Refugee crisis

[Jarpie]

From the horses mouth

http://news.yahoo.com/refugees-greece-macedonia-border-migrants-posing-syrian-160144148.html

Among some 2,000 people stranded on the border, hundreds are believed to be from Iraq, Bangladesh and Pakistan.

"There are many liars here, claiming to be from Syria," said Ahmet Mohamet, a 35-year-old Syrian. "They try to trick the police into letting them cross,"

"I think we would have an easier time crossing if this problem did not exist," Ahmet said.

 

 

'Some of these people are bastards so **** the lot of them.'

A line of thinking that has a logical conclusion of launching all the nukes as some people of every people are words removed.

Exactly the problem I've talked about, there are people coming over claiming to be Syrian refugees, when they're in actuality, are not, and they take the places of those real refugees.

Derp: quoted wrong post.

Edited September 10, 2015 by Jarpie

[HanoiVillan]

 

If I'd go back 1,5-2 years in your posting history, would I find posts where you'd call europeans to bring in ukranian refugees from the Crimea and Ukraine when Russians invaded Crimea?

 

 

I have no idea. I don't think I discussed the situation much on here. You certainly wouldn't see me opposing it.

But I don't see the relevance of that question. 

If I'm not opposed to Syrian refugees, why would I be opposed to Ukrainian ones?

I don't see what you're getting at. I have a feeling you don't either.

I've seen so many people spouting how europe needs to bring in all those poor middle-easterns in here and how they need to be helped, and how we need to show solidarity yada yada, just to show that they're supposedly "so progressive" and/or "so good people", but the same people were so **** quiet when there was that earthquake in nepal six months ago, and it didn't get nearly the same attention in the media.

I find those people to be utter hypocrites, if they'd really be such a good people they would've raised the same storm that european states need to bring in refugees from Nepal and pressured the european states to give much more humanitarian aid to the Nepal to bring them back up.

Same goes for the Ukraine in 2014 when the rebels started to fight in Ukraine and Russians invaded Crimea, sure it got media attention and it was followed by the news but I didn't see anyone saying how we need to bring in the Ukranian refugees from Crimea or Ukraine to the europe.

I was poking to see if you are one of those hypocrties, as so many others are, when the next big crisis starts somewhere in the world, I trust you to call out EU to bring the refugees in, as you are calling in to welcome the current migrants.

About the current refugee/migrant situation and the Ukranian crisis:

The news stories were much more carefully worded and the same leftist and "progressive" journalists/media who are now crying about the poor down-trodden syrian (or "syrian", depending who you believe) refugees (or "refugees", depending on who you believe), and anyone who questions them is a **** right-wing neo-nazi racist, made it so **** sure that there's not a single one of those "human interest" stories or photographs of the children in the battlefields to garner sympathy for the Ukranians, also I didn't see any stories how the ukranians' familes were broken, or how their lives are ruined due the warzones where the rebels and russians started to fight, at least not in the single one of the finnish news sites nor in the international european media I saw.

Neither I saw any interviews from the Ukranian refugee camps, or footage shown how utter shit are the conditions in the said camps.

Just so that you don't think I like conservative and/or right-wing media any better, I don't. They are equally manipulative and hypocritical as the leftie/"progressive" ones.

I just want even a single impartial and neutral news media who will just report the **** news without **** editorializing and trying to affect the public opinion toward the causes/people/politics they themselves hold or agree with, the finnish equivalent for BBC, Yle, used to be like that but now they've gone more and more toward the left from the impartial/centre.

Disclaimer: I used "crying about the poor down-trodden" just to show how differently the media depicts the Syrian and Ukranian conflicts, and Nepal disaster, I think all of those three things are pretty much equally horrible events, and the people who would need our aid, should get it.

What a load of utter, utter shite.

 

You've wandered way off the original conversation and appear to be trying to construct some strange argument against the media with me as some sort of leverage, based on me not announcing my calls for refugee acceptance at every disaster/warzone that there has ever been. It's so convoluted I don't even know where to start in reply.

Fwiw, my mother is an immigrant, so my stance on immigration has been pretty consistent for my whole life. If you want to trawl through my posting history then go right ahead, I'll leave you to it for now.

You as a leverage? That's rich, I mentioned you in one sentence and rest was about other people I've seen and about the media. If you'd welcome all refugees, that's good, if you're not one of those hypocrties then I'm glad, but it doesn't mean that other people wouldn't be hypocrites.

