The current refugee wave in Europe

[ktchong]

So... pointing out that the aggression and interventions of the US, EU and NATO in the Middle East are what have caused the refugee crisis is "anti-West"?

Edited September 11, 2015 by ktchong

[BruceVC]

So... pointing out that the aggression and interventions of the US, EU and NATO in the Middle East are what have caused the refugee crisis is "anti-West"?

Well not by itself but we both know there are other things that inevitably come up

 

Why have I misunderstood you? Do you believe in the West and the USA?

 

 I assumed because of other things you have said 

[Varana]

So... pointing out that the aggression and interventions of the US, EU and NATO in the Middle East are what have caused the refugee crisis is "anti-West"?

First of all, though, it's dead wrong.

 

And after that, when asking why it's being said anyway, being "anti-West" usually is a good guess.

Edited September 11, 2015 by Varana

[Darkpriest]

@Bruce

 

I'll give you an example on the case how communism fell in the eastern EU, maybe then you will realize how different that was to what was done in Arabic countries.

 

The CEE countries lived under oppression of communism, there were protests, which were quenched hard and in blood. Look at events in Czechoslovakia and Poland from 1945 up to 1985. There were alwasy people dissatisfied with the government and there were groups that hated the system.

 

The only support those organizations were given from the west, was a vocal support and recognition of "opposition" as the people you have the moral right... that's it!!!.. No arms funding, no guriella fighting trainings, no airstrikes, etc... and WHY? because at that time the other side was a nuclear and military power of Soviet Union.

 

Eventually after a couple of generations a lot of people had someone who died or was a political prisoner in their wide family. So it also came that a new leader at the steering wheel of Soviet Union happened to be less militant, and that opened a window for protesters to gain ground in their countries as local governments, with less fear of military action from the big guy, were also not so inclined for another bloody run versus their own population. And so the change was made, not through direct power and combat, but through steady developments throughout 4-5 decades, with some body toll left as martyrs.

 

The point is, that at the end of the road the vast majority of population wanted the same change, they wanted more personal freedom and be able to elect their own government in a free, democratic election.

 

Can you say the same about all the parties involved in the so called "Arab spring" had the same call? Why not to let them fail a few times? arming opposition and destroying military structure of dictators just made things worse, as it only pro-longed the fight and militized local population, where many groups were fighting, but each for different reasons.

 

If we would not get involved, people would DIE and get imprisoned and tortured, same as it was in case of CEE countries, but the death toll would be much lower, eventually it could lead to changes at the leadership and perhaps that could trigger changes done internally, and slowly, in accordance to the readiness of the respective populaces.

 

I mean, look at Cuba, the old Castro is at his death bed and the younger one is already more open which leads to changes... I was on Cuba, and I've seen first hand how different people are there.

 

But no, in case of Arab countries, US and EU decided on military/fast solution, because of the natural resources. They wanted fast change, which would also set governments friendly to the Western powers, even though the combatants against the local dictatorship had very different reasons to do it. The example of Iraq alone should just make it super obvious, that you NEVER ever should get involved in local struggles in middle east...

 

As is, we put hand into destabilizing the whole region and gave birth to ISIS, which CAN succeed in forming a new Islamic state, it can, because they are united on a single goal, while their opposition is divided on what goals thy want to achieve while combating them... Sauds have different reasons, Iran has different reasons, Turks have different reasons, Assad has other reasons, Russia has different interests, and finally EU and US have other reasons too...

 

Let them suffer and fight their own fight for 40 years or more if need be, but they need to first unite themselves around a common goal, and not have various groups fighting for various interests... Once there is a common value around which they will gather the vast majority of population, then the change will happen in a less bloody way, and surely not so destabilizing as we have now.

 

Stop arming people there, stop fighting not your war over there... those are domestic conflicts... would you like as US that during your civil war you would get armed support from Brits on one of sides in a form of ground troops and artillery? What if you would have French army in the confederates, which would lead to their victory? Would you be the same country now?

 

Domestic conflicts should be resolved on a domestic level... never send an external army force to do their own job.

