Anti-refugee people: Would you rather have a Syrian die than come to the UK?

I'd say neither choice - we shouldn't be wasting money on airstrikes, and I don't want middle eastern migrants coming here.

A lot of people here are hating on refugees and saying that Britain shouldn't accept any. So would you rather have an innocent Syrian die in an air strike or a bomb than come here and live a safe life here?

We can't take in everyone- unfortunately, some people will die in the war. The best way to prevent the bloodshed is by destroying ISIS and somewhat deintensifying the situation there.

If a tap is leaking, should we just keep cleaning up the water or should we stop the source of the leak? I think we should do the latter.

We do not hate refugees, what we are saying is that letting in millions of people from a different part of the world from a different culture even though rich arab countries like Saudi Arabia and Oman and Bahrain haven't pulled their own weight, just because the UK is a very tolerant country is complete nonsense.

Only families who are actually syrian and actually refugees rather than the economic migrants that have been culturally enriching Europe by tripling rape rates in European cities are the only ones who deserve refuge in the UK.


Plain and simple.

But would you rather have a Syrian die in the war somehow or come here to the UK and live safely?

I am not "anti-refugee" per say, but the alternative to refugees not coming to Britain is not them dying, rather going to other nearby countries where they would feel more welcome, and where their principles might not be in opposition to that of the general population.

Which "principles" are in opposition to the UK's general population but would not be in opposition to, say, the Greek general population or the Italian or whichever country in the Mediterranean refugees reach first.

Oh shut up. We're the ones creating the chaos in the region for our own economic motives; systematically destabilising the ME. Turkey, Lebanon and surrounding countries have taken ten fold of refugees than what Germany or Sweden or any other European countries have taken in.

Are you a moron? So you're saying that the United Kingdom should take in Millions of refugees because we are trying to destroy a terrorist group that kills more people than any air-strike the US has ever dropped?

And it's funny how you mentioned Sweden, when they haven't dropped any air-strike at all, but are still forced into taking in refugees because of their stupid liberalism.

And Russia the nation that has caused the most damage on the ground, how many refugees have they taken in? Why don't you point fingers at them the way you do at the US and the UK? Because they aren't a country infected with this poison of liberalism.

And I specifically mentioned Saudi Arabia and Bahrain, countries with similar cultures that insult the west for not taking in refugees, when they themselves have taken in zero.

Add UAE and Qatar to that list.

Is this what Jesus would say?

I'd say neither choice - we shouldn't be wasting money on airstrikes, and I don't want middle eastern migrants coming here.