Sinking boats in the Mediterranean.

[F1jocker12]

Are you feeling ok? You haven't blamed Israel for something in this post

Off topic
Are you feeling ok? You didn't say anything on topic.

 

[squadops]

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.

That makes sense but it's not going to be able to keep up with the sheer numbers, and the process is slow.

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.

I've seen reactions of surprise, shock, and even outrage over this when spoken about on news panel shows. I don't know what those people expect but it's a bit comical.

Blow up all the boats! Na, that's not going to happen. I'm afraid we're going to need some serious military action to get this ISIS crap eliminated, and a pot load of resources to get some stable governments up and running. It's the only solution because continually accommodating these numbers of refugees is not sustainable. The boats won't sink if they never set sail.

 

[TenEightyOne]

Blow up all the boats! Na, that's not going to happen. I'm afraid we're going to need some serious military action to get this ISIS crap eliminated, and a pot load of resources to get some stable governments up and running. It's the only solution because continually accommodating these numbers of refugees is not sustainable. The boats won't sink if they never set sail.

I suspect that in-between the figures is a real statistical guess; the number of asylum seekers (which will be their legal status) who are likely to be granted asylum for safety reasons as opposed to those who won't.

I wouldn't support military action as a mechanism to stop immigrants arriving but I would support it to stop a fanatical, lunatic fringe from destroying the lives of ordinary people in order to enact a ludicrous creed that nobody believes in.

Of course, if that were the case then we'd have bombed Nigel Farage already.

 

[KSaiyu]

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.

Getting to you aren't I

You know what I find disgusting.

Liberals who cry and moan about "racists", but have no clue what it's like in the real world. Wake me up when you live next to asylum seekers or find the intelligence to create a logical argument. Until then keep living in your comfortable bubble pouring scorn on people actually making a difference out there.

Scaff I'll reply later

 

[prisonermonkeys]

Liberals who cry and moan about "racists", but have no clue what it's like in the real world.

I do live in the real world. A difference of opinion does not automatically mean that I live in another dimension. And if I did, what's to say that my dimension isn't the real one?

Wake me up when you live next to asylum seekers

Oh, I do. But I don't come into threads boasting about how great it is that I tolerate the people around me. That's not an achievement. That's the bare minimum that anyone should expect. The fact that you are disgusted by this speaks volumes as to your character.

or find the intelligence to create a logical argument.

I have made 22,438 of them.

Until then keep living in your comfortable bubble pouring scorn on people actually making a difference out there.

What difference have you made? I don't think that rolling up my sleeves, barging into my local mosque, demanding to know how I can help, quitting when I don't get an easy answer and then whinging about it on the internet counts as "making a difference".

But if you really want to make a difference, you can start right now by shutting up. Your bigotry towards others is blatant to say the least, and I would be amused by the way a Christian is unfamiliar with the phrase "there but for the grace of God goes you" if it weren't so serious.

 

[KSaiyu]

Oh, I do. But I don't come into threads boasting about how great it is that I tolerate the people around me. That's not an achievement. That's the bare minimum that anyone should expect. The fact that you are disgusted by this speaks volumes as to your character.

You live in a low income, immigrant community? Where in Australia do you live?

What difference have you made? I don't think that rolling up my sleeves, barging into my local mosque, demanding to know how I can help, quitting when I don't get an easy answer and then whinging about it on the internet counts as "making a difference".

Hi do you know me? No. Quiet then.

But if you really want to make a difference, you can start right now by shutting up. Your bigotry towards others is blatant to say the least, and I would be amused by the way a Christian is unfamiliar with the phrase "there but for the grace of God goes you" if it weren't so serious.

Ooooh I'm a Christian again! My mum will be over the moon! I think we've all identified the bigot here, and it's not me

---
Meh I forgot I said I wouldn't indulge this didn't I

 

[Carbonox]

Let's play Where's Waldo. Except replace Waldo with women and kids:

 

[jimipitbull]

They should have dressed up like pirates.

 

[Pseudopod]

Let's play Where's Waldo. Except replace Waldo with women and kids:

The women are probably looking after the kids that they didn't think would be able to make it to the other side alive.

 

[prisonermonkeys]

Hi do you know me? No. Quiet then.

If you're going to claim that you're "actually making a difference out there", then - and this is a common theme with you - then you need to prove evidence to support the claim. I simply referred back to the only piece of anecdotal evidence that you have provided, where you did not make a difference at all.

Ooooh I'm a Christian again!

Do you hear that sound? That's the point flying over your head.