 

 

Funnily enough, I find Putins stance the most reasonable one on this whole ME drama... (and I disagree with him on so many others)

 

1) Do not remove local dictators, it will only make things worse

2) if you want to live in my country, you follow my laws and respect my culture, if you want to live in your culture, go back to your homeland...

Edited September 11, 2015 by Darkpriest

[Elerond]

 

So... pointing out that the aggression and interventions of the US, EU and NATO in the Middle East are what have caused the refugee crisis is "anti-West"?

First of all, though, it's dead wrong.

 

And after that, when asking why it's being said anyway, being "anti-West" usually is a good guess.

 

 

Denying that aggression and interventions from US, EU and NATO don't have any role in current refugee crisis is just as much denying reality as saying that there is no climate change, especially such where humans play part. Of course like every complex issue there is no single cause behind them and no singular point of time that could be pointed out to be the start, but still denying it happening is just dishonest and putting one's head in sand.

 

Also claims of "anti-West" are usually most dishonest because there are no singular West and people from the "West" that are critical towards so called actions of "West" aren't usually any way "anti-West", but people that don't agree at least with all actions that their leadership has decided to do, which as itself is very "West"-like mindset and way to think, because it is "Western way" to question and criticize actions by our governments. I would go even so far that people that yell "anti-West" when people criticize actions of our governments are more "anti-West" than those who criticize those actions.

Edited September 11, 2015 by Elerond

[Meshugger]

Iran seems to be eager to join the fun: http://www.zerohedge.com/news/2015-09-10/major-humiliation-obama-iran-has-sent-soldiers-support-russian-troops-syria

 

This of course means more war and more refugees knocking on EU's door. God-****ing-dammit.
 

[Darkpriest]

Also another example...

 

Look at China... we all remember the scenes from 1980s, and look at them now....

[BruceVC]

@Bruce

 

I'll give you an example on the case how communism fell in the eastern EU, maybe then you will realize how different that was to what was done in Arabic countries.

 

The CEE countries lived under oppression of communism, there were protests, which were quenched hard and in blood. Look at events in Czechoslovakia and Poland from 1945 up to 1985. There were alwasy people dissatisfied with the government and there were groups that hated the system.

 

The only support those organizations were given from the west, was a vocal support and recognition of "opposition" as the people you have the moral right... that's it!!!.. No arms funding, no guriella fighting trainings, no airstrikes, etc... and WHY? because at that time the other side was a nuclear and military power of Soviet Union.

 

Eventually after a couple of generations a lot of people had someone who died or was a political prisoner in their wide family. So it also came that a new leader at the steering wheel of Soviet Union happened to be less militant, and that opened a window for protesters to gain ground in their countries as local governments, with less fear of military action from the big guy, were also not so inclined for another bloody run versus their own population. And so the change was made, not through direct power and combat, but through steady developments throughout 4-5 decades, with some body toll left as martyrs.

 

The point is, that at the end of the road the vast majority of population wanted the same change, they wanted more personal freedom and be able to elect their own government in a free, democratic election.

 

Can you say the same about all the parties involved in the so called "Arab spring" had the same call? Why not to let them fail a few times? arming opposition and destroying military structure of dictators just made things worse, as it only pro-longed the fight and militized local population, where many groups were fighting, but each for different reasons.

 

If we would not get involved, people would DIE and get imprisoned and tortured, same as it was in case of CEE countries, but the death toll would be much lower, eventually it could lead to changes at the leadership and perhaps that could trigger changes done internally, and slowly, in accordance to the readiness of the respective populaces.

 

I mean, look at Cuba, the old Castro is at his death bed and the younger one is already more open which leads to changes... I was on Cuba, and I've seen first hand how different people are there.

 

But no, in case of Arab countries, US and EU decided on military/fast solution, because of the natural resources. They wanted fast change, which would also set governments friendly to the Western powers, even though the combatants against the local dictatorship had very different reasons to do it. The example of Iraq alone should just make it super obvious, that you NEVER ever should get involved in local struggles in middle east...

