Are refugees inherently bad people?

Not at all. They can always fight back, but have chosen not to. Many have abandoned women and children in their homelands to flee. In a civil war, every man becomes a soldier, whether he volunteered or not. Thus they may be argued as moral deserters. Do host countries owe anything to people who many argue are cowards, traitors etc? And is it wise to invite such people into a country?

Do you seriously think that all the dads and lads would get out the kitchen knives and cricket bats and take to the streets?

No, they would use their guns.

Posted from TSR Mobile

Very few people in the UK have guns on their property.
Even so, here are three points against this stupid hypothetical situation against an even stupider argument

1) They are outgunned. Think about it. An Army vs a few dads with hunting rifles
2) They probably wouldn't risk being killed Many people have family to protect.
3) What do guns do against bombs from the sky?

Crap culture?

Yea it's pretty self explanatory


Posted from TSR Mobile

Very few? 3.4 million is more than a few.

Guerilla warfare is a very strong tactic when done right.

Posted from TSR Mobile

You are clearly deluded. Guerilla warfare can be effective but seriously you just completely ignored the rest of my points

White supremacy thing?

Then there's the practical issue to take into account: if people storm your community with AKs and all you've got is water balloons, I don't think fighting back would be high on your list of priorities.

If England descends into a warzone overnight, my first thought would be how me and my own are going to survive, not how I'm going kill every invader I come across with pointy sticks and stones from the beach.

An alive doctor is better than a dead doctor.

I've played enough COD to realise that I'd be balla at quickscoping, but where I am gonna get a Barrett on short notice?

White supremacy thing?

We're talking about poor people with no access to military training, organisation, or weaponry, faced with roving bands of trained men with assault rifles and explosives. Choosing to stay and fight is a pointless suicide. The only valid option is to run.

(I should also say - your argument was never going to convince me anyway, because I don't even believe in the existence of inherently bad people, but that's another story.)

This post doesn't really make any sense because civil wars last more than one or two days - i.e. the time it takes for you to travel by road to a friendly side at the start when checkpoints are not in place, and sign up to serve.

There are usually two or more clear sides in a conflict, that men can travel to. The kind of loose and quick shifting fourth generation warfare insurgencies and counterinsurgencies that are fought today - with territory quickly changing hands and attackers often mixing back into the civilian population - means that anyone who wants to fight can do so. There are several organisations in Libya, Iraq and Syria, for example, that will provide training and weaponry to someone, serving all ideological bents. Indeed, many men from Europe travel thousands of miles to fight for Assad or ISIS. There is nothing stopping the local man from fighting for his country - or even the insurgency if he supports it.

The best doctor is the one who is treating the wounded soldiers he was trained to treat, rather than serving falafel in some far off country.

I wouldn't know. I actually have weapons training - I don't play computer games. You will get one by walking a few miles to the nearest friendly outpost and signing up, instead of travelling 2000 miles to some other country because you are too afraid to fight.

That is what I do. Anything not worth acknowledging I ignore. Have a read into the Korengal Valley.

Posted from TSR Mobile

You are almost white. Where is Foo? Many women go mad without regular spankings :spank:



There are no such people in a civil war. All sides will happily train anyone who signs up, and most neighbourhoods and territories are so contested that anyone who can legitimately claim he is fleeing a warzone has ample opportunity to join a group that's fighting there. They will then be trained. The fallaciousness of this argument is all the more obvious because people from Europe and the USA with no training and very little money travel thousands of miles to fight for an involved group. Anyone who wants to fight has the reasonable option to do so, but male refugees seem to be running away because they lack morality, not because they lack opportunities.

A refugee is someone who usually flees adverse circumstances. The Geneva convention defines this as "a person who is outside their country of citizenship because they have well-founded grounds for fear of persecution because of their race, religion, nationality, membership of a particular social group or political opinion, and is unable to obtain sanctuary from their home country or, owing to such fear, is unwilling to avail themselves of the protection of that country."

But what kind of person flees a warzone when his country and community is being attacked?

I don't think women or female children, and male children under 10 or 11, should be prevented from fleeing warzones, as long as they aren't abandoning people who are fighting the conflict who depend on them (e.g. as ammunition transporters). But male children should be sent back as soon as they are of fighting or training age.

If it is a man who flees, he should capable of fighting until his late 40s. Should countries accept people who are unwilling to fight even to defend their own community? Is letting people who many would considers cowards into the country a good policy? What kind of value will such people add to the host country? Do countries owe anything to people whom the countries of origin (and most honourable people) would regard as cowards and deserters?

Crap culture?

Perhaps they meant pretty much white but with a little something extra

Understatement of the year!