Sinking boats in the Mediterranean.

  • Thread starter Dennisch
  • 190 comments
  • 5,134 views
Wow, this thread also?
Apparently. This is the last time I'm indulging it as it's practically every post now.

My thoughts: we mount a strong naval presence to stop smugglers at source; rescue any in need and send them back or to a middle eastern state - you are seeking asylum not trying to win the lottery. Accept that there are other countries closer and more suited to your culture and try them first.
 
Last edited:
You Euros need to fess up and admit that you've killed your best friend in Libya, Colonel Kaddaffi, and now your course is set in alterable misery and futility until the situation in Libya is fixed. A Continent of fools, shortly to be separated from what's left of your wealth and freedom. Despite the most colossal consequences and disasters, progressives and liberals will say it's all justified because you "wanted to do the right thing". Humbug!
 
The problems in Syria also stem from the same causes, an excess of do-gooderism. Reap what you sow, and be happy with it. There are no do-overs, no going back.
 
So it's Europe's fault that ISIL have carved a bloody swarthe across the Middle East, then?

Silly me. Here I was thinking that it was ISIL's fault.
 
So it's Europe's fault that ISIL have carved a bloody swarthe across the Middle East, then?

Silly me. Here I was thinking that it was ISIL's fault.
I, as an American, will take credit for ISIS. It's our work, or rather Paul Bremer's. Like perfect fools, Euros fell in line and shouted "yessir!" when we commanded them to jump.
 
Apparently. This is the last time I'm indulging it as it's practically every post now.

My thoughts: we mount a strong naval presence to stop smugglers at source; rescue any in need and send them back or to a middle eastern state - you are seeking asylum not trying to win the lottery. Accept that there are other countries closer and more suited to your culture and try them first.
I would assign all refugees a country that is culturally and religiously as close as possible to their old homeland. In practice this means Muslim refugees go to Muslim countries, and Christian refugees to Christian countries. Saves a lot of trouble that cultural clashes and disagreements oh-so-often cause.
 
My thoughts: we mount a strong naval presence to stop smugglers at source; rescue any in need and send them back or to a middle eastern state
We're talking about African refugees here, sending them to the Middle East makes no sense whatsoever. Not to mention those are usually the kind of regimes or groups those refugees are trying to flee.

What's needed is a more stable situation in North Africa. That means going to war with ISIS on a grand scale AND telling the US to get out of our backyard, so that's not going to happen anytime soon, because it would require the EU to grow a pair. In the mean time, we should simply increase naval presence and swoop those ships where we can, return the refugees to sender and destroy the ships. We could also arrange for refugee camps on location, possibly protected by EU/NATO forces (though the latter might be seen as recolonization of North Africa).
 
We're talking about African refugees here, sending them to the Middle East makes no sense whatsoever. Not to mention those are usually the kind of regimes or groups those refugees are trying to flee.

Not really:

Many – including families with young children – have escaped war-torn countries including Syria, Afghanistan, Sudan and Iraq. Others have been persecuted for their political opinions, tortured or even threatened with death if they stay.

In 2014, Syrians and Eritreans represented almost half of the 170,000 or so people who reached Italy by boat. Yet more are sub-Saharan Africans fleeing hardships and poverty.


https://www.amnesty.org/en/articles...s-and-migrants-drowning-in-the-mediterranean/

The Middle East states are also in comparison to sub-Saharan Africa more developed, and are not overcrowded like Europe. They also are much more culturally similar to European countries.

* Unless you are talking solely about the African refugees, in which case I'd still either return them or send to Middle East (asylum).
 
That would be the Middle East countries that already host more asylum seakers that Europe do:

http://www.unhcr.org/54aa91d89.html

22-04-2015 22-09-31.jpg
22-04-2015 22-10-08.jpg

It could be argued that Sweden is the only European country with a point as far as levels go, and even they are a long way behind a number of Middle East countries.
 
Wait hold on, that figure is just showing the fallout from the Syrian conflict..
If your referring to the figures in the UNHCR report, then no they don't. Syria will be having the biggest impact on some of those figures (not a big surprise), but the two pieces I posted and its source document is not just in reference to Syrian refugees. Something that is abundantly clear from the source documents text.
 