 

As is, we put hand into destabilizing the whole region and gave birth to ISIS, which CAN succeed in forming a new Islamic state, it can, because they are united on a single goal, while their opposition is divided on what goals thy want to achieve while combating them... Sauds have different reasons, Iran has different reasons, Turks have different reasons, Assad has other reasons, Russia has different interests, and finally EU and US have other reasons too...

 

Let them suffer and fight their own fight for 40 years or more if need be, but they need to first unite themselves around a common goal, and not have various groups fighting for various interests... Once there is a common value around which they will gather the vast majority of population, then the change will happen in a less bloody way, and surely not so destabilizing as we have now.

 

Stop arming people there, stop fighting not your war over there... those are domestic conflicts... would you like as US that during your civil war you would get armed support from Brits on one of sides in a form of ground troops and artillery? What if you would have French army in the confederates, which would lead to their victory? Would you be the same country now?

 

Domestic conflicts should be resolved on a domestic level... never send an external army force to do their own job.

 

 

Funnily enough, I find Putins stance the most reasonable one on this whole ME drama... (and I disagree with him on so many others)

 

1) Do not remove local dictators, it will only make things worse

2) if you want to live in my country, you follow my laws and respect my culture, if you want to live in your culture, go back to your homeland...

Thats been an interesting post, I knew some of it but most I didn't 

 

Thanks for sharing

 

I'm interested why you think Putin is reasonable? He is directly involved in destabilizing Ukraine which should be something you condemn as he is basically involved in  a domestic war?

Edited September 11, 2015 by BruceVC

[BruceVC]

 

 

So... pointing out that the aggression and interventions of the US, EU and NATO in the Middle East are what have caused the refugee crisis is "anti-West"?

First of all, though, it's dead wrong.

 

And after that, when asking why it's being said anyway, being "anti-West" usually is a good guess.

 

 

Denying that aggression and interventions from US, EU and NATO don't have any role in current refugee crisis is just as much denying reality as saying that there is no climate change, especially such where humans play part. Of course like every complex issue there is no single cause behind them and no singular point of time that could be pointed out to be the start, but still denying it happening is just dishonest and putting one's head in sand.

 

Also claims of "anti-West" are usually most dishonest because there are no singular West and people from the "West" that are critical towards so called actions of "West" aren't usually any way "anti-West", but people that don't agree at least with all actions that their leadership has decided to do, which as itself is very "West"-like mindset and way to think, because it is "Western way" to question and criticize actions by our governments. I would go even so far that people that yell "anti-West" when people criticize actions of our governments are more "anti-West" than those who criticize those actions.

 

I'm sorry to disagree with you again but I fail to see how the US, EU and NATO are responsible for Syria. This civil war was caused by the Arab Spring

 

I'm happy to read any links you can find. You see this is an important because if you right then I woulds say the West needs to take some refugees but once again why should they if they had nothing to do with it ? The ME surly needs to

 

"Anti-Western" is just a term I use to describe people who basically dislike the West, don't trust the West or tend to blame the West for things its not responsible for. There will always be people on every forum who dislike the USA or the UK..its normal but I just like to know why

Edited September 11, 2015 by BruceVC

[BruceVC]

Iran seems to be eager to join the fun: http://www.zerohedge.com/news/2015-09-10/major-humiliation-obama-iran-has-sent-soldiers-support-russian-troops-syria

 

This of course means more war and more refugees knocking on EU's door. God-****ing-dammit.

 

Strange that they think this development  somehow humiliates Obama ....the USA was never prepared to commit to Syria unless it received UNSC support 

 

Obama made the right decision, a legal one. Why should he feel embarrassed ?

Edited September 11, 2015 by BruceVC

[Elerond]

 

 

 

So... pointing out that the aggression and interventions of the US, EU and NATO in the Middle East are what have caused the refugee crisis is "anti-West"?

First of all, though, it's dead wrong.

 

And after that, when asking why it's being said anyway, being "anti-West" usually is a good guess.