Let me spell this out with crystal clarity: you are a bigot. You clearly despise anybody who does not look like you, think like you, or act like you. And you seem to think that because you have direct experience of living and working with people who are not exactly like you, that you are somehow justified in your bigotry.

But to draw on your own (ridiculous) hypothetical, what if something were to happen in the British Isles and you became displaced? You broadly condemn asylum seekers, but the only true difference between you and them is that when the dice of fate stopped rolling, their number came up. Yours didn't. Hence the idiom, "there but for the grace of God goes you".

 

[Scaff]

Everyone in this thread gets back to discussing the point rather than attacking each other.

The next one to forget that the AUP is quite clear on this gets two days off.

 

[Scaff]

Let's play Where's Waldo. Except replace Waldo with women and kids:

I'm not quite sure what cherry picking images is superposed to achieve?

Are you attempting to claim that women and children are not one these boats?

 

[Carbonox]

I'm not quite sure what cherry picking images is superposed to achieve?

Are you attempting to claim that women and children are not one these boats?

I'm saying it's bizarre that such a large percentage of illegal refugees are young men, who generally have the least amount of dangers to fear in undeveloped nations.

Throwing statistics in the mix for proof:

 

[KSaiyu]

No its not informal language at all, its simply incorrect. Just does not informally mean all.

Eugh, it's not back pedaling. Try saying it in your head if it helps to show where my thought process was coming from: "All that picture is showing is the fallout from Syria". I don't get it, I apologized that it wasn't clear and it still isn't enough it seems? It's basically using conversational language over the internet, sometimes it doesn't translate. The figure doesn't only show that, as I have started. But your use of it (use in proving mid east takes a lot of refugees) is why I commented that it's a direct effect from Syria (which it is)

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

Youre getting confused. This is to do with the spike in Lebanon and Jordan numbers, hence the neighbour analogy.

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

....Which goes back to the neighbour analogy (this is the reason they have more, it's direct spillage rather than being more accommodating). It seems when mid east countries have a choice, they aren't so welcoming. Why should we be expected to take refugees when more able states are flat out refusing? Again, would we expect any of these countries to welcome our asylum seekers should such a situation arise?

This seems cruel, but you have to look at the current problems caused by past refugee policies when considering what we should do.

 

[Scaff]

I'm saying it's bizarre that such a large percentage of illegal refugees are young men, who generally have the least amount of dangers to fear in undeveloped nations.

Throwing statistics in the mix for proof:

Which begs the question why didn't you use the graph and the data to make a valid (and answerable) point instead of a picture and a glib comment that, to my mind, makes light of events that are resulting in the deaths of hundreds of people.

No as for the imbalance of numbers, that is answerable, the majority of those making the crossings are not even from the country they are departing in the first place, they are workers who have got caught up in a conflict that has developed quickly.

Were, for example, the same to happen in Kuwait, Bahrain or Dubai you would see a similar bias in terms of men, but this time it would be Indian, Pakistani and Nepalese.

Oh and in conflict zones men are more likely to die than women (by a 3 to 1 ratio), more women die post conflict.
http://file.prio.no/Publication_files/Prio/Armed Conflict Deaths Disaggregated by Gender.pdf

Eugh, it's not back pedaling. Try saying it in your head if it helps to show where my thought process was coming from: "All that picture is showing is the fallout from Syria". I don't get it, I apologized that it wasn't clear and it still isn't enough it seems? It's basically using conversational language over the internet, sometimes it doesn't translate. The figure doesn't only show that, as I have started. But your use of it (use in proving mid east takes a lot of refugees) is why I commented that it's a direct effect from Syria (which it is)

So now just mean many in conversation language?

You've gone from me not understanding English at all, to it being informal to it being conversational, to needing to say it in my head (which begs the question - what did you think I did when I read it?).

In none of these forms does just mean many, none what so ever. In using that word you were simply incorrect and you twice prior to that argued from a point that supported a just claim.

Now your claiming to be making a point that I posted the information to support? Which makes you even mentioning it bizarre? And this post of yours nonsensical!

You're getting confused. This is to do with the spike in Lebanon and Jordan numbers, hence the neighbour analogy.

Then why did you mention Middle Eastern countries taking people from the UK, if the UK was in conflict? The UK is not even remotely close. Italy is for Libya and Greece is for Syria!

....Which goes back to the neighbour analogy (this is the reason they have more, it's direct spillage rather than being more accommodating). It seems when mid east countries have a choice, they aren't so welcoming. Why should we be expected to take refugees when more able states are flat out refusing? Again, would we expect any of these countries to welcome our asylum seekers should such a situation arise?

Out of human compassion and because were not assholes.

