Hey there! Sign in to join this conversationNew here? Join for free
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    No.
    Offline

    16
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by 41b)
    Semantics are boring.

    Most unbiased and informed observers see the Syrian conflict as a proxy war between Russia and Iran backing the historical government and the USA, Europe and Saudi Arabia backing Al-Q and ISIS, in a conflict over gas fields and pipelines. There is obviously a good and bad side here.
    I think it is more accurate to characterise it as a civil war between the ruling Alawite minority and the Sunni Arab majority (the latter being made up of several factions the differences between which are probably greatly overstated in the West) in which a number of countries have involved themselves for their own purposes:

    Iran because it is a Shia state and doesn't want to see another Sunni state.

    Saudi because it is the leading Sunni state and wants to see another Sunni state.

    Russia because it has a naval base there.

    The USA and EU for ideological reasons (majority rule as the overriding moral principle that also overrides all practical concerns - we'd surely be better off with Assad or at least taking no position).

    Most of the people fleeing seem to be Sunnis and I don't see that as totally unreasonable as many Sunnis may support neither the government nor the rebels. Syria is not a national state. The choice of Germany and Sweden rather than a Turkish displaced persons camp is however an economic one.
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Observatory)
    I think it is more accurate to characterise it as a civil war between the ruling Alawite minority and the Sunni Arab majority (the latter being made up of several factions the differences between which are probably greatly overstated in the West) in which a number of countries have involved themselves for their own purposes:

    Iran because it is a Shia state and doesn't want to see another Sunni state.

    Saudi because it is the leading Sunni state and wants to see another Sunni state.

    Russia because it has a naval base there.

    The USA and EU for ideological reasons (majority rule as the overriding moral principle that also overrides all practical concerns - we'd surely be better off with Assad or at least taking no position).

    Most of the people fleeing seem to be Sunnis and I don't see that as totally unreasonable as many Sunnis may support neither the government nor the rebels. Syria is not a national state. The choice of Germany and Sweden rather than a Turkish displaced persons camp is however an economic one.
    I am sure there is a sectarian element but it is vastly overstated. Syria is not Iraq - there was no overthrowing of a unity government (which had a disproportionate number of Sunnis) and purposeful sidelining of Sunnis as happened in Iraq. ISIS is the Iraqi Baath party's descendant. There is no organic support for ISIS in Syria because Assad's Baath party is like India's early Congress party or the early Democrat party - a large grouping that includes mostly every major player. What has been attempted in Syria is what succeeded in Iraq - turning the dominant group against the government. This has largely failed in Syria, and it's the reason that the "legitimate" rebels are 50%+ Al Qaida (Al Nusra), who are mostly foreign (mercenaries), and the illegitimate ones are Iraqi invaders - Isis.

    A good understanding of the argument can be attained by examining this hypothetical scenario: Russia today decides to declare war on the USA. The USA is a very divided country along party and ethnic lines, but during the war effort, all ethnic and political groups contribute to the war effort. No one has any sympathy for fighting age men fleeing to China, and any doing so after conscription is instituted are shot or imprisoned, and if they flee to other friendly non-combatant countries, they are usually sent back to be punished.
    Offline

    19
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by DIN-NARYU-FARORE)
    Hand to heart least racist person youll ever meet
    You probably do believe that but I've read your comments


    Posted from TSR Mobile
    Offline

    19
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by 41b)
    :lolwut:

    The obvious thing would be to run to the local command post and be redirected to a military unit. You're not making serious arguments.
    Bruh, I don't even know where my nearest one is. Maidstone, maybe? I ain't running over 30 miles to get a gun I don't know how to fire to run 30 miles back to defend my family. ****. That.

    It'd be much easier, and far safer, for me to take my chances. Common sense trumps baseless patriotism all day any day.


    You confirm my suspicion. You are an incomplete thinker. Google medical licensing laws. It is nearly impossible for a Syrian doctor to be anything more than a falafel server in Europe.
    Who said anything about Syria? You asked the question "are refugees inherently evil?", and "Syria" doesn't appear anywhere within the OP (which I just checked to make sure, so don't bother editing it in there). I'm only answering the question that was asked, and geography never came into it.