 

 

Denying that aggression and interventions from US, EU and NATO don't have any role in current refugee crisis is just as much denying reality as saying that there is no climate change, especially such where humans play part. Of course like every complex issue there is no single cause behind them and no singular point of time that could be pointed out to be the start, but still denying it happening is just dishonest and putting one's head in sand.

 

Also claims of "anti-West" are usually most dishonest because there are no singular West and people from the "West" that are critical towards so called actions of "West" aren't usually any way "anti-West", but people that don't agree at least with all actions that their leadership has decided to do, which as itself is very "West"-like mindset and way to think, because it is "Western way" to question and criticize actions by our governments. I would go even so far that people that yell "anti-West" when people criticize actions of our governments are more "anti-West" than those who criticize those actions.

 

I'm sorry to disagree with you again but I fail to see how the US, EU and NATO are responsible for Syria. This civil war was caused by the Arab Spring

 

I'm happy to read any links you can find. You see this is an important because if you right then I woulds say the West needs to take some refugees but once again why should they if they had nothing to do with it ? The ME surly needs to

 

"Anti-Western" is just a term I use to describe people who basically dislike the West, don't trust the West or tend to blame the West for things its not responsible for. There will always be people on every forum who dislike the USA or the UK..its normal but I just like to know why

 

 

When you give weapons to rebels that fight against Syrian government and put said government under trade embargo, and threaten everybody that helps said government with trade embargo, and when you have destabilize neighboring country with decade of war and leave it under governance of government that don't have control over whole country and who also could be said to persecute some of country's population you create environment that explodes easily to  civil war and let criminal elements take control over things, which leads to situation where said country becomes unattractive and even dangerous for its basic citizens.

 

Here is some links that give one picture how actions from US, EU and NATO have cause destabilization in ME and therefore are partial cause of current crises.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/middleeast/syria/11203825/Syrian-rebels-armed-and-trained-by-US-surrender-to-al-Qaeda.html

http://www.wsj.com/articles/covert-cia-mission-to-arm-syrian-rebels-goes-awry-1422329582

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iraq_War

https://www.gov.uk/guidance/sanctions-on-syria

http://www.treasury.gov/resource-center/sanctions/Programs/pages/syria.aspx

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/American-led_intervention_in_Syria

http://www.aljazeera.com/indepth/opinion/2014/12/crisis-iraq-was-rise-isil-surp-2014122592114375688.html

http://www.hurriyetdailynews.com/earlier-intervention-could-have-prevented-the-rise-of-isil-turkish-pm-tells-cnn.aspx?pageID=238&nID=86036&NewsCatID=338

[Darkpriest]

 

@Bruce

 

I'll give you an example on the case how communism fell in the eastern EU, maybe then you will realize how different that was to what was done in Arabic countries.

 

The CEE countries lived under oppression of communism, there were protests, which were quenched hard and in blood. Look at events in Czechoslovakia and Poland from 1945 up to 1985. There were alwasy people dissatisfied with the government and there were groups that hated the system.

 

The only support those organizations were given from the west, was a vocal support and recognition of "opposition" as the people you have the moral right... that's it!!!.. No arms funding, no guriella fighting trainings, no airstrikes, etc... and WHY? because at that time the other side was a nuclear and military power of Soviet Union.

 

Eventually after a couple of generations a lot of people had someone who died or was a political prisoner in their wide family. So it also came that a new leader at the steering wheel of Soviet Union happened to be less militant, and that opened a window for protesters to gain ground in their countries as local governments, with less fear of military action from the big guy, were also not so inclined for another bloody run versus their own population. And so the change was made, not through direct power and combat, but through steady developments throughout 4-5 decades, with some body toll left as martyrs.

 

The point is, that at the end of the road the vast majority of population wanted the same change, they wanted more personal freedom and be able to elect their own government in a free, democratic election.

 

Can you say the same about all the parties involved in the so called "Arab spring" had the same call? Why not to let them fail a few times? arming opposition and destroying military structure of dictators just made things worse, as it only pro-longed the fight and militized local population, where many groups were fighting, but each for different reasons.

