The Student Room Group

Will the Muslim migrant & refugee crisis cause the EU to collapse?

Scroll to see replies

Original post by AishaGirl
Once the country the west destroyed is rebuilt and their houses rebuilt and their economy is rebuilt then yes I agree, they should be sent back. So perhaps in like 25+ years?


Yes, it's not Assad, the IS and associated groups that have destroyed Syria, it's Sweden. Mashallah, sister! Much wisdom! :rolleyes:
Reply 21
Original post by FolloUrDreams
Will the Muslim migrant & refugee crisis cause the EU to collapse?


Already has
Original post by Hydeman
Yes, it's not Assad, the IS and associated groups that have destroyed Syria, it's Sweden. Mashallah, sister! Much wisdom! :rolleyes:


How did the west destroy Syria? is this because they didnt get an Ikea?
Original post by Hydeman
Yes, it's not Assad, the IS and associated groups that have destroyed Syria, it's Sweden. Mashallah, sister! Much wisdom! :rolleyes:


IS was born from the Iraq war. Stop using Arabic words, it doesn't suit you.
Original post by 999tigger
How did the west destroy Syria? is this because they didnt get an Ikea?


I was using sarcasm to show the absurdity of what that member was saying.
Original post by Hydeman
I was using sarcasm to show the absurdity of what that member was saying.


Sorry was waiting for Aisha to tell us.
Original post by AishaGirl
The EU isn't going to collapse just because a few immigrants. Chill.


A few?!

Are you on crack?
Original post by _princessxox
In my opinion western countries should feel obliged to help seeing as it is partially due to their actions that the refugees have had to flee their countries.


ISIS should also be obliged to help then.
Original post by AishaGirl
Exactly princessxox. NATO countries should be bending over backwards to bring refugees to the UK, Europe, USA etc. Not only that but they should also get given compensation by the government.


What about the rich Gulf states whose petrodollars are driving the conflict in Syria? Never mind the Saudi's 100,000 plumbed and air-conditioned tents that are left empty most of the year.
Reply 29
Original post by AishaGirl
Once the country the west destroyed is rebuilt and their houses rebuilt and their economy is rebuilt then yes I agree, they should be sent back. So perhaps in like 25+ years?

The Arab countries are selfish and are not taking many refugees and yes this is despicable, Islam teaches us to be compassionate to our fellow Muslims and help them when they're in need but they just ignore them, it's so sad.

However that doesn't then give a free pass to non muslim countries to also reject them when those countries are the ones responsible primarily for them being a refugee in the first place.


Trash argument. What did Sweden do to have to take in refugees? They now have the second highest rate of rape only behind Lesotho. What did Germany do to deserve a truck plowing through a Christmas Market?
But no 'muh western foreign policy'. Your argument appeals to nothing but emotion

But never mind that, how do you expect us to pay for this? We have a budget deficit whilst being taxed to the brim, poor social care, NHS is crumbling but you think we can fork out more cash to spend on housing, welfare etc, we can't even help our own.

Your level of cognitive bias is very evident and astounding

Posted from TSR Mobile
No, fascists like you and excessive state nationalism will gradually cause the collapse of the EU. :smile:
Original post by JamesN88
What about the rich Gulf states whose petrodollars are driving the conflict in Syria? Never mind the Saudi's 100,000 plumbed and air-conditioned tents that are left empty most of the year.


It's despicable that the Muslim countries do not take in many refugees, it's sickening. However this doesn't mean the west shouldn't help them when they contributed to this mess.


Original post by heri2rs
Trash argument. What did Sweden do to have to take in refugees? They now have the second highest rate of rape only behind Lesotho. What did Germany do to deserve a truck plowing through a Christmas Market?
But no 'muh western foreign policy'. Your argument appeals to nothing but emotion

But never mind that, how do you expect us to pay for this? We have a budget deficit whilst being taxed to the brim, poor social care, NHS is crumbling but you think we can fork out more cash to spend on housing, welfare etc, we can't even help our own.

Your level of cognitive bias is very evident and astounding


Maybe if we didn't spend £50+ billion on "defence" every year we'd have some money for other more important things like the NHS and housing.
Original post by _princessxox
It's true Russia should now have the responsibility to take on and provide for the victims of their actions, just as the UK, USA, EU etc should too


Russia only upped their involvement when the rebels started to threaten the Alawite heartlands. This was because the TOW anti-tank missiles given to them by Saudi Arabia and Qatar helped even the odds against the Syrian Army(the West are partly culpable though for selling them the weapons originally).

