to be sick of people on FB comparing Syrian refugees to the Jewish refugees

[paintandbrush]

Please stop bandying about the terms 'Kindertransport', 'Operation Pied Piper' and so on because I've studied the Holocaust extensively, and it's not actually the same, ok?

This article says it all better than I can, please read: www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/immigration/12130175/The-plight-of-Syrian-refugees-is-not-on-a-par-with-Jews-fleeing-the-Nazis.html

For the record, I really don't believe we should be bombing them to hell in the first place: in this day and age, wars are not won in the towns and fields of North Africa. Wars are won round a conference table somewhere in Switzerland.

The whole attitude of Cameron's government at the minute seems to be "Let's make their homeland hell on earth, then pat ourselves on the back for letting, say, 10% of them into the UK". What a bloody mess.

now you're getting personal and making assumptions

So how would you classify your own personal posts, especially the ones where you insist on repeating stories that someone somewhere once told your boyfriend as a way of explaining away economic, social and moral objections to the NB claptrap.

I see many posts making assumptions that those who don't want to fling open the borders are all Nazis.

There's lots around. They're allowed to stand.

I don't think terrorists have used refugee routes. Those claims seem to have been quashed.

Those claims haven't all been quashed at all.

Those claims haven't all been quashed at all
No of course they have not.

Does it mean every refugee or migrant is a terrorist?

NO! Of course it doesn't but its terribly naive to think ISIS are not exploiting this chaos. We know they are.

Flitting in and out of their countries, to Syria and back again.

The original protests in Syria were peaceful and asked for reform.

It was only when the regime began shooting protesters in the streets, that people began asking for the fall of the regime.

Events in Deraa, where teenagers were tortured and imprisoned, where also a major catalyst.

Jesse Hughes has stated that things would have been different that night if people were allowed to have arms in France. He must be completely traumatised but I don't think that's the answer.

Well, people were allowed to have arms in Aurora, Colorada when they went to the cinema, it didn't make a difference there.

Most Arab Spring activities began with peaceful protest. None of them turned out very well, even where the dictators were overthrown. Western interventions to support it have proved disastrous.

I don't think it it would have helped at the Bataclan either, lurked.

Neither does your ignorance.

How so?

I must admit I lost that comment in the article.

Thanks for pointing it out Emily, do you have any thoughts on the rest of the article?

Do you really think Ghaddafi would have lived forever?

Do you think Iraq would have done well under the rule of Saddam's psychopathic sons?

No regime lasts forever. They all implode eventually.

The issue with most of the Arab states is that they do not possess normally functioning state apparatus. Instead the entire country is run for the wellbeing of the ruling clan, who hold total power. The regimes essentially act as a mafia.

When they fall, as they inevitably do, the country requires a huge amount of reorganisation and support. Not being milked by outsiders or left to rot.

The same remarks about the Arabs needing a strong dictator used to be made about South America and Africa. Thankfully, thinking has moved on since then.

Installing a new dictator, as Egypt has done is a sticking plaster and one that won't last. The world is changing.

The issue with most of the Arab states is that they do not possess normally functioning state apparatus

And Islam is wedded to the state.

This refers to his belief that people should have the right to bear arms and that restrictions on guns enabled the terrorists.

www.theguardian.com/world/2016/feb/16/eagles-of-death-metal-frontman

He was utterly broken when he said this I think. He used to be a speech writer for the Republican party though, so maybe always thought like that.

I'm sad he seems to think Muslims are the problem now. I'm sad he supports Trump.

He apologized for his comments about the security at the Bataclan. 'I've been dealing with non-stop nightmares and struggling through therapy to make sense of this tragedy and insanity,' he added. He is a very traumatised man.

'My suggestions that anyone affiliated with the Bataclan played a role in the events of November 13 are unfounded and baseless—and I take full responsibility for them,' in a statement posted on the Eagles of Death Metal's Facebook page.