 

If we would not get involved, people would DIE and get imprisoned and tortured, same as it was in case of CEE countries, but the death toll would be much lower, eventually it could lead to changes at the leadership and perhaps that could trigger changes done internally, and slowly, in accordance to the readiness of the respective populaces.

 

I mean, look at Cuba, the old Castro is at his death bed and the younger one is already more open which leads to changes... I was on Cuba, and I've seen first hand how different people are there.

 

But no, in case of Arab countries, US and EU decided on military/fast solution, because of the natural resources. They wanted fast change, which would also set governments friendly to the Western powers, even though the combatants against the local dictatorship had very different reasons to do it. The example of Iraq alone should just make it super obvious, that you NEVER ever should get involved in local struggles in middle east...

 

As is, we put hand into destabilizing the whole region and gave birth to ISIS, which CAN succeed in forming a new Islamic state, it can, because they are united on a single goal, while their opposition is divided on what goals thy want to achieve while combating them... Sauds have different reasons, Iran has different reasons, Turks have different reasons, Assad has other reasons, Russia has different interests, and finally EU and US have other reasons too...

 

Let them suffer and fight their own fight for 40 years or more if need be, but they need to first unite themselves around a common goal, and not have various groups fighting for various interests... Once there is a common value around which they will gather the vast majority of population, then the change will happen in a less bloody way, and surely not so destabilizing as we have now.

 

Stop arming people there, stop fighting not your war over there... those are domestic conflicts... would you like as US that during your civil war you would get armed support from Brits on one of sides in a form of ground troops and artillery? What if you would have French army in the confederates, which would lead to their victory? Would you be the same country now?

 

Domestic conflicts should be resolved on a domestic level... never send an external army force to do their own job.

 

 

Funnily enough, I find Putins stance the most reasonable one on this whole ME drama... (and I disagree with him on so many others)

 

1) Do not remove local dictators, it will only make things worse

2) if you want to live in my country, you follow my laws and respect my culture, if you want to live in your culture, go back to your homeland...

Thats been an interesting post, I knew some of it but most I didn't 

 

Thanks for sharing

 

I'm interested why you think Putin is reasonable? He is directly involved in destabilizing Ukraine which should be something you condemn as he is basically involved in  a domestic war?

 

 

I said, in the case of ME and immigrants his stance is reasonable. Ukraine is another cup of tea, and he overreacted there... the Crimea part i can understand and only a moron would think that Russia would let their black sea fleet base be removed from there. (That is why Western countries did not really care that much about Crimea, aside of some voiced concern) It is too important for their geopolitics, especially the middle east area, but further actions in Donbas and generally eastern Ukraine are just plain stupid on his part, and now put him in a stalemate... he can't really pull off and lose face, but on the other side the good will of western countries has been depleted and they are not really interested in helping him find a solution that would save his face and end the conflict there.

[Drowsy Emperor]

This makes me so sad: stood for 2000 years and it had to be leveled in the 21st century.

 

https://themuslimissue.wordpress.com/2015/09/10/the-only-thing-left-of-the-2000-year-old-temple-at-palmyra-the-ancient-temple-of-bel/

 

****ing savages.

 

 

and the lols:

 

https://themuslimissue.wordpress.com/2015/09/11/saudi-arabia-refuse-to-take-in-refugees-instead-offer-to-build-200-mosques-in-germany/

Edited September 11, 2015 by Drowsy Emperor

[BruceVC]

This makes me so sad: stood for 2000 years and it had to be leveled in the 21st century.

 

https://themuslimissue.wordpress.com/2015/09/10/the-only-thing-left-of-the-2000-year-old-temple-at-palmyra-the-ancient-temple-of-bel/

 

****ing savages.

 

 

and the lols:

 

https://themuslimissue.wordpress.com/2015/09/11/saudi-arabia-refuse-to-take-in-refugees-instead-offer-to-build-200-mosques-in-germany/

Honestly forget  the Arabs if they cant protect there own historical sites. I am happy with how Western countries manage these types of sites 

[Drowsy Emperor]

Its world heritage, not for them to destroy. At least not without serious repercussions, imo. I can't stand unnecessary destruction of beautiful things.

