Bogeyface, my point was that those who hold your views tend to use insults when they're run out of decent arguments, a favourite of which is to suggest that their opponents (a) aren't as moral as them and (b) are stupid.
MrsG - how do we show that we remember our dark history and recent collusion in bungling in the Middle East? Don't forget the latter decisions like invading Iraq were made by political leaders against the wishes of their electorate. Or does everyone have to suffer the consequences now? Must we all prostrate ourselves and say we're so sorry! Please come and live here, everyone - even people from totally unrelated countries that aren't at war! Seriously, what is your solution? The "west" spends billions on foreign aid and development in war-torn countries in comparison to the wealthy Gulf states whose only interest is exporting the poisonous Wahabism that's radicalising Muslims the world over. Doesn't that show our values?
MaudeGonneMad, what's new here is the numbers which have no end. The proportion of young men is significant because it characterises this as a migration, not refugees seeking asylum from war. People are getting angry about the media's conflation of the two. If you want to see real refugees, look at photos of the Kurds fleeing Saddam Hussein's gas attacks, or the Ugandan Indians arriving in the UK.
Lamination, then they aren't refugees. An example: after the displacement of millions in the second world war (and this is the context in which the UN Convention on Refugees was drafted), they were held in camps in Europe, often for a year or two, before it was decided where they were placed or whether they could go back. They were sent - and I mean sent - to specific destinations like Canada or Australia. They were set up with a job and a temporary place to live and that was that. No further support. They didn't throw rocks and burning tyres at police or demand free transport to their destination of choice. They were extremely grateful to be alive.
Atenco how on earth was the war in Syria started in the name of Christianity and Western ways? It was a failed Arab Spring which led to a civil war. The West only intervened very recently, in fact they were criticised for doing nothing. Iraq was a horrendous mistake, unfortunately those strong arm dictators in the ME usually hold a volatile place together (look at the disaster in Libya since they helped get rid of Gadaffi), and ditto Afghanistan, that particular mess having started when they armed the Taliban against the Russians. US intervention was about power and influence but Christianity??
When I talk about Christianity, I'm not talking about religious faith and observance. I'm talking I suppose, about post-Christianity - that over recent centuries, Europe's clerics lost power in favour of nation states and scientific discovery and new ideas challenged religious orthodoxy. Christianity got put in its place - it was defanged. We take that so much for granted, but it's not the case in the Muslim world where in most countries there is no separation at all between church and state. In most Muslim countries other faiths are barely tolerated and routinely discriminated against because one of the core beliefs of Islam is that unbelievers are inferior. There is no comparison to the way Christian or post-Christian states treat non-Christians. I cannot think of anywhere Muslims are discriminated against in Europe by law but I can point to many many Muslim countries where Christians aren't allowed to run for election, build churches etc. or have been driven out and persecuted. Don't take what we have for granted. People like you are dangerous.
