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

why do people simply not care when it comes to clivilians getting killed in Syria? Watch

    • Community Assistant
    Offline

    20
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Good bloke)
    The choice isn't about moving; the choice is about them (as a people) implementing a sensible system of government and not acquiescing or conniving in an Islamist, tribal or nationalist one - just as the British and other Europeans did.

    They aren't heading for that now, and don't appear to want it, just like all the other countries that wasted the effort of going through the so-called Arab Spring. They want to live under Islam, or a tribal government. But they have to live with the consequences of making that choice. One of those consequences is that they are anathema to westerners who do not wish to import similar instability when their choices result in disaster.
    Yeah, blame everyone for the "decision" of the majority. The Assad's have refused to budge unfortunately, and that's how all this started.
    Offline

    15
    ReputationRep:
    There have been droughts in Africa, there have been civil wars in Africa, there have been hurricanes in the Caribbean, there have been typhoons in Asia and so on. Lots of other countries have been ravaged by war or natural disasters. Have we offered to take them all in, no, so why are the Syrians a special case. What puts them above all the other refugees in the world.

    It's not that people don't care. It's a case of it happening in so many countries to so many people what can you really do about it. The cause - simply too many corrupt politicians.
    • Community Assistant
    Offline

    20
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by WoodyMKC)
    People do care, it''s just that we can't do much about it. It'd be completely impractical to take them all in. If you're warm hearted you see abandoned animals in rescue centres and homeless people genuinely living hard, you'd ideally love to take them all home and give them a place and treat them well, but you wouldn't because you know it's entirely not practical.
    That's no excuse for only taking 20,000 refugees.
    Offline

    20
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by cbreef)
    That's no excuse for only taking 20,000 refugees.
    When the country's finances are already under strain, yes it is.
    • Community Assistant
    Offline

    20
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by WoodyMKC)
    When the country's finances are already under strain, yes it is.
    We are EASILY capable of taking at least 50,000. If Germany can take a million, we can easily manage 1\20th of that.
    Offline

    20
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by cbreef)
    We are EASILY capable of taking at least 50,000. If Germany can take a million, we can easily manage 1\20th of that.
    That's debatable. Totally different economic and housing situation between both nations. Not saying we absolutely won't manage it, but considering it's not really going to solve the situation it's not worth putting such a strain on the country's resources for and the UK isn't a socialist nation. If all commonwealth countries could hypothetically come to an agreement on which country gets so-and-so number of refugees with a view to take in all refugees and eradicate the problem, then it'd be worth it.
    Offline

    17
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by cbreef)
    We are EASILY capable of taking at least 50,000. If Germany can take a million, we can easily manage 1\20th of that.
    I'd say to you why should we?

    Were in 1.6 trillion of debt, we add over 100 billion to that a year and we have a health, social care and housing crisis already on top of other day to day problems.

    We have the second largest foreign aid budget in the world and we are no where near these places in crisis geographically.

    It all adds up to not our problem and we have enough on our plate already.

    Nothing makes a Syrian more important than a refugee from elsewhere in the world and if they are genuinely seeking asylum they can do it in the way the Dublin agreement and the UN have set out.

    The nearest safe country! That isn't Europe and it certainly isn't passing every country in Europe to get here.

    I'd rather look after our own people first


    Posted from TSR Mobile
    Offline

    19
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by cbreef)
    that's how all this started.
    No. It started long before that when the people chose the Assads, then chose to keep them.
    • Community Assistant
    Offline

    20
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by paul514)
    I'd say to you why should we?

    Were in 1.6 trillion of debt, we add over 100 billion to that a year and we have a health, social care and housing crisis already on top of other day to day problems.

    We have the second largest foreign aid budget in the world and we are no where near these places in crisis geographically.

    It all adds up to not our problem and we have enough on our plate already.

    Nothing makes a Syrian more important than a refugee from elsewhere in the world and if they are genuinely seeking asylum they can do it in the way the Dublin agreement and the UN have set out.

    The nearest safe country! That isn't Europe and it certainly isn't passing every country in Europe to get here.