 

That's the problem with Islam, even in the 21st century it doesn't even have the basest level of tolerance for anything other than itself. Even the savage looting of south america, or the world in general during colonialism didn't leave such a wasteland. Hell, even the militant communism of the Soviet Union didn't wipe out all, or even most of the churches of the former Russian empire - or even the products of the "bourgeois" in general.

[Darkpriest]

Well they act in the same way as early Christians.... Destruction of Great Library of Alexandria being the most painful one.

[BruceVC]

 

 

 

 

So... pointing out that the aggression and interventions of the US, EU and NATO in the Middle East are what have caused the refugee crisis is "anti-West"?

First of all, though, it's dead wrong.

 

And after that, when asking why it's being said anyway, being "anti-West" usually is a good guess.

 

 

Denying that aggression and interventions from US, EU and NATO don't have any role in current refugee crisis is just as much denying reality as saying that there is no climate change, especially such where humans play part. Of course like every complex issue there is no single cause behind them and no singular point of time that could be pointed out to be the start, but still denying it happening is just dishonest and putting one's head in sand.

 

Also claims of "anti-West" are usually most dishonest because there are no singular West and people from the "West" that are critical towards so called actions of "West" aren't usually any way "anti-West", but people that don't agree at least with all actions that their leadership has decided to do, which as itself is very "West"-like mindset and way to think, because it is "Western way" to question and criticize actions by our governments. I would go even so far that people that yell "anti-West" when people criticize actions of our governments are more "anti-West" than those who criticize those actions.

 

I'm sorry to disagree with you again but I fail to see how the US, EU and NATO are responsible for Syria. This civil war was caused by the Arab Spring

 

I'm happy to read any links you can find. You see this is an important because if you right then I woulds say the West needs to take some refugees but once again why should they if they had nothing to do with it ? The ME surly needs to

 

"Anti-Western" is just a term I use to describe people who basically dislike the West, don't trust the West or tend to blame the West for things its not responsible for. There will always be people on every forum who dislike the USA or the UK..its normal but I just like to know why

 

 

When you give weapons to rebels that fight against Syrian government and put said government under trade embargo, and threaten everybody that helps said government with trade embargo, and when you have destabilize neighboring country with decade of war and leave it under governance of government that don't have control over whole country and who also could be said to persecute some of country's population you create environment that explodes easily to  civil war and let criminal elements take control over things, which leads to situation where said country becomes unattractive and even dangerous for its basic citizens.

 

Here is some links that give one picture how actions from US, EU and NATO have cause destabilization in ME and therefore are partial cause of current crises.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/middleeast/syria/11203825/Syrian-rebels-armed-and-trained-by-US-surrender-to-al-Qaeda.html

http://www.wsj.com/articles/covert-cia-mission-to-arm-syrian-rebels-goes-awry-1422329582

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iraq_War

https://www.gov.uk/guidance/sanctions-on-syria

http://www.treasury.gov/resource-center/sanctions/Programs/pages/syria.aspx

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/American-led_intervention_in_Syria

http://www.aljazeera.com/indepth/opinion/2014/12/crisis-iraq-was-rise-isil-surp-2014122592114375688.html

http://www.hurriyetdailynews.com/earlier-intervention-could-have-prevented-the-rise-of-isil-turkish-pm-tells-cnn.aspx?pageID=238&nID=86036&NewsCatID=338

 

Yes but none of those links dispute what I have been saying from the beginning

 

The war was started due to the Arab Spring and how some Syrians wanted more political freedom....its not that hard to believe 

 

And yes this means the West did not start the war but they did provide aid as I acknowledged  in the beginning

[BruceVC]

Its world heritage, not for them to destroy. At least not without serious repercussions, imo. I can't stand unnecessary destruction of beautiful things.

