Comments by "J Drake1994" (@JDrakeify) on "The refugee crisis dishonours the memory of the holocaust | Owen Jones meets Shami Chakrabarti" video.

  1. +Lee Can you say therefore that a situation where many thousands of migrants remain in the middle east and get raped or killed is preferable? Of course not. Even if the damage our society, it is unlikely whatever we experience as a consequence will be worse than what they would experience in the middle east. This is why I think we should let more in. Looking at it from a rational perspective, I simply cannot see an argument to say that more people will suffer if we let them in.
    5
  2. Lee But most people do not disagree that the ultimate solution to the problem is tackling it at source by ending the wars in those places. The trouble is that that is rather more easily said than done, especially if you want to do it in such a way to bring about a lasting peace rather than a continuation of the instability that has plagued these countries for the past decade or so. In the meantime, something needs to be done about the people who are fleeing from the war. So we should let these refugees in now, and when we have helped to establish a peace in there country, they can go back. That is what I would want if the UK were in a similar situation.  It is a myth to say we lack the resources to do so, we were able to set up the NHS, the welfare state, and build countless new homes when we were bankrupt after WW2, so surely we can afford to look after what would, in my preference, be a few hundred thousand refugees staggered over a number of years. It is also just a question of  priority, and surely human life should be at the top of that?
    3
  3. +Time imo it wasnt so much the word 'bunch' so much as the tone that Cameron was employing. These is an extremely serious problem, and it deserves to be treated with responsibility by those in power. By using Corbyn's wish to do something to help these people as a stick to beat him with at PMQs, he is using the suffering of desperate people to scare people in the UK, so that he and his party can make a political gain. If he genuinely believes that what his government is doing is best for these people, then fine, but he should recognize that this isnt a problem to be politicized in the way he did.
    3
  4. David Noir Most people are not accusing Cameron or anyone who thinks we shouldnt take refugees of being any of those things, we just ask that you treat these people with some respect and work to help them rather dehumanising them and reconstructing them as a problem as Cameron was doing on that instance. Also, Arab countries are taking in refugees. Lebanon has taken 1.2 million, despite there total population only being around 5 million, Jordan has taken over 600,000, and Turkey has taken 1.8 million. So Arab countries have taken more than European ones. Of course there are some countries like Saudi Arabia, who have not taken any, and they should be pressurised to do more, but I don't see why we should justify not taking refugees becuase Saudi Arabia doesn't either. As a country, they are generally not the best example to follow.
    3
  5. +Matt Puddy I like it how eurosceptics seem to think the best way to convince lefties before the referendum is turning up on their web pages and channels and posting arguments completely irrelevant to the original post.
    3
  6. David Noir But have the likes of Cameron been accused of being Nazis for not wanting to take in more refugees by any significant number of people? Cos I havent heard anyone say that, most the criticism of him on this issue has been on how he is often willing to dehumanize them and construct them as a problem for political point scoring, which is what I, and others, are criticizing him for here.  And here's the citation for my refugee figures, http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-34139348 But frankly I'm a bit surprised if you didnt know about the situation Lebanon has found itself in as a result of the refugee crisis. And it is true that some other arab countries have not taken any at all, and I'm not defending them, but I fail to see how that justifies our inaction, if we applied the argument that we shouldnt do something because Saudia Arabia doesnt either to everything then we could justify all kinds of atrocities. I also am confused as to how you can criticise another country for not taking refugees in, whilst at the same time wanting your own country to do the same. 
    2
  7. David Noir Your right, no western countries do those barbaric things that the likes of Saudi Arabia do now, but go back a few centuries and you find countless western countries taking those actions both at home and abroad in the name of Christianity. Indeed, medieval Islamic societies were originally more tolerant in many ways than medieval Christian societies were. But as Western societies became more developed, they became more tolerant, and Islamic societies are not as developed, and at the same time not as tolerant.  There is a lot of bad stuff in the Bible as well as the Qu'ran, but more Christians choose not to act on that bad stuff than Muslims do. So even if  one religion encourages worse stuff than the other, which I couldnt say, as I have not read either of there holy books from cover to cover, it is less about the religion, and more about the economic and political circumstances that the people who read it are in.  I am not even necessarily saying Islam is a religion of peace, I'm saying that certain things, such as persecuting other abrahamic religions, desecrating dead bodies, and blowing up other religions holy temples, are forbidden by the Qu'ran, and yet Isis members have done them anyway. The people who carried out the 9/11 attacks visited a strip club the week before. So these people are not exactly following Islam to the letter of the law. Which tells me that it the religion itself is not a big factor as it might first appear.