I find people hypocrties who couldn't care less about the plight of the, for example, Ukrainians or the Nepalese to start drives to collect aid packets for them, or pressure the governments to send much more aid to Nepal than what they did, but now that they see couple sensationalistic stories about refugees, they suddenly want to show how "good people" they are.

If they'd really care about the plight of the Syrian refugees, they would try to find the ways to help all those sick, children, women and the elderly who can't get to the europe from the refugee camps around the syria, instead of just welcoming and aiding all those people who were healthy or strong enough to travel and rich enough to pay for the human smugglers, which isn't cheap btw, or are those just worth of our aid and hospitality who can make it to the europe on their own, or is it just about getting people in who will potentially be value to us as the new cheap labor? Gee, that sounds like they actually don't care about helping those who would need it most, but just taking the people who can profit the european states.

Are you really going to claim that vast majority of the media from the both sides (left and right) doesn't try to push their own agendas and influence the public opinion with their sensationalistic articles and news items, or are you really going to claim that they have reported the Ukrainian crisis and the middle-east/refugee crisis both the same way? My wording on my previous post about the media and Ukraine wasn't probably worded well enough as I'm not a native english speaker, but I do certainly see big difference in reporting, at least in here, and I doubt british media is any better.

I actually (mostly) liked YLE's reporting on Ukrainian crisis as it was mostly not sensationalistic, and they reported what was going on without resolting in very annoying "human interest" stories to get views or push agendas.

Or is the agenda pushing alright from the media you like because you agree with them on politics and their agenda?

While I'm criticising your posts, another couple of points:

a] Why does someone who wants to accept some immigrants need to favour accepting all immigrants, if they don't want to be a hypocrit?

b] How do you know whether or not people care or otherwise about other geopolitical issues, and where do you get off starting from a position that everyone you're debating with is a hypocrit?

c] You're going to need to make your peace with the fact that the arrival in western Europe of tens of thousands of refugees is news, in the first place, and consists of human interest stories, in the second place. Of course journalists are going to interview them, ask them their opinions and so forth. You can call that 'pushing an agenda' if you like. But all news is bias. When they decide whether to cover an event or not - that's bias. When they decide which journalist to send to cover it - that's bias. When they decide what angle to take with the material they've gathered - that's bias. When they decide whether to run it on page 1 or on page 36 - that's bias. There's no such thing as objective reporting. 

[StefanAVFC]

because i believe it will be a strain on a country thats already suffering from muslim migration, yes muslim not eastern european or chinese and its going to create more tension and loss of housing for our own people that need it. ive made myself quite clear on my views of islam at the moment, how do we know who we are letting in? i think its pretty fair to say a number of these refuges will turn against the country that feeds them.

Any proof we're suffering from muslim immigration? What are your opinions based on? You've said you don't live near Muslims and have no experience so what do you base your opinions on?

Ignorance at best. Thinly veiled racism at worst.

Edited September 10, 2015 by StefanAVFC

[HanoiVillan]

 

If I'd go back 1,5-2 years in your posting history, would I find posts where you'd call europeans to bring in ukranian refugees from the Crimea and Ukraine when Russians invaded Crimea?

 

 

I have no idea. I don't think I discussed the situation much on here. You certainly wouldn't see me opposing it.

But I don't see the relevance of that question. 

If I'm not opposed to Syrian refugees, why would I be opposed to Ukrainian ones?

I don't see what you're getting at. I have a feeling you don't either.

I've seen so many people spouting how europe needs to bring in all those poor middle-easterns in here and how they need to be helped, and how we need to show solidarity yada yada, just to show that they're supposedly "so progressive" and/or "so good people", but the same people were so **** quiet when there was that earthquake in nepal six months ago, and it didn't get nearly the same attention in the media.

I find those people to be utter hypocrites, if they'd really be such a good people they would've raised the same storm that european states need to bring in refugees from Nepal and pressured the european states to give much more humanitarian aid to the Nepal to bring them back up.

Same goes for the Ukraine in 2014 when the rebels started to fight in Ukraine and Russians invaded Crimea, sure it got media attention and it was followed by the news but I didn't see anyone saying how we need to bring in the Ukranian refugees from Crimea or Ukraine to the europe.

I was poking to see if you are one of those hypocrties, as so many others are, when the next big crisis starts somewhere in the world, I trust you to call out EU to bring the refugees in, as you are calling in to welcome the current migrants.