 

That's the problem with Islam, even in the 21st century it doesn't even have the basest level of tolerance for anything other than itself. Even the savage looting of south america, or the world in general during colonialism didn't leave such a wasteland. Hell, even the militant communism of the Soviet Union didn't wipe out all, or even most of the churches of the former Russian empire - or even the products of the "bourgeois" in general.

Yes I agree, it is sad but what do you expect from the likes of ISIS?

 

Also ISIS thinks they are destroying what they consider is blasphomous and somehow this will change or rewrite history but all the historical sites data is kept on softcopy so they will only rewrite history where they control 

[Bartimaeus]

Well they act in the same way as early Christians.... Destruction of Great Library of Alexandria being the most painful one.

Neither Julius nor Aurelian (the two most widely attributed to its destruction) were Christian - just Romans.

[Amentep]

 

This makes me so sad: stood for 2000 years and it had to be leveled in the 21st century.

 

https://themuslimissue.wordpress.com/2015/09/10/the-only-thing-left-of-the-2000-year-old-temple-at-palmyra-the-ancient-temple-of-bel/

 

****ing savages.

Honestly forget  the Arabs if they cant protect there own historical sites. I am happy with how Western countries manage these types of sites 

 

 

Well Khaled al-Asaad did try.

[Elerond]

 

 

 

 

 

So... pointing out that the aggression and interventions of the US, EU and NATO in the Middle East are what have caused the refugee crisis is "anti-West"?

First of all, though, it's dead wrong.

 

And after that, when asking why it's being said anyway, being "anti-West" usually is a good guess.

 

 

Denying that aggression and interventions from US, EU and NATO don't have any role in current refugee crisis is just as much denying reality as saying that there is no climate change, especially such where humans play part. Of course like every complex issue there is no single cause behind them and no singular point of time that could be pointed out to be the start, but still denying it happening is just dishonest and putting one's head in sand.

 

Also claims of "anti-West" are usually most dishonest because there are no singular West and people from the "West" that are critical towards so called actions of "West" aren't usually any way "anti-West", but people that don't agree at least with all actions that their leadership has decided to do, which as itself is very "West"-like mindset and way to think, because it is "Western way" to question and criticize actions by our governments. I would go even so far that people that yell "anti-West" when people criticize actions of our governments are more "anti-West" than those who criticize those actions.

 

I'm sorry to disagree with you again but I fail to see how the US, EU and NATO are responsible for Syria. This civil war was caused by the Arab Spring

 

I'm happy to read any links you can find. You see this is an important because if you right then I woulds say the West needs to take some refugees but once again why should they if they had nothing to do with it ? The ME surly needs to

 

"Anti-Western" is just a term I use to describe people who basically dislike the West, don't trust the West or tend to blame the West for things its not responsible for. There will always be people on every forum who dislike the USA or the UK..its normal but I just like to know why

 

 

When you give weapons to rebels that fight against Syrian government and put said government under trade embargo, and threaten everybody that helps said government with trade embargo, and when you have destabilize neighboring country with decade of war and leave it under governance of government that don't have control over whole country and who also could be said to persecute some of country's population you create environment that explodes easily to  civil war and let criminal elements take control over things, which leads to situation where said country becomes unattractive and even dangerous for its basic citizens.

 

Here is some links that give one picture how actions from US, EU and NATO have cause destabilization in ME and therefore are partial cause of current crises.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/middleeast/syria/11203825/Syrian-rebels-armed-and-trained-by-US-surrender-to-al-Qaeda.html

http://www.wsj.com/articles/covert-cia-mission-to-arm-syrian-rebels-goes-awry-1422329582

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iraq_War

https://www.gov.uk/guidance/sanctions-on-syria

http://www.treasury.gov/resource-center/sanctions/Programs/pages/syria.aspx

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/American-led_intervention_in_Syria

http://www.aljazeera.com/indepth/opinion/2014/12/crisis-iraq-was-rise-isil-surp-2014122592114375688.html

http://www.hurriyetdailynews.com/earlier-intervention-could-have-prevented-the-rise-of-isil-turkish-pm-tells-cnn.aspx?pageID=238&nID=86036&NewsCatID=338

 

Yes but none of those links dispute what I have been saying from the beginning

 

The war was started due to the Arab Spring and how some Syrians wanted more political freedom....its not that hard to believe 

 

And yes this means the West did not start the war but they did provide aid as I acknowledged  in the beginning

 

 

Arab Spring would not happened or it would happened differently without western interventions in ME and North Africa. 