Long may it continue? You cause a mess you clear it up.
Excellent. So your happy for Europe and the US to take every one from Iraq and Afghanistan then.
It may be the moral thing is to take responsibility for the calamities we've caused. A nice person would do this. But are we nice guys? We all know (he he) nice guys finish last. So what are we really doing? From appearances it's a sectarian war between Sunni and Shia involving almost the entire middle east while, happily, neither side has nukes yet. Very nifty to have your enemies killing each other in lieu of causing mischief elsewhere. Machiavelli and Sun Tzu would approve. Our actions resulting in calamities are justified solely by their good intentions, and not their outcomes; otherwise the march of democratic progress is inhibited. But Europe still gets to sop up some of the refugees.
 
If your referring to the figures in the UNHCR report, then no they don't. Syria will be having the biggest impact on some of those figures (not a big surprise), but the two pieces I posted and its source document is not just in reference to Syrian refugees. Something that is abundantly clear from the source documents text.
The figure you posted showing Lebanon as the top (which is actually refugees per 1000 of population).

Lebanon has thus moved from being the 69th largest refugee-hosting country to second largest within a span of just three and a half years.

Plus from that same document:

in view of the steady outflow of syrian refugees into neighbouring countries, however, the Middle east and north Africa
region is now the main region of origin of refugees worldwide.

this change has had significant impact on the rankings of the largest refugee-hosting and refugee-producing countries.
 
Last edited:
The figure you posted showing Lebanon as the top (which is actually refugees per 1000 of population).
I am able to read.


Lebanon has thus moved from being the 69th largest refugee-hosting country to second largest within a span of just three and a half years.

Plus from that same document:

in view of the steady outflow of syrian refugees into neighbouring countries, however, the Middle east and north Africa
region is now the main region of origin of refugees worldwide.

this change has had significant impact on the rankings of the largest refugee-hosting and refugee-producing countries.
Please cite the page number in which it states those figures are in relation to the Syrian crisis only.

I will give you:
Page 3: Global Trends (and the main title for the document and also a section heading)
Page 3: This report is the second of its kind, analyzing displacement trends within the first half of 2014. The figures in this report were collected from governments and UNHCR offices around the world.
Page 4: Map 1 title Who is hosting the worlds refugees
Page 5: Numerous references to Afghan refugees
Page 6: (the one with the table) The Government of the Islamic Republic of Iran, meanwhile, revised the estimated number of Afghan refugees in its territory from 814,000 to 950,000. Together with an estimated 32,000 Iraqi refugees and other populations, the country was the third largest refugeehosting country by mid-year, with an overall total of 982,100.
and
Ethiopia was not only the sixth largest refugee-hosting country worldwide by mid-year, with a total of 587,700 refugees, but it simultaneously replaced Kenya as the largest recipient in subSaharan Africa. This shift was due largely to the mass inflow of 159,000 South Sudanese refugees during the first half of the year
and
With a total of 537,000 refugees, Kenya was the second largest host country on the continent by mid-year, including 42,800 refugees who were recognized on a prima facie basis during the first six months of the year, most of them from South Sudan.
and
Fighting in both South Sudan and the eastern part of the Democratic Republic of the Congo also impacted heavily on Uganda. Some 118,000 South Sudanese were granted prima facie status during the first six months of 2014, as were 13,000 Congolese.

The graph is in a section II Refugees, the first part of which is subtitled "By Origin" and contains:

world.jpg


Which certainly doesn't just cover Syria or those from other countries caught up in it (unless quite a few from Columbia got very lost), the actual subtitle of the part the graph is in is "By Country of Asylum" and starts with the following words:

"Conflict and violence in the Syrian Arab Republic, South Sudan, and the Central African Republic, among other countries, significantly affected the rankings"

Which clearly states it covers more than just the Syrian crisis.

Do I seriously need to carry on?

The document and its figures cover all refugees not just those from the Syrian crisis, it repeatedly references a whole range of refugees from other countries and its sub-titled Global Trends. Table 2 (pages 18 - 21) even lists them by country of origin and certainly does not just have Syria listed (page 22 states that column 1 on Table 2 is Country or territory of origin).

