Russia is to blame for the refugees

All I read are comments on how the west is to blame for the Syrian conflict when it was Russia who forced us not to get directly get involved in The Syrian government and in turn created Isis...

So why doesn't Russia just take all the Syrian refugees?

Posted from TSR Mobile

Scroll to see replies

Reply 1

Alex9999999999

Original post by AccountingBabe

You are looking for troubles ...and definitely you are looking for conflict.....

Reply 2

AccountingBabe

Original post by Alex9999999999

You are looking for troubles ...and definitely you are looking for conflict.....

....It's the truth though...

Posted from TSR Mobile

Reply 3

雷尼克

Original post by AccountingBabe

ISIS was created a very long time ago, it only recently split off to become a new organisation

Reply 4

ammmauk

Russia and Iran are the reasons why this war is still going on

Reply 5

meenu89

Russia has an interest in keeping the war going- they are selling arms to Assad.

Reply 6

AccountingBabe

Original post by 雷尼克

ISIS was created a very long time ago, it only recently split off to become a new organisation

Yes but they didn't get armed until the west decided to supply them when Russia blocked the west from applying pressure directly to the Syrian government.

Posted from TSR Mobile

Reply 7

scrotgrot

No doubt Russia stopped us bombing Assad but ISIS have been around since the Iraq insurgency and really of course the original problems have been around since the 1980s or 1920s if you really want to go back. Plus remember we voted down military action against Syria in our own houses of parliament and this before the Russian veto.

We couldn't make Russia take all the refugees even if nation-states were subject to the rule of law applied by an international organisation. Because there is absolutely no tenable causative relationship between their veto and the development of the civil war.

Reply 8

雷尼克

Original post by AccountingBabe

Yes but they didn't get armed until the west decided to supply them when Russia blocked the west from applying pressure directly to the Syrian government.

Posted from TSR Mobile

their supplies aren't what makes them so deadly, its the fact that the media keeps on broadcasting their atrocities.

Reply 9

AccountingBabe

Original post by scrotgrot

That's funny because I remember it was all go after the gas attacks on civilians until Putin reared his ugly head.

But I don't care if Russia takes any refugees but surely blaming the UK/US solely for the refugee crisis is uncalled for.

People constantly saying we should take in refugees in the UK because we created the mess... I don't see it tbh.

Posted from TSR Mobile

Reply 10

AccountingBabe

Original post by 雷尼克

their supplies aren't what makes them so deadly, its the fact that the media keeps on broadcasting their atrocities.

Agreed but they would have never even gotten status in world news if it was the west that had sent in troops/air strikes. But that was never made possible due to Russia's stance.

Posted from TSR Mobile

Reply 11

scrotgrot

Original post by AccountingBabe

Well, our own democratically elected chamber voted it down, so there you are. Possibly the reason why it seemed everyone wanted Assad bombed was because the government, which controls most of the media, were the ones who wanted to go to war.

Britain had a large part in creating the mess during the two post-war periods because we were the ones who carved out artificial states of Syria, Iraq and then Israel. The US had a large part in it because it armed the Islamists during the Cold War to fight a proxy war against the Soviets. And so it rolled on with the latest entanglement being the Iraq war.

Major world powers continue to intervene in the politics and economy of the Middle East because it is by far the biggest oil producing region in the world. Basically the Wahhabi Sunni ruling class of Saudi Arabia want Puritan Islamist puppet states across the ME that they can control and we are happy to let them foment Wahhabism if they keep the black gold a-flowing - even as we occasionally depose Sunni monarchs like Saddam.

Few of course suggests that the UK or US were the sole or proximate cause of the crisis, however our actions and those of other world/oil superpowers have been major geopolitical factors.

Reply 12

RF_PineMarten

Original post by AccountingBabe

Yes but they didn't get armed until the west decided to supply them when Russia blocked the west from applying pressure directly to the Syrian government.
Posted from TSR Mobile

The west supplied some rebel groups, but not ISIS. There were reports that ISIS captured some of that equipment from rebel groups, but I'm not sure how much they captured or how reliable those reports are.

ISIS got armed when the Iraqi army collapsed in parts of northern Iraq when ISIS launched an offensive in June 2014. That left ISIS with lots of tanks, artillery and armoured vehicles, plus the usual assault rifles and machine guns. That's why they became strong. That's in addition to what they had already captured over the course of the Syrian civil war where they used to fight alongside the rebels.

Reply 13

Chicken.M.

Original post by meenu89

Russia has an interest in keeping the war going- they are selling arms to Assad.

same with USA

Reply 14

HucktheForde

America is also to be blamed based on your logic since America supply arms to rebels allowing the war to rage on.

Posted from TSR Mobile

Reply 15

LenaSim

Yea, let's just blame Russia and kiss the EU's and the USA's asses :rolleyes:

Reply 16

AccountingBabe

Original post by LenaSim

Yea, let's just blame Russia and kiss the EU's and the USA's asses :rolleyes:

I'm not kissing anyone's ass I just think the criticism for the EU and U.S. Is rather blown out of proportion and find it funny that no one even mentions Russia's involvement in the situation....

Posted from TSR Mobile

Reply 17

LenaSim

Original post by AccountingBabe

They merely make some money by selling arms, it's not them who rattled Africa and the middle east. It was the west with their greed for oil and their need to always disturb others and never mind their own business.

If Russia had 0 involvement in this, it would be the same situation, someone else would sell more arms.

Reply 18

Alex9999999999

Original post by AccountingBabe

I don't like the blame game running against Russia.

It is not right to blame anybody without having good understanding in the situation and who is who.

Russia didn't mess around Syria, the main players were USA and UK sending there their own secret services and doing damages.

Since Afghanistan war Russia is mostly observer in Asia and very careful to stay aside of conflicts.

I know that most of you are clearly damaged in your minds about Russia. It is going on in a very long term period of time to brainwash you about Russians and Russia.

Try to see the facts instead of hysterical cries about Russia every time you need to blame and to escape your share of the responsibility.

First apply knowledge and understanding, then try to find the reasons, then try to look for who did it and try to apply no blame - everything in this world happens for reasons and has history and participants, it is not like only one is guilty. Tango takes two ( n ).

Reply 19

saeed97

Original post by AccountingBabe

Why not mention the US? They have by far caused the most damage there so maybe they should take refugees. It's quite funny how they stir sh*t up, force Europe in to the mess and then retreat when sh*t hits the fan and watches hysterically as the number of refugees coming into Europe while they face no backlash.