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

Like mentioned by Trapz99... We can take in a few refugees but does it deal with the actual issue? No.

The reality is that there has to be an invasion and occupation of Syria with an International UN force/NATO-led for a considerable period of time.

It is obvious that neither Assad or the rebel groups have the mandate or the organisation to provide stability to the area and the refugee situation will continue unless the above is done.

Unfortunately, the Iraq war and the left have polluted the minds of the British public so no Government is willing to do the right thing.

It's this kind of thinking that caused the problem in the first place. Be very careful what you read in the newspapers or hear from others because over here in the west the truth is elusive. It's even elusive over there.

Afghanistan and Iraq are still a mess. I don't know why you think we are able to get it right all of a sudden.

Libya however is where it all started. Our "no fly zone" was an outright lie. Was Gadaffi's convoy flying around when we bombed it twice allowing a mob to catch up with it and butcher him? I did not know that cars could fly. Perhaps an abuse interpreting the term "took flight". I believe we also bombed his family home and his mechanised army based on the ridiculous lie that he was going to kill every man, woman and child in a city of half a million. The deliberately invented narrative here is that we just imposed a no fly zone, it was a fair fight, a natural revolution when in reality we gave the rebels in Libya a massive assist with our air power and effected the assassination of a head of state.

The result is that today Libya is also a complete mess and a broken country further adding to unrest as it now supplies man power and arms to irregular militants.

Throughout the Libya campaign we were bombarded with a lot of propaganda which after the fact turned out either false or questionable. This is called atrocity propaganda which you can read about on wikipedia. Journalists would interview anyone with anything bad to say about Gadaffi, verified or not. In the UN, a single senior defector who stood much to gain from intervention was their source of information on Gadaffi for the most part. Russia and China let the UN resolution go through reportedly due to pressure from allies but expressed concern as to the wording of the resolution. They were dismayed when we did abuse the wording of the article to dictate the outcome of the conflict. I'm not saying Gadaffi was great but the fact of the matter is that the story we're given is entirely one sided.

This in fact had massive ramifications for Syria which was already fragile neighbouring three zones of instability (Israel, Turkey, Iraq). Following Libya there were many people motivated to achieve the same in Syria with atrocity propaganda, instigating incidents and so on. Protesters actually had much to gain in provoking a response and were sadly sometimes infiltrated by agent provocateurs and militants. Despite being given the narrative of their being peaceful protests, there was in fact violence early on and the "crack down on protesters" was not systematic as made out but a string of escalatory incidents and on the government's side many appeared to be more down to incompetency than a real campaign of evil. Again reporting on Syria was incredibly one sided. Newspapers were reporting anything any "activist" source in Syria phones in to tell them while completely ignoring the government or official press in Syria partly out of spite that Syria controls journalism to a fair degree. For a couple of years the reporting on Syria was almost funny. All you would hear is that Assad is bombing civilians. As if there were no rebels, as if he was just mad and bombing people just because.

Syria also has a lot of enemies that want to undermine it so it would not be at all surprising to find the Turkey and Saudi Arabia had been funding, encouraging and supporting rebellion under the table. It would not surprise me if we we're working towards the same ourselves.

Regardless what was really big in this was the threat of intervention. Why do you think there were so many army defections? Contrary to what we're told, much of it is likely down to that after being threatened with intervention like in Iraq and Libya many in the Syrian army simply didn't want to die in a NATO intervention. Sometimes people will just choose whichever side they think is the winning one.

Russia and China vetoed action in Syria but to no avail. The US, against international law, still threatened Syria with intervention. Mean while the US, SA, Turkey and allies invested heavily in the rebels training them, allowing the propaganda campaign to continue which attracted foreign fighters, mercenaries and so on to Syria, armed the rebels with increasingly advanced weapons, supplied the rebels with training, intelligence, funds, equipment such as nightvision goggles and so on. We did what we did against the Soviets in Afghanistan but stepped it up a notch, or, and then some. What we did in Afghanistan led to the Taliban which was very similar to ISIS so it's not like we were clueless about the consequence.