It does not just cover refugees from the Syrian crisis.
 
Last edited:
Excellent. So your happy for Europe and the US to take every one from Iraq and Afghanistan then.
Heavens, no! That would mean throwing open the borders to anyone who wants to come, and who knows what might come in then!

What's a paradox?
 
Please cite the page number in which it states those figures are in relation to the Syrian crisis only.
Oh I was just going on the figure posted (like I said). You want to discuss the whole report??
 
Last edited:
Oh I was just going on the figure posted (like I said). You want to discuss the whole report?
That's not just for the Syrian crisis either.

Oh and take a look at your own post, you cite the wider document not just the poll. Don't complain about a door you opened.

Now as I asked please let me know the page number in the document that clearly says that graph (alone in the document) is just about Syria.
 
That's not just for the Syrian crisis either.

Oh and take a look at your own post, you cite the wider document not just the poll. Don't complain about a door you opened.

Now as I asked please let me know the page number in the document that clearly says that graph (alone in the document) is just about Syria.
Huh? The skew is a result of the Syrian conflict.... You don't need to cite the page number because it's basic statistical interpretation. Lebanon jumped from 69 to 2. Jordan has taken in hundreds of thousands of Syrians. This has a direct impact on the figure. You're not actually suggesting I meant that Congo's refugee population is a result of Syria do you? It's talking about the headline grabbing part of the graph. That plus the fact you talked about mid eastern and used that graph. The mid east skew there is a result of Syria.

And by mid eastern states I'm talking all of them. You know, ones like Bahrain, Qatar, UAE included.

In fact, let's compare all three to the UK:

http://www.indexmundi.com/facts/indicators/SM.POP.REFG/compare?country=bh#country=bh:qa:ae:gb

And Kuwait? Let's just say they have a reputation for making refugees feel so welcome they actually end up fleeing again!

Now let's take a look at purely the Syrian crisis:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Refugees_of_the_Syrian_Civil_War

Discount the top 5 as they are direct neighbours so will naturally take the spillage from war, and the Bahraini figure (check the source to see why) and what do you have? Gotta love that brotherly love down there ;)

------------

So I'll ask simply, why should Europe/Australia/Wherever take refugees when the gulf states are so unwilling to? This despite the fact that they bankroll some of the bad guys!!
 
Last edited:
Huh? The skew is a result of the Syrian conflict....
That doesn't mean the graph is only showing data from the Syrian crisis, which is what you specifically claimed.....

KSaiyu
Wait hold on, that figure is just showing the fallout from the Syrian conflict..
(emphasis mine)
.......and the graph doesn't.

Lebanon is now the second largest home to refugees in the world, after Pakistan, which is clearly shown in Fig. 3....

world 2.jpg



....which is actually what the quote you attributed to fig 4 is referring to. Fi4 4 then takes total number of refugees and looks at it per 1,000 head of population, and under that Lebanon moves to the top spot world wide. At no stage at all does it suddenly jump from detailing worldwide refugee figures to just showing those from Syria.

The large number of refugees from Syria has had a massive impact on the worldwide numbers of refugees and that has had a large impact on certain countries, and I have quoted the report as saying just that, however that doesn't mean that graph is just showing Syrian refugees.

Lets take the DRC from Fig 4 and take a look at the UNHCR breakdown of refugees in the country and the country of origin for them:

http://www.unhcr.org/pages/49e45c366.html

UNHCR
"The main groups of people of concern to UNHCR in 2015 include: refugees from the CAR who fled insecurity and violence in their country; IDPs living in camps or with host families who fled the armed conflict in the east; Angolan refugees residing in the DRC who have not opted for voluntary repatriation following the application of the cessation clause or have been exempted; Rwandan refugees in the eastern DRC; and Congolese (DRC) returnees who have been repatriated from neighbouring countries, particularly Burundi, the CAR, the Congo and Uganda."

That's even more up to date that the main report I quoted from and yet no major fall out from Syria in the the DRC refugee population, because that graph is not just for the Syrian crisis.


As I have now asked for a third time, please point me to the page in the document and quote it saying that graph, alone among the ones in the document, covers just Syrian refugees. Do so and I will quite happily apologize and cede the point.
 