This seems cruel, but you have to look at the current problems caused by past refugee policies when considering what we should do.

I am.

 

[Spurgy 777]

Which begs the question why didn't you use the graph and the data to make a valid (and answerable) point instead of a picture and a glib comment that, to my mind, makes light of events that ae resulting in the deaths of hundreds of people.

No as for the imbalance of numbers, that is answerable, the majority of those making the crossings are not even from the country they are departing in the first place, they are workers who have got caught up in a conflict that has developed quickly.

Were, for example, the same to happen in Kuwait, Bahrain or Dubai you would see a similar bias in terms of men, but this time it would be Indian, Pakistani and Nepalese.

I don't see how this post explains Carbs point. Are you saying the only people that want to flee the conflict are male workers from other countries?

 

[Scaff]

I don't see how this post explains Carbs point. Are you saying the only people that want to flee the conflict are male workers from other countries?

No, I'm saying that more men from outside countries were in Libya and Syria (as oil and construction workers predominantly) at the time the conflict started and as such it to be expected that more men would be among the numbers.

This is old data for the general region but should give an idea of the point...

http://www.ilo.org/wcmsp5/groups/pu...-beirut/documents/publication/wcms_204013.pdf

......and while it has grown, the majority is still male.

The slight bias towards women in the Lebanese refugee camps may also indicate that women may be more likely to opt for the comparative safety of a land journey over that of a sea journey.
http://data.unhcr.org/syrianrefugees/country.php?id=122

 

[KSaiyu]

So now just mean many in conversation language?

You've gone from me not understanding English at all, to it being informal to it being conversational, to needing to say it in my head (which begs the question - what did you think I did when I read it?).

In none of these forms does just mean many, none what so ever. In using that word you were simply incorrect and you twice prior to that argued from a point that supported a just claim.
Yeah

Now your claiming to be making a point that I posted the information to support? Which makes you even mentioning it bizarre? And this post of yours nonsensical!

Basically it's an example of the limits of the internet. If you play it out in a conversation...

"The Mid East takes more than its fair share of asylum seekers, look at this!"
"Hang on, that just shows the fallout from Syria"

Whereas the internet would require (to avoid this mess)

"The Mid East takes more than its fair share of asylum seekers, look at this!"
"Hang on, that just shows the fallout from Syria
That's not really credible in showing the Middle East takes more asylum seekers than Europe since it's skewed from the effects of the war in Syria.

Then why did you mention Middle Eastern countries taking people from the UK, if the UK was in conflict? The UK is not even remotely close. Italy is for Libya and Greece is for Syria!

I was showing that I doubt those countries (high asylum seeker accepting and the Gulf states) would be so accommodating if the shoe was on the other foot.

Out of human compassion and because were not assholes.

Compassion can only go so far when you take a look at the present day struggles with a significant minority of asylum seekers and their descendents in western countries. In fact, you may know one family that's causing a few problems at the moment.

I am.

If you still believe we should take in an equal (and at the moment greater) amount in comparison to the wealthy Gulf states then fair play to you. I disagree however.

Let me spell this out with crystal clarity: you are a bigot.

You may PM me if you wish to be proven wrong. I'd also like to ask again which immigrant majority neigbourhood you are living in currently, where these immigrants are largely from and how it is going for you

 

[Scaff]

Basically it's an example of the limits of the internet. If you play it out in a conversation...

"The Mid East takes more than its fair share of asylum seekers, look at this!"
"Hang on, that just shows the fallout from Syria"

Whereas the internet would require (to avoid this mess)

"The Mid East takes more than its fair share of asylum seekers, look at this!"
"Hang on, that just shows the fallout from Syria
That's not really credible in showing the Middle East takes more asylum seekers than Europe since it's skewed from the effects of the war in Syria.

I'm sorry but were you to say the same to me in a conversation (i.e. your first example above), you would get the exact same call out.

Its not just the internet in which clarity of your message and the correct use of words is important, and in no conversational set of circumstances has just ever been a valid replacement for many. Nor does it explain why you continued to push the point for actually using just as just, this reply to me, when I quite clearly pointed out that it covers all refugees, only make sense if you used just as exactly that.

Now as far as......

That's not really credible in showing the Middle East takes more asylum seekers than Europe since it's skewed from the effects of the war in Syria.

.....goes I'm at a loss. Of course its skewed as a result of the effects of the War in Syria. Refugee travel in the Mediterranean has also increased significantly and been skewed as a result of the effects of the war in Syria, shall we discount that as well and simply lock the thread?

