My (probably unpopular) opinion on arab refugees

[Thumpalumpacus]

Jesus christ. Did the doctor drop all of you when you were born? Obviously there are people who hurt their own countrymen. But by letting refugees in because of a political decision implies responsability. If a government willingly let refugees in, and these hurt someone, who is the responsible? The government. 

Actually -- and stay with me, I know this is a radical idea -- I think that the criminal is responsible for their own crime ... no matter where they're from.

Me, I don't like the idea of turning someone away simply because another person from their country is a burglar or druggie. If you're fine with it, bully for you.

Also, that food and water would be sent only if it will surely reach the refugees. Like, you know, those are already taking shelter in another countries? I never said I would send an airborne supply.

Do you think warlords with armies don't seize food and use it as a weapon of war? You should look into the history of Ethiopia and Somalia. UN-organized shipments were "distributed" by forces with loyalties to this or that warlord. Care to venture a guess on who didn't get fed? That's right, move to the head of the class -- they starved the populations of the enemy-controlled area. We've seen that most recently in Syria, too, where Assad and the Russians have blocked or even attacked aid convoys.

You would be sending aid not to help them, but to salve your conscience with a gesture.

[Catholic_Lady]

Do you think warlords with armies don't seize food and use it as a weapon of war? You should look into the history of Ethiopia and Somalia. UN-organized shipments were "distributed" by forces with loyalties to this or that warlord. Care to venture a guess on who didn't get fed? That's right, move to the head of the class -- they starved the populations of the enemy-controlled area. We've seen that most recently in Syria, too, where Assad and the Russians have blocked or even attacked aid convoys.

Ugh, this is horrible! There are just so many evil people in the world. I just don't get it.

[The Grand Nudger]

Your own countrymen "hurt the civilians".  Maybe you should start kicking them out?  At the very least you should be very afraid, and very suspicious.  If you're the type that worries about that sort of thing.

Sending them food and water is to send the people you're -actually- afraid of food and water.  That's who gets those supplies, because those are the guys with the guns.  The people running scared, being turned away by this or that country, they don't get that stuff.......because they don't have the guns.  More often than not it leads to a better fed and watered group of bastards creating even more refugees.

Jesus christ. Did the doctor drop all of you when you were born? Obviously there are people who hurt their own countrymen. But by letting refugees in because of a political decision implies responsability. If a government willingly let refugees in, and these hurt someone, who is the responsible? The government. 

Also, that food and water would be sent only if it will surely reach the refugees. Like, you know, those are already taking shelter in another countries? I never said I would send an airborne supply.

The individual responsible for the crime, ofc, is responsible.  Sort of a basic underpinning of criminal law.  The government isn't responsible, the entire mass of refugees aren't responsible, there's no "these".  It's that one guy, he's a dick.  It's painfully obvious that your aversion to refugees has to do with you being worried about there being some dicks among them, even if you don;t extend the same worry and group/institutional responsibility when your own dicks are dicks. Aren't you a "them" or a "these"..I mean, you are..after all, part of their group. Perhaps you should be treated as though some criminal was representative of all of "you" - you and yours are a vastly greater statistical risk to the community. I'm guessing you think that's bullshit, in your case. Well, follow through on that thought.

That's not exactly a sterling rationale for watching people die from afar and then sending them "help" in the form of cheetos, chocodiles and aquafina if and only if they manage to make it into some other country you deem worthy, lol.

[henryp]

The proposals we usually see for sending food/aid to refugees often include some sort of safe zone in the region. It's not like they are proposing dropping twinkies on the rubble and hoping for the best. Since the US is militarily invested to some degree, it's could be a lot different than in Africa.

[abaris]

Yeah, dream on you idiot. It's not as if failure of distribution wasn't in the public domain. But only for the people bothering to look. That much is true.

[The Grand Nudger]

I've distributed supplies from a safezone.  We do it, it's something that we can do, alot of times all that we're willing to do, but it doesn't actually stop the food from getting to the wrong people, or ensure that the right people get it......because you just don't know who is who, and ofc they have to go home, outside of your bristling firing lanes. You clear a building the next day for insurgents and there are your supplies, all eaten, nothing but the cans and wrappers left. Laying there next to the discarded 105's and loose electrical supplies (also american made and distributed). Meanwhile, the good guys keep getting thinner, no matter how much food you put directly into their hands. It's infuriating. At some point frustration alone makes you flirt with the idea of sweeping the whole lot with a few bursts from the 20mike on your av...or at least off a few of them at random with the 50 on the humvee, just so they all know how you're feeling.

[Thumpalumpacus]

The proposals we usually see for sending food/aid to refugees often include some sort of safe zone in the region. It's not like they are proposing dropping twinkies on the rubble and hoping for the best. Since the US is militarily invested to some degree, it's could be a lot different than in Africa.

A safe zone in Syria would mean America and Russia at war, sooner or later.

---

Do you think warlords with armies don't seize food and use it as a weapon of war? You should look into the history of Ethiopia and Somalia. UN-organized shipments were "distributed" by forces with loyalties to this or that warlord. Care to venture a guess on who didn't get fed? That's right, move to the head of the class -- they starved the populations of the enemy-controlled area. We've seen that most recently in Syria, too, where Assad and the Russians have blocked or even attacked aid convoys.

Ugh, this is horrible! There are just so many evil people in the world. I just don't get it.

As much evil as there is in this world, there is good, too. The thing is to not give up the good fight.

[Amarok]

The proposals we usually see for sending food/aid to refugees often include some sort of safe zone in the region.  It's not like they are proposing dropping twinkies on the rubble and hoping for the best.  Since the US is militarily invested to some degree, it's could be a lot different than in Africa.

A safe zone in Syria would mean America and Russia at war, sooner or later.

---

Ugh, this is horrible! There are just so many evil people in the world. I just don't get it.

As much evil as there is in this world, there is good, too. The thing is to not give up the good fight.

Indeed for every evil person or nasty group there is a 10,000 good ones we should always remind ourselves of that