But that's how the English language works. If you're using a graph to say "middle east takes a load of migrants, here's my proof" and I go "hang on, that's just showing the fallout from Syria" surely everyone can see what the point is (that the mid eastern disproportionate representation in the graph is from the Syrian conflict)? The graph is being used for it's dramatic effect. Without Syria, not as dramatic.

Or do I have to be more formal in future?
 
If ISIS is going to send terrorists they've trained into europe, why the actual f- would they send them on a boat that isn't even guaranteed to make it across the sea?
 
But that's how the English language works. If you're using a graph to say "middle east takes a load of migrants, here's my proof" and I go "hang on, that's just showing the fallout from Syria" surely everyone can see what the point is (that the mid eastern disproportionate representation in the graph is from the Syrian conflict)? The graph is being used for it's dramatic effect. Without Syria, not as dramatic.

Or do I have to be more formal in future?
That's not how the English language works at all.

If you state that a graph shows just data from x then the only data on it should be from x, that's what just would mean; if it also includes data from a,b, c and the rest of the alphabet then its not just x. The x in this case is Syria and the graph does not just show data from that, it includes data from it, but it does not just show data from that (which was your claim).

That the Middle Easts representation includes Syria is also an utterly moot point given the nature of this thread, you asked that these states take some ownership of the current crisis facing Italy (which is predominantly refugees from Syria) and when shown data that shows they do (and also take in refugees from other situations) you complain that it shows data from Syria.

That makes no sense at all!

You do realize that you are demanding that the ME take ownership for the fall out from Syria and then when its shown that they are (not all - but those that do are doing so to one of the highest levels in the world) you complain that it includes data from Syrian fallout?
 
That's informal language. My apologies for using it.

R.e. not making sense at all, that is debating this point:

Scaff
That would be the Middle East countries that already host more asylum seakers that Europe do
These are neighbours in a constantly evolving war that threatens to engulf the entire region, it is to be expected. If Wales suffered a catastrophe you would see a huge spike in the English refugee population as a percentage of the population as a direct result. Would you expect these asylum seekers to head to Dubai? Doha? Riyadh? Or even the "welcoming" ME states - Lebanon or Jordan??

So let's try and move forward and wonder why...

And by mid eastern states I'm talking all of them. You know, ones like Bahrain, Qatar, UAE included.

In fact, let's compare all three to the UK:

http://www.indexmundi.com/facts/indicators/SM.POP.REFG/compare?country=bh#country=bh:qa:ae:gb

And Kuwait? Let's just say they have a reputation for making refugees feel so welcome they actually end up fleeing again!

Now let's take a look at purely the Syrian crisis:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Refugees_of_the_Syrian_Civil_War

Discount the top 5 as they are direct neighbours so will naturally take the spillage from war, and the Bahraini figure (check the source to see why) and what do you have?

------------

So I'll ask simply, why should Europe/Australia/Wherever take refugees when the gulf states are so unwilling to? This despite the fact that they bankroll some of the bad guys!!
 
Oh, look - another hypothetical situation that is both extremely unlikely and clearly designed to prove your point. Of all the arguments you have made, "the UK shouldn't take Middle Eastern asylum seekers because the Middle East wouldn't take British asylum seekers" is the worst that you have made. If something were to happen and you became a refugee, you would be the first to complain if you were denied the asylum that you are so happy to refuse to others.

Now, you can try and dress it up all you like, but so far, the only thing that you have proven is that you are a bigot. You hate and you fear anyone who does not look, think, act or behave like you. You make them out to be animals who want nothing more than to take everything that you feel entitled to, and make yourself out to be a great humanitarian for tolerating them.

Your attitude and your values are disgusting.
 
That's informal language. My apologies for using it.
No its not informal language at all, its simply incorrect. Just does not informally mean all.

You stated quite clearly that it was just Syrian refugees, when I pointed out that it was in fact data for all refugees worldwide you countered with this post once again only highlighting Syria. To which I cited a massive (and not complete) list of points showing that its clearly not just Syria you then started to back track trying to claim that it was just the graph not the whole report that just showed Syria. When I then pointed out that could not be the case because at least one country on that graph has no Syrian refugees recorded at all, let alone enough to feature in a top 15 list of them (by any measure). To which you then inferred that I didn't understand how the English language works! That undone you then attempt this nonsense about 'informal language'!