In essence it has been a real war by proxy. Even before ISIS the number of foreign fighters in Syria was huge. You might even argue that the rebels lost long ago, but foreign fighters have been replacing the losses. Until ISIS it wasn't particularly uncool to go to Syria and fight against Assad. You might be surprised how much damage can be done in a war by proxy but then it beat back the USSR in Afghanistan. Syria is tiny by comparison. Its enemy Saudi Arabia has enough liquid cash to pay everyone in Syria an average wage comparable to that of a developed country for one year. They could literally pay everyone in Syria to turn against the government. When it comes to proxy war with such powerful foreign backers against it, it's not surprising that the rebels have made gains.

Essentially, this is a war created by and perpetuated by us. You're saying we should put it to a stop and not let it drag on by simply taking out Assad. I'm saying we shouldn't have created the conflict in the first place.

As for the refugee crisis we should have had a clue about that since Syria was already a host to over a million Iraqi refugees.

The governments caused the war, not the general population. I'M not responsible for any of it.

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?

Polluting our continent is not an option.

Irrelevant. You said that you'd rather have a Syrian die than come to the UK. Terrible.

Why do you want to destroy the UK? Terrible.

The question is: "Would you rather have a (one) Syrian die than come to the UK?" One refugee doesn't destroy the UK.
Stop trying to alter it- it doesn't reference Syrian immigration in general, just an isolated hypothetical that you should take as it is.

But it isn't just one is it? As with this hypothetical question, you could repeat it for every single migrants in the world.

Rather have them die attempting to make their country a better place then letting them make our countries worse

This is after all what millions of westerners have done in the past (and it's why we are the countries we are now)

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/World_War_II_casualties#Total_deaths

Young men fleeing their countries in times of need should be seen as cowardice and they should find no succor

It is a proven figure, and I am calling BS on your £31,000 figure. I would like you to prove it.

Also I have noticed that you are talking averages, whilst I am referring to most in numerical terms, using your average, 1 guy could earn £10 million a year and boost up the average of 99 other migrants. Still, I'm calling bs on your average salary of £31000 of migrants, If that was the case they would be making the UK money (which other graphs have shown that they do not).

Most leftists make up figures and selectivity pick out figures regarding immigration (like you right now), as they know that to tell the truth would be to admit that their policies are bankrupting the nation.

It's this kind of thinking that caused the problem in the first place. Be very careful what you read in the newspapers or hear from others because over here in the west the truth is elusive. It's even elusive over there.

Afghanistan and Iraq are still a mess. I don't know why you think we are able to get it right all of a sudden.

Libya however is where it all started. Our "no fly zone" was an outright lie. Was Gadaffi's convoy flying around when we bombed it twice allowing a mob to catch up with it and butcher him? I did not know that cars could fly. Perhaps an abuse interpreting the term "took flight". I believe we also bombed his family home and his mechanised army based on the ridiculous lie that he was going to kill every man, woman and child in a city of half a million. The deliberately invented narrative here is that we just imposed a no fly zone, it was a fair fight, a natural revolution when in reality we gave the rebels in Libya a massive assist with our air power and effected the assassination of a head of state.

The result is that today Libya is also a complete mess and a broken country further adding to unrest as it now supplies man power and arms to irregular militants.

Throughout the Libya campaign we were bombarded with a lot of propaganda which after the fact turned out either false or questionable. This is called atrocity propaganda which you can read about on wikipedia. Journalists would interview anyone with anything bad to say about Gadaffi, verified or not. In the UN, a single senior defector who stood much to gain from intervention was their source of information on Gadaffi for the most part. Russia and China let the UN resolution go through reportedly due to pressure from allies but expressed concern as to the wording of the resolution. They were dismayed when we did abuse the wording of the article to dictate the outcome of the conflict. I'm not saying Gadaffi was great but the fact of the matter is that the story we're given is entirely one sided.