This doesn't excuse their indiscriminate bombing campaign but they aren't the cause of these problems.
Original post by AishaGirl
IS was born from the Iraq war


The IS predates the Iraq war and did not come to prominence until 2014, well after the start of the Syrian civil war and the departure of coalition forces from Iraq. Even if that weren't the case, it's evident that the IS was not the cause of the Syrian civil war - they merely profited from the turmoil created by Assad and those who took up arms to remove him. Therefore, even if you were right and the IS really is the biological child of 'the west', it still would not follow that 'the west' is to blame for the Syrian conflict.

There's no non-foolish way to pin Syria on 'the west', least of all countries like Sweden, Germany, and France, who had nothing to do with Iraq. Although I've no doubt you'll continue to try because, as I've said many times before, your interest is not in what is true, but in how 'the west', of which you take a dim view, might be presented in the worst possible light.
(edited 7 years ago)
Reply 34
Original post by AishaGirl
It's despicable that the Muslim countries do not take in many refugees, it's sickening. However this doesn't mean the west shouldn't help them when they contributed to this mess.




Maybe if we didn't spend £50+ billion on "defence" every year we'd have some money for other more important things like the NHS and housing.


Only in your mind is the nhs more important than national defense. We could eradicate all military spending and we'd still have a budget deficit. Do you want to end the military?
The world is increasingly unstable yet defeatists like you want less protection from stronger powers.

How many of those migrants are actual refugees? By definition, you are a refugee if you move to the first safe country. Most are just economic migrants. Why didn't the calais jungle 'asylum' seekers seek asylum in France? Huh, because most are economic migrants and hindering actual refugees.
Why do unicef reports suggest that 70 per cent of 'refugees' are young working age males?

Posted from TSR Mobile
Original post by Hydeman
The IS predates the Iraq war and did not come to prominence until 2014, well after the start of the Syrian civil war and the departure of coalition forces from Iraq. Even if that weren't the case, we know that the IS wasn't the cause of the Syrian civil war - they merely profited from the turmoil created by Assad and those who took up arms to remove him. So even if it was the case, as you believe, that the IS is the biological child of 'the west', it still would not follow that 'the west' is to blame for the Syrian conflict.

There's no non-foolish way to pin the conflict in Syria on 'the west', least of all countries like Sweden, Germany, and France, who had nothing to do with Iraq (so the argument fails even if we take your position that the invasion of Iraq means that the IS is off the hook and everything they've done is really someone else's responsibility). Though I've no doubt you'll continue to try because, as I've said many times before, your interest is not in what is true, but in how 'the west', of which you take a dim view, might be presented in the worst possible light.


I think you have mistaken what I meant. I know the Syrian conflict is not the fault of the west, that is caused by the sewer rat bashar but IS controls a large area of Syria and IS are also to blame for displacing millions.

Listen, I absolutely love the UK, it's an amazing country! I even have part of the flag as my signature for goodness sake. However they have a terrible habit of starting wars in the middle east which I strongly disagree with.

If they're going to rock the boat they better be willing to save those who fall in. The real solution here is to allow the refugees in and then after its safe to go back, they can go back.

Do you think skilled immigrants should also be blocked from moving to the UK?
(edited 7 years ago)
Original post by AishaGirl
It's despicable that the Muslim countries do not take in many refugees, it's sickening. However this doesn't mean the west shouldn't help them when they contributed to this mess.


I agree the West should help them(which it does incidentally). However the current crisis is due to the local population starting an armed rebellion against their government.
The crisis was a test for the EU, and it failed, miserably.

Opening its flood-doors to millions of immigrants is, without a shadow of a doubt, one of the major factors in the EU's inevitable collapse.

Anyone who doesn't think this is as deluded as those sanctimonious bureaucrats in Brussels. You're going down with your own ship.
Original post by AishaGirl
I think you have mistaken what I meant. I know the Syrian conflict is not the fault of the west, that is caused by the sewer rat bashar but IS controls a large area of Syria and if IS so IS are also to blame for displacing millions.


Well, duh. Your contention was that 'the west' inherits the Islamic State's share of the blame because you believe (incorrectly) that it would not exist if it weren't for the Iraq war.

However they have a terrible habit of starting wars in the middle east which I strongly disagree with.


Rather, you seek to make observation fit the dogma that 'the west' is a pernicious force in the world. I mean this in the nicest way possible: there's nothing new or original about the way you think. There are billions of other people who all try, in various ways, to pile their problems onto a western/rich country bogeyman. You have this mindset not because there's any basis to it, but because it's common.

Do you think skilled immigrants should also be blocked from moving to the UK?


No. I also think we should admit refugees (within reason, of course) - it's your assumption that I think they should be blocked.
Reply 39
Original post by _princessxox
In my opinion western countries should feel obliged to help seeing as it is partially due to their actions that the refugees have had to flee their countries.


"The West"? including Switzerland, Ireland and Finland?

Quick Reply

Latest

Trending

Trending