    2
  8. David Noir  "Islam has stayed firmly in the medieval past, the west rejected it and moved on." Your missing my point. I am not saying that Islamic countries today are generally as tolerant as the west. By and large they are not, although it is worth noting that at the same time many are not as bad as Saudi Arabia. My point was that if at one point Muslim countries were more tolerant than Christian ones, then that proves that the people who follow one religion arent inherently more tolerant than another. Obviously, the teachings of Islam and Christianity have not changed since then, but other things, like the economic circumstances of Christian countries versus Muslim ones, have  "not in the new testament there isn't, it's all about turning your cheek and loving your neighbour." So? The fact remains that the other half of the book is filled with plenty of ruthless killing, the Old Testament is in the Bible for a reason, if people followed the word of Christianity to the letter, they would listen to both parts. "their Islam is exactly as it says in the koran, it is the ideology that is the problem, it is no different from fascism. That is the reality of what you're defending." Since when does proposing a different theory as to why people join IS amount to defending them? Speaking of fascists, what you are suggesting is essentially the equivalent of me calling someone who said that the primary reason for the rise of the Nazis was the Great Depression a Nazi sympathiser, because I thought the real reason was because of WW1. And I have just been through the various actions committed by Isis members that are expressly forbidden by the Qu'ran, so without refuting those you cannot say IS are doing exactly what it says in the Qu'ran.  "again a no true muslim fallacy. Are you saying because they had a few beers at a strip club they're not true muslims, therefore 9/11 wasn't an islamic attack?!?!?" I am saying that they clearly were not all that interested in following the purest interpretation of Islam, which is what you suggest jihadist terrorist groups follow, if it means something other than violence.
    2
  9. AugustusPugin the leftist also happens to be smarter, by the admission of one of the most right wing papers in the country. http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencetech/article-2095549/Right-wingers-intelligent-left-wingers-says-controversial-study--conservative-politics-lead-people-racist.html
    1
  10. +Install a Friend Labour is also an internationalist party that believes in helping those who are most vulnerable, regardless of there nationality, so on the refugee crisis there position is entirely consistent with there beliefs, and I think that most Labour politicians, regardless of the era, would agree with that.
    1
  11. GiantPotato Integration is sometimes difficult, but I dont think you can say achieving it is some kind of fantasy. History is filled with plenty of examples of people integrating. If there werent, the identities we have now like English wouldnt exist, we would just have Saxons, Celts, Normans, and Vikings.Look at America, a nation of immigrants where most of them have integrated into society properly. The same is true for much of the windrush generation over here. And both of those countries have endured far larger migrations in their history (relative to there population at the time) So integration is possible and achievable.  Also, EU migrants put in more than they take out, so they are actually helping to keep our welfare state afloat. That is less than can be said for the native population of many countries with welfare states these days, given how many of them, even if they have a relatively small migrant population, are running deficits.
    1
  12. Crouchy232323 No, but those people who moved over from other parts of the world to the United States have integrated by and large, and that model of migration is far more comparable to our current situation than when a vastly more technologically advanced people invades your country and takes your land, which is what happened with the Native Americans, rather than peaceful migration. 
    1
  13. GiantPotato "More people come to England in one year now than did in the previous nearly THOUSAND years preceding mass migration."  Hence why I said relative to the population at the time. What matters is not the raw numbers of people who come in to a country, but the number in relation to those who are currently there. The number of original Saxon migrants was equivalent to the population of a small town today, but then it was strong enough to change a country forever. The population of the UK, and the world exploded during the industrial revolution, so obviously more people would come but equally there are more people already here. That statistic is like saying that there have been more car crashes in the past century than all of history combined, it sounds scary, but when you think about its bleeding obvious that would be the case. "These people are not contributing financially, either. Every country under multiculti is in unsustainable debt. Moslems in the UK for example, 50% of males and 75% females don't work and with their IQs being a std deviation lower than the British native population it's very hard to imagine the rest of them are gainfully employed taxpayers putting in more than they take out." Either you're trolling or I've lost all respect for you. You cant possibly believe 50% of male  and 75% of female muslims dont work and not provide any evidence for that statistic. Also, from what I gather, Greece, Spain, Ireland,Iceland and Italy are less ethnically diverse than the US, France, and the UK, and yet all these countries had debt crises well before this refugee crisis started. The country with the highest national debt is Japan, which people like you usually bring up as a example of a country that does well without migration.  So the evidence would  suggest that if anything more migration means a lower national debt.
    1