About the current refugee/migrant situation and the Ukranian crisis:

The news stories were much more carefully worded and the same leftist and "progressive" journalists/media who are now crying about the poor down-trodden syrian (or "syrian", depending who you believe) refugees (or "refugees", depending on who you believe), and anyone who questions them is a **** right-wing neo-nazi racist, made it so **** sure that there's not a single one of those "human interest" stories or photographs of the children in the battlefields to garner sympathy for the Ukranians, also I didn't see any stories how the ukranians' familes were broken, or how their lives are ruined due the warzones where the rebels and russians started to fight, at least not in the single one of the finnish news sites nor in the international european media I saw.

Neither I saw any interviews from the Ukranian refugee camps, or footage shown how utter shit are the conditions in the said camps.

Just so that you don't think I like conservative and/or right-wing media any better, I don't. They are equally manipulative and hypocritical as the leftie/"progressive" ones.

I just want even a single impartial and neutral news media who will just report the **** news without **** editorializing and trying to affect the public opinion toward the causes/people/politics they themselves hold or agree with, the finnish equivalent for BBC, Yle, used to be like that but now they've gone more and more toward the left from the impartial/centre.

Disclaimer: I used "crying about the poor down-trodden" just to show how differently the media depicts the Syrian and Ukranian conflicts, and Nepal disaster, I think all of those three things are pretty much equally horrible events, and the people who would need our aid, should get it.

Eh? I must be forgetting those streams of Ukrainian and Nepalese asylum seekers, I strangely can't seem to recall them at all . . . 

You mean these two million refugees, of which 800 000 have left Ukraine?

http://www.euronews.com/2015/04/22/ukraine-crisis-has-created-more-than-2-million-refugees-un-reports/

edit: also http://www.theguardian.com/world/2015/may/13/ukraines-refugees-find-solace-in-poland-europes-most-homogenous-society

Your own links show that more than 650,000 of those refugees went straight over the border to Russia, and that the rest have settled in Poland and Belarus. There is no wave of Ukrainian refugees in western Europe - which is what your argument needs - and the line about Nepal is just risible nonsense. It's more than 8,500 km from Kathmandu to Berlin. Maybe they started walking six months ago though? 

So just the people who can travel to europe deserves our help, and our attention? Gotcha.

The point I was trying to make is that many of those people couldn't care rats ass about the Ukrainians or the Nepalese (who I took as an example because the earthquake was the latest big disaster I remember), but now that it's fashionable to care about these specific migrants they suddenly want to show how huge humanitarians they are.

The title of the post you are responding to is 'Refugee crisis'. We are specifically discussing the crisis in predominantly Syrian refugees attempting to enter western Europe this summer. All of this about Ukraine and Nepal is just blowing smoke. You have no idea - literally - whether anyone you're talking to 'gives a rats ass' about Ukraine or Nepal, so I don't see what basis you have to make that assumption. It also has nothing to do with the topic of the thread. People are showing compassion to these particular migrants because they're the migrants we're talking about. 

[Jarpie]

 

If I'd go back 1,5-2 years in your posting history, would I find posts where you'd call europeans to bring in ukranian refugees from the Crimea and Ukraine when Russians invaded Crimea?

 

 

I have no idea. I don't think I discussed the situation much on here. You certainly wouldn't see me opposing it.

But I don't see the relevance of that question. 

If I'm not opposed to Syrian refugees, why would I be opposed to Ukrainian ones?

I don't see what you're getting at. I have a feeling you don't either.

I've seen so many people spouting how europe needs to bring in all those poor middle-easterns in here and how they need to be helped, and how we need to show solidarity yada yada, just to show that they're supposedly "so progressive" and/or "so good people", but the same people were so **** quiet when there was that earthquake in nepal six months ago, and it didn't get nearly the same attention in the media.

I find those people to be utter hypocrites, if they'd really be such a good people they would've raised the same storm that european states need to bring in refugees from Nepal and pressured the european states to give much more humanitarian aid to the Nepal to bring them back up.

Same goes for the Ukraine in 2014 when the rebels started to fight in Ukraine and Russians invaded Crimea, sure it got media attention and it was followed by the news but I didn't see anyone saying how we need to bring in the Ukranian refugees from Crimea or Ukraine to the europe.

I was poking to see if you are one of those hypocrties, as so many others are, when the next big crisis starts somewhere in the world, I trust you to call out EU to bring the refugees in, as you are calling in to welcome the current migrants.