    I'd rather look after our own people first


    Posted from TSR Mobile
    The nearest safe countries have taken the vast majority of them ie Jordan, Lebanon etc.
    They're already at full capacity.
    • Community Assistant
    Offline

    20
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by WoodyMKC)
    That's debatable. Totally different economic and housing situation between both nations. Not saying we absolutely won't manage it, but considering it's not really going to solve the situation it's not worth putting such a strain on the country's resources for and the UK isn't a socialist nation. If all commonwealth countries could hypothetically come to an agreement on which country gets so-and-so number of refugees with a view to take in all refugees and eradicate the problem, then it'd be worth it.
    Isn't that what we're trying to do?
    Offline

    17
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by cbreef)
    The nearest safe countries have taken the vast majority of them ie Jordan, Lebanon etc.
    They're already at full capacity.
    Turkey isn't and their other neighbours in the gulf have taken zero


    Posted from TSR Mobile
    • Political Ambassador
    Online

    20
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by cbreef)
    The nearest safe countries have taken the vast majority of them ie Jordan, Lebanon etc.
    They're already at full capacity.
    No neighbouring country is so small they could not take the whole population if given the necessary support, most middle eastern countries are large enough to be able to take the whole population of the region, although the desalination equipment would require a lot of power.

    Posted from TSR Mobile
    • Community Assistant
    Offline

    20
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by paul514)
    Turkey isn't and their other neighbours in the gulf have taken zero
    Posted from TSR Mobile
    True, but isn't much we can do about that. Lebanon, Jordan and the like have taken something like 4 million refugees over the past 2 years. Puts us to shame
    Offline

    19
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by cbreef)
    . Puts us to shame
    Ill-informed nonsense! Britain has contributed more than any other country except the US, and almost as much as the EU commission (which gets money from Britain anyway).

    Taking people in is only one way of helping, and the close countries would not be able to help without British aid.

    https://fullfact.org/news/uk-aid-syria/

    http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk...-a6852941.html
    • Community Assistant
    Offline

    20
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Good bloke)
    Ill-informed nonsense! Britain has contributed more than any other country except the US, and almost as much as the EU commission (which gets money from Britain anyway).

    Taking people in is only one way of helping, and the close countries would not be able to help without British aid.

    https://fullfact.org/news/uk-aid-syria/

    http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk...-a6852941.html
    I am perfectly aware of our abnormally high foreign aid budget, but 20,000 refugees is pathetic.
    Offline

    20
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by cbreef)
    Isn't that what we're trying to do?
    That's the idea that's been floating about. Whether or not it actually happens is a totally different story of course, most likely won't.
    Offline

    13
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Eulers_)
    Clearly that is what the rebels were trying to do (implementing a sensible government), and look what happened. Its not Islamist or tribal regimes, its dictators who want to retain power. And now its a 5- way proxy war with no hope of dissolution.
    What do you define as sensible? The rebels are not exactly warriors for peace now are they.Pretty sure one of them was filmed commiting cannabalism.The truth is there are no good choices in syria.Either you support assad and he commits attrocities against civilians.Or you support these rebel groups.You arm them with weapons.Eventually one of these weapons is 'accidentally' used to blow up a plane full of tourists.No good choices there.
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Robby2312)
    What do you define as sensible? The rebels are not exactly warriors for peace now are they.Pretty sure one of them was filmed commiting cannabalism.The truth is there are no good choices in syria.Either you support assad and he commits attrocities against civilians.Or you support these rebel groups.You arm them with weapons.Eventually one of these weapons is 'accidentally' used to blow up a plane full of tourists.No good choices there.
    I was using the word 'sensible' from the person I was quoting in the first place
    Offline

    13
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by cbreef)
    We are EASILY capable of taking at least 50,000. If Germany can take a million, we can easily manage 1\20th of that.
    Germany took a million and they have had 3 terror attacks and nearly 1000 sexual assaults in colgne since then.It would be stupid to do the same thing they did.
    Offline

    17
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Robby2312)
    Germany took a million and they have had 3 terror attacks and nearly 1000 sexual assaults in colgne since then.It would be stupid to do the same thing they did.
    That's a secondary issue making the case for not taking them in stronger.

    All the primary issues I mentioned earlier are enough not to take any


    Posted from TSR Mobile
 
 
 
Reply
Submit reply
TSR Support Team

We have a brilliant team of more than 60 Support Team members looking after discussions on The Student Room, helping to make it a fun, safe and useful place to hang out.

Updated: October 5, 2016
  • 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
    Break up or unrequited love?
    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

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