The fact is that refugee numbers in the Middle East have increased as a direct result of the ongoing conflicts throughout North Africa, just as Refugee numbers in Europe have increased as a direct result of the ongoing conflicts throughout North Africa.

As such you could just as easily say That's not really credible in showing that Europe is taking more asylum seekers than the Middle East should be since it's skewed from the effects of the war in Syria.

We either include the numbers in both (which have heavily skewed the numbers in both cases) or we include them in none.

I was showing that I doubt those countries (high asylum seeker accepting and the Gulf states) would be so accommodating if the shoe was on the other foot.

Using an analogy that doesn't actually illustrate that, which was my point. European countries that are directly seeing refugees do border North Africa. The UK doesn't border the Middle East

Compassion can only go so far when you take a look at the present day struggles with a significant minority of asylum seekers and their descendents in western countries. In fact, you may know one family that's causing a few problems at the moment.

So you are happy to label the majority based on the actions of the minority?

Should we by that same token blame all Catholics for the bombing campaign carried out against the UK? After all a significant minority of US Catholics supported it.

Oh and family? Really? His parents may well be in denial that its him, but that's neither surprising nor does it make them culpable; or have we reached the point for you of guilt by association?

If you still believe we should take in an equal (and at the moment greater) amount in comparison to the wealthy Gulf states then fair play to you. I disagree however.

On that you are quite clear, but given that without the kind of acceptance I'm suggesting my wife's family might not be here I am never going to agree with you on this.

 

[prisonermonkeys]

Of course, if that were the case then we'd have bombed Nigel Farage already.

Interesting comment from Farage in The Guardian when discussing the situation in the Mediterranean: that Australia's asylum seeker policy is doing things that most Brits wouldn't have the stomach for.

If Farage is getting squeamish, that should tell you all that you need to know. Didn't stop our idiot Prime Minister from offering to support Europe with experience and insight from our policy.

 

[KSaiyu]

Let me spell this out with crystal clarity: you are a bigot.

.....goes I'm at a loss. Of course its skewed as a result of the effects of the War in Syria. Refugee travel in the Mediterranean has also increased significantly and been skewed as a result of the effects of the war in Syria, shall we discount that as well and simply lock the thread?

The fact is that refugee numbers in the Middle East have increased as a direct result of the ongoing conflicts throughout North Africa, just as Refugee numbers in Europe have increased as a direct result of the ongoing conflicts throughout North Africa.

As such you could just as easily say That's not really credible in showing that Europe is taking more asylum seekers than the Middle East should be since it's skewed from the effects of the war in Syria.

We either include the numbers in both (which have heavily skewed the numbers in both cases) or we include them in none.

But I didn't bring up the figure.

Using an analogy that doesn't actually illustrate that, which was my point. European countries that are directly seeing refugees do border North Africa. The UK doesn't border the Middle East

The analogy fits: would you expect those countries to accept refugees from a north European crisis. If no, then their high place on the refugee hosting list is purely out of location and not benevolence.

So you are happy to label the majority based on the actions of the minority?

Should we by that same token blame all Catholics for the bombing campaign carried out against the UK? After all a significant minority of US Catholics supported it.[/quote]
No I'm happy to face facts and accept the current climate in Britain today means we aren't ready for a considerable influx of asylum seekers from this region of the world.

Oh and family? Really? His parents may well be in denial that its him, but that's neither surprising nor does it make them culpable; or have we reached the point for you of guilt by association?

Cost + landlords opinions
Continued denial of his actions
Sisters wearing a veil around the time of radicalisation

You have a family that clearly didn't want to integrate, didn't take an interest in their sons radicalisation, took thousands of pounds from the British taxpayer and fled back to the country that they claimed asylum from.

On that you are quite clear, but given that without the kind of acceptance I'm suggesting my wife's family might not be here I am never going to agree with you on this.

And I wouldn't have had one of my closest friends. That still doesn't mean I can't see how exceedingly dangerous accepting asylum seekers from this region is.

 

[TenEightyOne]

That still doesn't mean I can't see how exceedingly dangerous accepting asylum seekers from this region is.

Why, exactly?

 

[KSaiyu]

It's pretty well known about the terrorism risks, so let's highlight another issue once again (there are others). After, I hope, proving that Uber/Black Cab is the safe way to travel in London these days a story came out a few weeks ago showing how asylum seekers and refugees can escape criminal checks and be allowed to drive a cab in London:

http://www.standard.co.uk/news/crim...d-rapists-to-become-cab-drivers-10158361.html

I hope you will all agree that this is not safe in any form.

 

[TenEightyOne]

I hope you will all agree that this is not safe in any form.