    I wouldn't be much of a man if I wasn't willing to do it for my country, or if need be to defend my family.
    You sound very American.

    It was by pure chance that you were born where you were. At a base level, you owe your country nothing and they owe you nothing.

    Also, your wording suggests that you'd be more willing to do it in defence of your country than you would in defence of your family... which is all kinds of ****ed up.
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by 41b)
    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?
    It may come as a surprise to you, but many people in our world do not share your beliefs and, in particular, the value you place on fighting. Not every adult male is able, or willing, to use violence even when threatened.

    Not everyone subscribes to patriotism. You may find, if you have studied history, that the notion of loving one's country, or nation-state, is a comparatively modern novelty.

    You've raised an interesting topic for debate, but I am curious how tolerant you are of people who don't share your beliefs and values.
    Offline

    19
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Davide_online)
    It may come as a surprise to you, but many people in our world do not share your beliefs and, in particular, the value you place on fighting. Not every adult male is able, or willing, to use violence even when threatened.

    Not everyone subscribes to patriotism. You may find, if you have studied history, that the notion of loving one's country, or nation-state, is a comparatively modern novelty.

    You've raised an interesting topic for debate, but I am curious how tolerant you are of people who don't share your beliefs and values.
    Yep that's fair enough to say but I would reply to it by saying this isn't some standard country on country war this is two wars for the price of one.

    A civil war for freedom from Assad ok maybe that is against someone's principals still but it's also an ideological war against Isis that you would hope stands the opposite of what these people are for.

    I couldn't see myself defending the uk against a foreign country but I could definitely see myself fighting for Liberty against Isis if the situation was the same in this country.


    Posted from TSR Mobile
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    Thanks for replying.

    I agree with you that defence has a role -I'm certainly not advocating rolling over regardless of the threat posed- and although they may not have me at my age I'd be prepared to fight against an ISIS invasion (for example).
    • Welcome Squad
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    Welcome Squad
    No they are not bad people. They are clever people.

    today's message is peace, solving conflicts with politics *hahaha*, and those people are law abiding citizens who would rather let the governments who fund the wars and destroy their homelands to solve the issue.

    Whole word is home
    Offline

    19
    ReputationRep:
    The definition you cite may include a person of fighting age. The problem is not their classification, nor their understandable desire to flee, but their acceptance into territories beyond the region surrounding their troubled lands. This acts as a green light for more to leave, and means unsustainable demographic shifts that will ultimately result in the resurgence of the far-right, an increasingly polarised society, and a massive upsurge in anti-immigrant sentiments/attacks, and possibly wider scale persecution. It is to the benefit of no-one, long term, and those who are instigating it are both traitors and acting other than in accordance with the best interests of the populations of said troubled territories (be they stationary [brain/youth drain] or migratory portions of related populations)
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Foo.mp3)
    The definition you cite may include a person of fighting age. The problem is not their classification, nor their understandable desire to flee, but their acceptance into territories beyond the region surrounding their troubled lands. This acts as a green light for more to leave, and means unsustainable demographic shifts that will ultimately result in the resurgence of the far-right, an increasingly polarised society, and a massive upsurge in anti-immigrant sentiments/attacks, and possibly wider scale persecution. It is to the benefit of no-one, long term, and those who are instigating it are both traitors and acting other than in accordance with the best interests of the populations of said troubled territories (be they stationary [brain/youth drain] or migratory portions of related populations)

    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by VoteLeave)
    You can get jailed for building a shrine in your own house.
 
 
 
  • See more of what you like on The Student Room

    You can personalise what you see on TSR. Tell us a little about yourself to get started.

  • Poll
    Has a teacher ever helped you cheat?
    Useful resources
  • See more of what you like on The Student Room

    You can personalise what you see on TSR. Tell us a little about yourself to get started.

  • The Student Room, Get Revising and Marked by Teachers are trading names of The Student Room Group Ltd.

    Register Number: 04666380 (England and Wales), VAT No. 806 8067 22 Registered Office: International House, Queens Road, Brighton, BN1 3XE

    Write a reply...
    Reply
    Hide
    Reputation gems: You get these gems as you gain rep from other members for making good contributions and giving helpful advice.