'I humbly beg forgiveness from the people of France, the staff and security of the Bataclan, my fans, family, friends and anyone else hurt or offended by the absurd accusations I made in my Fox Business Channel interview.'

Hughes said the shame was '100 per cent' his and that his comments did not reflect the opinions of the other members of the Eagles of Death Metal, or anyone else associated with the band.

He said he was still traumatized by the attacks.

'I've been dealing with non-stop nightmares and struggling through therapy to make sense of this tragedy and insanity,' Hughes added in his statement.

'I haven't been myself since November 13. I realize there's no excuse for my words, but for what it’s worth: I am sincerely sorry for having hurt, disrespected or accused anyone.'

I hope he is still recieving help and support.

"The issue with most of the Arab states is that they do not possess normally functioning state apparatus. Instead the entire country is run for the wellbeing of the ruling clan, who hold total power. The regimes essentially act as a mafia."

Yes, generally at the largesse of the western states whom support them , arm them, and in the case of Iran remove democratically elected leaders.

Oh I'm sure if they'd been left to their own devices they could have sorted themselves out, but you know the resources they have are far to precious for that.

And Islam is wedded to the state

Do you think the likes of Ben Ali, Mubarak, Assad and Ghaddafi let a little thing like Sharia law contain them?

Islam is used as a bit of window dressing on occasions to mollify the populace, other than that, it's all about the will of the leader/ruling clan and whatever suits them.

and those that keep them in power as a proxy.

Do you think the likes of Ben Ali, Mubarak, Assad and Ghaddafi let a little thing like Sharia law contain them?

Islam is used as a bit of window dressing on occasions to mollify the populace

I would say the fact that they only pay lip service to Islam and only glancing regard to sharia is a positive rather than a negative.

Funny how people who get worked up about non-Islamist dictators and oppressive states don't seem to be able to muster up the same outrage about the Saudis of the taliban or, y'know, any stripe of oppressive Sunni fundamentalist. Strange that...

I am able to do that, think I've expressed it on here.

Who allows them to rule Bill? Who pays for them? Who arms them? To what end?

Yes, generally at the largesse of the western states whom support them , arm them, and in the case of Iran remove democratically elected*

Was the west the main sponsors of Iran and Syria? You keep on harping on about western removal of a democratic govt in Iran. That maybe so but who has been the sponsors of Iran since 1979? And of Syria since god knows when? Why is it Russia and China get such a free ride from you guys? You say you don't hate the west but it drips from every pore frankly.

As for Islam being some kind of adjunct to various tinpot dictators words fail me. Iran? SA?

Um, why do you think there was a revlolution in Iran in1979? Could it be cause of the oppression of the Shah's regieme that was put in after the Coup d'etat staged on Mohammed Mossadegh's democratically elected government in the 1950's? You know the one, because they were going to nationalise Anglo Persian Oil (now known as BP)? Could it be cause that regieme, supported by Western weapons of war, was so brutal ( Amnesty described it as one of the worst in the world) and oppressed so many that it had a negative concequence for others?

Do you think the majority of Iranian's support their current regieme?

We supported the Ba;thists in Syria and Iraq when it was convinient for us to do so, Russia and China don't get a free ride, but you seem to be ignorant of basic facts.

Oh I love this game. It's called 'Let's Go Back Far Enough and We Can Blame the West'. Do you know how many were killed after 1979? The mass slaughter of 1982? What happened to the trade unionists and the socialists? It may surprise you but we're all educated people and know the difference between the crimes of colonialism and those of Islamic Revolution. I know which Id choose.

Oh really ? But what caused that?

What were the origins?

You seem to what to play lets go back too! Yet, just far back enough to confirm your prejudices.

I don't deny the Islamic revolution was awful, is terrible, but I'm highlighting the reasons for it.

You were the one that asked about main sponsors of Iran, I thought as you asked that question we'd talk about Iran.