I agree completely if it's correct... but given that the only source for this being fact is a newspaper that's just given £1.5 million to UKIP's campaign you'll have to forgive my skepticism at this moment.

That still doesn't mean I can't see how exceedingly dangerous accepting asylum seekers from this region is.

It's pretty well known about the terrorism risks

Source?

 

[Scaff]

But I didn't bring up the figure.

Really?

Wait hold on, that figure is just showing the fallout from the Syrian conflict..

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.

Yes you did, in two of the three posts you made about it.

The analogy fits: would you expect those countries to accept refugees from a north European crisis. If no, then their high place on the refugee hosting list is purely out of location and not benevolence.

Yes and why can't it be based on both?

No I'm happy to face facts and accept the current climate in Britain today means we aren't ready for a considerable influx of asylum seekers from this region of the world.

And these facts are?

Cost + landlords opinions
Continued denial of his actions
Sisters wearing a veil around the time of radicalisation

You have a family that clearly didn't want to integrate, didn't take an interest in their sons radicalisation, took thousands of pounds from the British taxpayer and fled back to the country that they claimed asylum from.

So the family took advantage of the welfare system, good job that's unheard of from any UK national. The parents were in denial about the actions of their son (which I mentioned), good job the parents of no other murder suspect have ever done that and Muslim girls start to wear a veil (I take it as a result you will consider anyone who starts to overtly wear a cross and is Christian to be a potential risk).

And I wouldn't have had one of my closest friends. That still doesn't mean I can't see how exceedingly dangerous accepting asylum seekers from this region is.

Exceedingly dangerous?

Please support that claim.

 

[KSaiyu]

You want me to support the claim that accepting asylum seekers from a region gripped by advancing Islamism is exceedingly dangerous....?

I agree completely if it's correct... but given that the only source for this being fact is a newspaper that's just given £1.5 million to UKIP's campaign you'll have to forgive my skepticism at this moment.

But....TFL admitted it

 

[Scaff]

You want me to support the claim that accepting asylum seekers from a region gripped by advancing Islamism is exceedingly dangerous....?

Yes, that would be why I asked.

Was that not clear?

But....TFL admitted it

Well actually no he didn't.

He asked you to provide another source as the one you used, is in his opinion, far from unbiased.

That aside, I'm not him, so I have no idea what quote mining from someone else has to do with me?



While your at it please also explain why you stated......

"But I didn't bring up the figure."

...when you quite clearly did twice. As on the face of it that statement is simply untrue.

 

[KSaiyu]

Yes, that would be why I asked.

Was that not clear?

It's clear, just a little odd considering the climate. In my opinion it's like asking why sending your child in a pool with a shark in it is dangerous and asking for proof why this is the case.

Well actually no he didn't.

He asked you to provide another source as the one you used, is in his opinion, far from unbiased.

That aside, I'm not him, so I have no idea what quote mining from someone else has to do with me?

It's not to do with you, it's a separate part of the post. And it's covered in the Mail and Daily Express too (at least).

And yes, yes the TFL do. Right in the article. And right in the Express article

While your at it please also explain why you stated......

"But I didn't bring up the figure."

...when you quite clearly did twice. As on the face of it that statement is simply untrue.

But you presented it (brought it up).. It was your post.. I brought it up to critique..

This is getting really confusing

 

[Scaff]

It's clear, just a little odd considering the climate. In my opinion it's like asking why sending your child in a pool with a shark in it is dangerous and asking for proof why this is the case.

So they are all dangerous then?

I
It's not to do with you, it's a separate part of the post. And it's covered in the Mail and Daily Express too (at least).

And yes, yes the TFL do. Right in the article. And right in the Express article

My error.

I
But you presented it (brought it up).. It was your post.. I brought it up to critique..

This is getting really confusing

In which case I really do have to wonder what your objection to it in the first place was about exactly?

You misread the information (and quite frankly that is the most likely explanation to your long and meandering attempt to explain away the claim of it just being figures for Syrian refugees) and then seem to be suggesting that we shouldn't include Syrian refugees when looking at refugee numbers for the Middle East, but we should when we look at Europe.

 

[KSaiyu]

So they are all dangerous then?

No

In which case I really do have to wonder what your objection to it in the first place was about exactly?

You misread the information (and quite frankly that is the most likely explanation to your long and meandering attempt to explain away the claim of it just being figures for Syrian refugees) and then seem to be suggesting that we shouldn't include Syrian refugees when looking at refugee numbers for the Middle East, but we should when we look at Europe.

Because it didn't prove any point other than the impact of the Syrian war and the inevitable fallout on its neighbours