Treating people as stupid enough buy this mess of back pedaling and flat out bollocks is simply insulting.

This is the second time in a week you have made an absolute statement of fact and then come up with some odd explanation when its pointed out to be utterly incorrect. Once I can take as an accident, but I strongly suggest that you take far more care about this in future as it may start to look as if you are being deliberately misleading.



R.e. not making sense at all, that is debating this point:
No its not debating that point at all, how you post read was to infer that the data was moot as it only covered Syrian refugees, that has nothing to do with the quote of mine.




These are neighbours in a constantly evolving war that threatens to engulf the entire region, it is to be expected. If Wales suffered a catastrophe you would see a huge spike in the English refugee population as a percentage of the population as a direct result. Would you expect these asylum seekers to head to Dubai? Doha? Riyadh? Or even the "welcoming" ME states - Lebanon or Jordan??
Are you actually being serious in this analogy?

Lets try a better (and more accurate one).

If Wales suffered a catastrophe and England was currently in the middle of a civil war would I expect to see refugees try and cross the Irish sea to reach the Isle of Mann or even Ireland itself? Yes I would

Would I then when the Refugees were processed and some granted Asylum seekers status, would I then expect to see those fairly distributed around the countries of the globe that had signed to the UNHCR program. Yes I would.

A little like what happens now.




So let's try and move forward and wonder why...

And by mid eastern states I'm talking all of them. You know, ones like Bahrain, Qatar, UAE included.

In fact, let's compare all three to the UK:

http://www.indexmundi.com/facts/indicators/SM.POP.REFG/compare?country=bh#country=bh:qa:ae:gb

And Kuwait? Let's just say they have a reputation for making refugees feel so welcome they actually end up fleeing again!

Now let's take a look at purely the Syrian crisis:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Refugees_of_the_Syrian_Civil_War

Discount the top 5 as they are direct neighbours so will naturally take the spillage from war, and the Bahraini figure (check the source to see why) and what do you have?

------------

So I'll ask simply, why should Europe/Australia/Wherever take refugees when the gulf states are so unwilling to? This despite the fact that they bankroll some of the bad guys!!
Please quote me as saying that all the countries in the region are doing all they can and should.

I know that you will not be able to.

My post was in relation to the total number of refugees that have been taken in by countries in the Middle East in comparison to the total number taken in by Europe. Not specific countries
 
Last edited:
A diplomatic source told a news agency that the EU's 28 member states were widely mobilised to approve the statement's wording, reflecting a growing willingness to launch an operation to fight the traffickers.
Roberta Pinotti, Italy's defence minister, earlier said: "We know where the smugglers keep their boats, where they gather. The plans for military intervention are there."
However, experts pointed out there could be major repercussions of any military intervention.
"They talk about capturing and destroying migrant boats, but presumably they will have people on-board, so they're not going to just shoot them out of the water," Matt Carr, the British author of Fortress Europe, a book on migration, told AFP.
"Others say the only way to stop them is to destroy all the boats in Libya, which is obviously nonsensical." Alain Coldefy, a retired French admiral, said: "This problem is totally unsolvable with military means."
Mr Renzi urged the EU and the United Nations to establish migrant reception camps in countries such as Tunisia, Sudan and Niger, where their applications for refugee status would be assessed.
Those granted asylum would then be resettled in countries throughout the EU, including Britain.
Italy has long argued that while migrants head for its shores because they are closest to North Africa, the issue of illegal immigration is a Europe-wide problem.
In a fresh development it emerged that the EU is expected to ignore pleas to accommodate more migrants who succeed in crossing the Mediterranean, it was reported.

According to the Guardian only 5,000 places will be offered to those who survive the journey.

Nearly everyone who did reach Europe – 150,000 did succeed in making the crossing last year – will be sent back as soon as possible.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/wor...ntion-against-Libyan-migrant-traffickers.html
 

Latest Posts

Back