This in fact had massive ramifications for Syria which was already fragile neighbouring three zones of instability (Israel, Turkey, Iraq). The country also had a huge potential sectarian problem and economic problems outside of its control. Following Libya there were many people motivated to achieve the same in Syria with atrocity propaganda, instigating incidents and so on. Protesters actually had much to gain in provoking a response and were sadly sometimes infiltrated by agent provocateurs and militants. Despite being given the narrative of their being peaceful protests, there was in fact violence early on and the "crack down on protesters" was not systematic as made out but a string of escalatory incidents and on the government's side many appeared to be more down to incompetency or individual actions rather than a real campaign of evil. Again reporting on Syria was incredibly one sided. Newspapers were reporting anything any "activist" source in Syria phones in to tell them while completely ignoring the government or official press in Syria partly out of spite that Syria controls journalism to a fair degree. For a couple of years the reporting on Syria was almost funny. All you would hear is that Assad is bombing civilians. As if there were no rebels, as if he was just mad and bombing people just because.

Syria also has a lot of enemies that want to undermine it so it would not be at all surprising to find the Turkey and Saudi Arabia had been funding, encouraging and supporting rebellion under the table. It would not surprise me if we we're working towards the same ourselves.

Regardless what was really big in this was the threat of intervention. Why do you think there were so many army defections? Contrary to what we're told, much of it is likely down to that after being threatened with intervention like in Iraq and Libya many in the Syrian army simply didn't want to die in a NATO intervention. Sometimes people will just choose whichever side they think is the winning one.

Russia and China vetoed action in Syria but to no avail. The US, against international law, still threatened Syria with intervention. Meanwhile the US, SA, Turkey and allies invested heavily in the rebels training them, allowing the propaganda campaign to continue which attracted foreign fighters, mercenaries and so on to Syria, armed the rebels with increasingly advanced weapons, supplied the rebels with training, intelligence, funds, equipment such as nightvision goggles and so on. We did what we did against the Soviets in Afghanistan but stepped it up a notch, or, and then some. What we did in Afghanistan led to the Taliban which was very similar to ISIS so it's not like we were clueless about the consequence.

In essence it has been a real war by proxy. Even before ISIS the number of foreign fighters in Syria was huge. You might even argue that the rebels lost long ago, but foreign fighters have been replacing the losses. Until ISIS it wasn't particularly uncool to go to Syria and fight against Assad. You might be surprised how much damage can be done in a war by proxy but then it beat back the USSR in Afghanistan. Syria is tiny by comparison. Its enemy Saudi Arabia has enough liquid cash to pay everyone in Syria an average wage comparable to that of a developed country for one year. They could literally pay everyone in Syria to turn against the government. When it comes to proxy war with such powerful foreign backers against it, it's not surprising that the rebels have made gains.

Essentially, this is a war created by and perpetuated by us. You're saying we should put it to a stop and not let it drag on by simply taking out Assad. I'm saying we shouldn't have created the conflict in the first place.

As for the refugee crisis we should have had a clue about that since Syria was already a host to over a million Iraqi refugees.

Polluting our continent is not an option.

Most leftists make up figures and selectivity pick out figures regarding immigration (like you right now), as they know that to tell the truth would be to admit that their policies are bankrupting the nation.

http://www.migrationobservatory.ox.ac.uk/briefings/characteristics-and-outcomes-migrants-uk-labour-market

Males .... Females
UK 15.23 .... 12.17

https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2013/nov/05/migration-target-useless-experts

Migrants contribute 25 billion more to the economy than they take out.

........................
Easy enough to find. You can do the maths to work out the yearly wage.

Funny how you ignored the rest of what I written.

Even if it was less than 27000, it doesn't matter because cheap labour is required for a company to be profitable.

Coming from the guy that voted for a recession and cuts.

Increased migration with a decreasing deficit. Clearly, you just don't like the facts, so you will ignore it.

I am not a leftist. I am just not racist like you so I don't have a problem with taxes from migrants being used to decrease the deficit.