly disagree on. This is a blocking technique that puts the person they have chosen to engage and "debate"* with on the back foot from the start as they will then have to back pedal all the time to deal with and correct gaps in the other person's supposed lack of knowledge, rather than the issue - opening up more lines of contention that the "unknowledgable" person can dispute and dilute further.  As the issue becomes more diluted it will invariably lead to the person that is trying to educate the other slipping up on a, by this point, trivial piece of information, which for some reason will be claimed as a "victory" for the whole argument by the diluter.

I don't think you are stupid, neither do I think you are incapable of conducting a modicum of research before you state something or disagree with things. So I will do you the courtesy of not questioning the validity of everything you write in an attempt to frustrate you so much that you give up. Where I do disagree with something you say, I will look into it, if you are using rational sources, research it for myself and tell you the why's and whatfors as to why you're incorrect.

Soooo, - I have done my homework regarding the Geneva Convention, which is why I stated it. If you think I am incorrect then tell me why, if you have proof.

*debate - That is of course ironic, as a refusal to even acknowledge the other person's argument can hardly be regarded as intelligent discourse, can it? Reference the paragraph I wrote about understanding why some Americans might be unsympathetic towards refugees - that's part of this thread, I'm not going to provide a link to it however.

As an iteration to this, I'll also give you the benefit of the doubt regarding your understanding of irony, so I won't be using quote marks again unless their use is properly warranted.

Ummm...okay...to reduce your wordy post to its essential points, this is what you are saying:

1.  You refuse to consider facts and quotes because you don't like the messenger. 

shrug...  Of course, you have a right, in my opinion, to make such a choice...just as I have a right to perceive that as a weakness on your part.

2.  You either don't want to back up your contentions about what the Geneva Conventions actually says...or you can't. 

Well, that's unfortunate, but it's not my problem.  Until you DO back yourself up, you will be subject to doubt on my part.

btw...since you are stating that you are not going to quote me when you respond to my posts, I'll state that I won't respond to you unless you mention my name in your posts.  After all, how else am I to know for a fact that you are talking to me?

[Maturin]

1) That's not what I said. Indeed it was a wordy post because I felt I needed to make it clear why I was not going to debate something in a paper that isn't deserving of the title. Maybe I should have made it wordier as it would appear you've totally misunderstood me, I have the suspicion that you're doing that purposefully - so I'll refer you to the point about not labouring to educate people that refuse to understand.

2) I've already addressed this in the previous reply. This time I'm 100% certain that you understand it as that is the section where most of the words were dedicated.

3) I said I was not going to quote you as it takes an incredible amount of time copying and pasting. The method I use is with two windows - one is open on what you've said and that is where I delete the part I'm not quoting (having then to refresh so the whole text is ready to do the same operation again for each subsequent quote), the other window is open with the area in which I type my text and copy and paste the selected quote.  If writing your name is so important to you, or quoting you directly, when nobody else here has actually replied to e¡ther me or you, then do let me know if there is a faster way to quote, because...

...as can you see, I have not written your name because you have taken this thread off-topic, which I knew you were always going to do - so at this stage I'm not that bothered if you reply or not.

[JoJoGunne]

3) I said I was not going to quote you as it takes an incredible amount of time copying and pasting. The method I use is with two windows - one is open on what you've said and that is where I delete the part I'm not quoting (having then to refresh so the whole text is ready to do the same operation again for each subsequent quote), the other window is open with the area in which I type my text and copy and paste the selected quote.  If writing your name is so important to you, or quoting you directly, when nobody else here has actually replied to e¡ther me or you, then do let me know if there is a faster way to quote, because...

This is how you do it.

...as can you see, I have not written your name because you have taken this thread off-topic, which I knew you were always going to do - so at this stage I'm not that bothered if you reply or not.

Easy-peasy.

Yes...there is a much easier way to deal with a quote than your method.  Watch this video to find out how.

https://dirtybin.com/675

[Maturin]

This is how you do it.

Easy-peasy.

Yes...there is a much easier way to deal with a quote than your method.  Watch this video to find out how.

https://dirtybin.com/675

Cheers anyway but I'm not going to be downloading that. If you'd care to write it here then I'll consider it.

[JoJoGunne]

Cheers anyway but I'm not going to be downloading that. If you'd care to write it here then I'll consider it.

LOL!!

No.  I won't write instructions that were more effectively shown in a video.  "A picture is worth a thousand words", so that video is worth a book.  You are NOT getting a book from me.

You asked for help...I gave it.  "You can lead a horse to water, but you can't make it drink".