Quote:
Originally Posted by John Wilkes Booth
well my most basic position is that it is irresponsible to import a lot of people into a country without any regard for the demographics or the cultures involved
|
And I'm not disagreeing with that. I was there (televisually) when the riots in France occurred, and I've heard many of the same stories about Muslim immigration to Europe that you've probably heard that make it sound like there is at least SOME problem with Muslim immigration to Europe. I'm simply pointing out the issue with your proposal for Middle Eastern countries taking in the Syrian refugees. It may very well be a better solution, but it's obviously not as clear cut as you thought it was.
Fair?
Quote:
|
so as such i started my argument with the question of why don't muslim countries take the refugees because it seems as if there is a foregone conclusion that someone has to take them. so i was saying if anyone is going to do so, the first in line should be those who are closest to the syrians culturally and geographically.
|
It certainly seems logical, but the world is a complicated place. I'd rather get them back to their homes, but **** is what it is, I guess.
Quote:
|
i was ignorant of the fact that the turks had taken in such a large amount, though i was not ignorant of the reasons why massive amounts of refugees will cause problems. my prediction was that ethnic and cultural differences will be the source of the tension. this was true in turkey. so the situation in turkey basically played out the way i said it would in europe, for the very reason that i said it would in europe. in fact believe i made the point early on that saudi arabia and turkey would be smart for not taking in the refugees, when i was arguing with frownland. so the article did not "disprove the turkish argument" it just put it to the test.
|
Again, I wasn't attacking your basic premise, just your solution.
Quote:
|
now, you point out that the turks are being hostile so maybe turkey is an even worse place. i would say that since they took 1.7 million and nobody else has, that's a faulty conclusion. pushing that many refugees on any country is going to cause problems.
|
That doesn't logically follow. They're neighbors. It may simply be that that many refugees pushing and shoving to get out of Syria means that 1.7 million managed to squeeze through despite the wishes of Turkey.
Quote:
|
you're right when you say i shouldn't demand the middle eastern countries take in the refugees. i'll take that back... i think i only said that in a one off post, but i was mostly using that part of my argument to point out the absurdity of importing these people to western countries instead - if their own neighbors won't even take them then why would we?
|
Again, that doesn't logically follow. "If their own neighbors won't even take them then why would we?" implies that their is something intrinsically undesirable about Syrian refugees that is of equal consideration to any country. As your own source pointed out, Turkey has its own specific reasons for not wanting to take in Arabs that do not necessarily apply to any other country.
Quote:
|
that's not to say the solution is that the muslim world should take the refugees... maybe they don't have to. maybe the refugees have nowhere to go and should go back to syria. at the end of the day, nobody knows everything about the situation. so following your logic nobody should be proposing any solutions.
|
Considering how much of a cock up our politicians make of world matters, then I wouldn't say that's unreasonable, at least as far as being qualified goes. But at the very least, if you're going to put forth that culture clashes are an argument against taking in the refugees without any thought of consequences, then shouldn't you do some research on the problems that it could cause for the countries you're saying should take them?