 

Western interventions in Syria has made it impossible for al-Assad's regime to take back their control over Syria

 

Iraq's war and how west influenced Iraq's new government lead and made possible that ISIL born and is as powerful as it is

 

These things have had sever effects that have contributed to current refugee crises, which is what I said in first place when I said that western actions have been partial cause behind refugee crises and there are no singular reason for them, but it is undeniable if you actually look things that western actions have contributed current crises.

[Darkpriest]

BTW, leave them alone and they will be busy with themselves:

 

http://news.yahoo.com/al-qaeda-leader-al-zawahiri-declares-war-isis-151231254--abc-news-topstories.html

[Darkpriest]

 

Well they act in the same way as early Christians.... Destruction of Great Library of Alexandria being the most painful one.

Neither Julius nor Aurelian (the two most widely attributed to its destruction) were Christian - just Romans.

 

 

well it survived till later (part of wiki quote):

 

Paganism was made illegal by an edict of the Emperor Theodosius I in AD 391. The temples of Alexandria were closed by Patriarch Theophilus of Alexandria in AD 391.^[32] The historian Socrates of Constantinople describes that all pagan temples in Alexandria were destroyed, including the Serapeum.^[34] Since the Serapeum housed a part of the Great Library, some scholars believe that the remains of the Library of Alexandria were destroyed at this time.^[32][35] However, it is not known how many, if any, books were contained in it at the time of destruction, and contemporary scholars do not mention the library directly.^[36][37]

In AD 642, Alexandria was captured by the Muslim army of Amr ibn al `Aas. Several later Arabic sources describe the library's destruction by the order of Caliph Omar.^[38][39]Bar-Hebraeus, writing in the 13th century, quotes Omar as saying to Yaḥyā al-Naḥwī: "If those books are in agreement with the Quran, we have no need of them; and if these are opposed to the Quran, destroy them."^[40] Later scholars are skeptical of these stories, given the range of time that had passed before they were written down and the political motivations of the various writers.^{[41][42][43][44][45]}

[BruceVC]

BTW, leave them alone and they will be busy with themselves:

 

http://news.yahoo.com/al-qaeda-leader-al-zawahiri-declares-war-isis-151231254--abc-news-topstories.html

The issue is the West cant allow genocide of innocents, like why the USA went back into Iraq last year to save the Yazidis who were about to wiped out by ISIS. So even though it may seem reasonable and logical what you are saying there is this humanitarian precedent that in most cases the West wont ignore and I support this 

 

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2014/08/09/yazidis-trapped-mountaintop_n_5664857.html

[Zoraptor]

That's the problem with Islam, even in the 21st century it doesn't even have the basest level of tolerance for anything other than itself.

 

That bit of Syria has been muslim ruled since... probably Khalid ibn Walid as iirc neither the Crusaders nor the Byzants ever got to it/ got it back in the intervening time. Excluding a decade or so of Froggy rule that's 1300+ years of muslim rule where it was fine. ISIS are just a bunch of religious dingbats who are jealous that the Vandals got a term named after them. Ironically, the current muslim sect closest to what ISIS claims as their philosophy is the Ibadi sect of Oman, one of the most tolerant muslim countries anywhere, if not the most tolerant.

 

Though there is some exquisite irony in Saudi Arabia- actual philosophical and religious antecedent sponsor of what became both Al Qaeda and ISIS- wanting to sponsor a bunch of loony toons extremist mosques in Germany to 'help' people running away from the consequences of their loony toons religious extremism in Syria. I doubt I'd be able to avoid laughing in their faces at that 'offer'. Plus of course, Saudi has vandalised Mecca pretty extensively themselves, with nary a squeak in the west.