About the current refugee/migrant situation and the Ukranian crisis:

The news stories were much more carefully worded and the same leftist and "progressive" journalists/media who are now crying about the poor down-trodden syrian (or "syrian", depending who you believe) refugees (or "refugees", depending on who you believe), and anyone who questions them is a **** right-wing neo-nazi racist, made it so **** sure that there's not a single one of those "human interest" stories or photographs of the children in the battlefields to garner sympathy for the Ukranians, also I didn't see any stories how the ukranians' familes were broken, or how their lives are ruined due the warzones where the rebels and russians started to fight, at least not in the single one of the finnish news sites nor in the international european media I saw.

Neither I saw any interviews from the Ukranian refugee camps, or footage shown how utter shit are the conditions in the said camps.

Just so that you don't think I like conservative and/or right-wing media any better, I don't. They are equally manipulative and hypocritical as the leftie/"progressive" ones.

I just want even a single impartial and neutral news media who will just report the **** news without **** editorializing and trying to affect the public opinion toward the causes/people/politics they themselves hold or agree with, the finnish equivalent for BBC, Yle, used to be like that but now they've gone more and more toward the left from the impartial/centre.

Disclaimer: I used "crying about the poor down-trodden" just to show how differently the media depicts the Syrian and Ukranian conflicts, and Nepal disaster, I think all of those three things are pretty much equally horrible events, and the people who would need our aid, should get it.

What a load of utter, utter shite.

 

You've wandered way off the original conversation and appear to be trying to construct some strange argument against the media with me as some sort of leverage, based on me not announcing my calls for refugee acceptance at every disaster/warzone that there has ever been. It's so convoluted I don't even know where to start in reply.

Fwiw, my mother is an immigrant, so my stance on immigration has been pretty consistent for my whole life. If you want to trawl through my posting history then go right ahead, I'll leave you to it for now.

You as a leverage? That's rich, I mentioned you in one sentence and rest was about other people I've seen and about the media. If you'd welcome all refugees, that's good, if you're not one of those hypocrties then I'm glad, but it doesn't mean that other people wouldn't be hypocrites.

I find people hypocrties who couldn't care less about the plight of the, for example, Ukrainians or the Nepalese to start drives to collect aid packets for them, or pressure the governments to send much more aid to Nepal than what they did, but now that they see couple sensationalistic stories about refugees, they suddenly want to show how "good people" they are.

If they'd really care about the plight of the Syrian refugees, they would try to find the ways to help all those sick, children, women and the elderly who can't get to the europe from the refugee camps around the syria, instead of just welcoming and aiding all those people who were healthy or strong enough to travel and rich enough to pay for the human smugglers, which isn't cheap btw, or are those just worth of our aid and hospitality who can make it to the europe on their own, or is it just about getting people in who will potentially be value to us as the new cheap labor? Gee, that sounds like they actually don't care about helping those who would need it most, but just taking the people who can profit the european states.

Are you really going to claim that vast majority of the media from the both sides (left and right) doesn't try to push their own agendas and influence the public opinion with their sensationalistic articles and news items, or are you really going to claim that they have reported the Ukrainian crisis and the middle-east/refugee crisis both the same way? My wording on my previous post about the media and Ukraine wasn't probably worded well enough as I'm not a native english speaker, but I do certainly see big difference in reporting, at least in here, and I doubt british media is any better.

I actually (mostly) liked YLE's reporting on Ukrainian crisis as it was mostly not sensationalistic, and they reported what was going on without resolting in very annoying "human interest" stories to get views or push agendas.

Or is the agenda pushing alright from the media you like because you agree with them on politics and their agenda?

While I'm criticising your posts, another couple of points:

a] Why does someone who wants to accept some immigrants need to favour accepting all immigrants, if they don't want to be a hypocrit?

b] How do you know whether or not people care or otherwise about other geopolitical issues, and where do you get off starting from a position that everyone you're debating with is a hypocrit?

c] You're going to need to make your peace with the fact that the arrival in western Europe of tens of thousands of refugees is news, in the first place, and consists of human interest stories, in the second place. Of course journalists are going to interview them, ask them their opinions and so forth. You can call that 'pushing an agenda' if you like. But all news is bias. When they decide whether to cover an event or not - that's bias. When they decide which journalist to send to cover it - that's bias. When they decide what angle to take with the material they've gathered - that's bias. When they decide whether to run it on page 1 or on page 36 - that's bias. There's no such thing as objective reporting. 

I'll be brief as it's late and I'm going to sleep soon.

a] I probably didn't explain myself well enough, at least the people in here (Finland, in the media and in the social media, didn't mean this forum specifically) who are against taking in the migrants coming to europe now gets attacked that they are being racist and prejudiced, by the same people who didn't care enough about other people who were refugees to write stories or demand that they'd be brought into europe and/or finland. You don't find this funny at all?

b] I didn't say that everyone I've debated are hypocrite, and I didn't mean people in this forum, I meant the people I've seen in the internet (such as people in social media, journos who writes news/articles, internet forums etc).

c] You can try to be as objective and impartial as possible, even if you can't be objective/impartial completely. What I was trying to say is that the journalists and the media has gone worse from what it used to be, for example, in Finland the news medias were much better being unsensationalistic and impartial/objective before, such as 15 years ago. They didn't put angles, or clear biases on the news reports about, for example, the refugees back then, which they clearly do now. So why shouldn't they try to be impartial or unsensationalistic now, when they achieved that 15 years ago? Either the media has turned much more politicised or that the journalists are nowdays much worse than they were 15 years as they can't do their job as well as the previous ones.

Talk about the media would probably be more suited into own topic though.

Like I quoted Samuel Fuller, film director, professional reporter and WW2 veteran: "Just report the news, no editorialising.".

[Skruff]

because this is NOT an islamic country. we would not get away with filling any city in the middle east with our lot, we cant even build churches over there but mosques are flying up like its the new fashion over here. if anyone thinks its acceptable to have a muslim,sikh or even a fully white city then thats complete bullshit.

This isn't an Islamic country. What difference does that make?

India isn't a Christian country but there are areas of it that are 90% Christian. What's the difference?

 

There are plenty of "our lot" in the middle east. They don't fill cities but they're there. There's plenty of churches too. 

compare christianity in the muslim world to islam in the western world, dont need to say much more.

Isn't about 10% of the Syrian population Christian? Theres a significant amount of christians in Egypt and Lebanon as well, as far as I know.

[Jarpie]

 

If I'd go back 1,5-2 years in your posting history, would I find posts where you'd call europeans to bring in ukranian refugees from the Crimea and Ukraine when Russians invaded Crimea?

 

 

I have no idea. I don't think I discussed the situation much on here. You certainly wouldn't see me opposing it.

But I don't see the relevance of that question. 

If I'm not opposed to Syrian refugees, why would I be opposed to Ukrainian ones?

I don't see what you're getting at. I have a feeling you don't either.

I've seen so many people spouting how europe needs to bring in all those poor middle-easterns in here and how they need to be helped, and how we need to show solidarity yada yada, just to show that they're supposedly "so progressive" and/or "so good people", but the same people were so **** quiet when there was that earthquake in nepal six months ago, and it didn't get nearly the same attention in the media.

I find those people to be utter hypocrites, if they'd really be such a good people they would've raised the same storm that european states need to bring in refugees from Nepal and pressured the european states to give much more humanitarian aid to the Nepal to bring them back up.

Same goes for the Ukraine in 2014 when the rebels started to fight in Ukraine and Russians invaded Crimea, sure it got media attention and it was followed by the news but I didn't see anyone saying how we need to bring in the Ukranian refugees from Crimea or Ukraine to the europe.

I was poking to see if you are one of those hypocrties, as so many others are, when the next big crisis starts somewhere in the world, I trust you to call out EU to bring the refugees in, as you are calling in to welcome the current migrants.

About the current refugee/migrant situation and the Ukranian crisis:

The news stories were much more carefully worded and the same leftist and "progressive" journalists/media who are now crying about the poor down-trodden syrian (or "syrian", depending who you believe) refugees (or "refugees", depending on who you believe), and anyone who questions them is a **** right-wing neo-nazi racist, made it so **** sure that there's not a single one of those "human interest" stories or photographs of the children in the battlefields to garner sympathy for the Ukranians, also I didn't see any stories how the ukranians' familes were broken, or how their lives are ruined due the warzones where the rebels and russians started to fight, at least not in the single one of the finnish news sites nor in the international european media I saw.

Neither I saw any interviews from the Ukranian refugee camps, or footage shown how utter shit are the conditions in the said camps.

Just so that you don't think I like conservative and/or right-wing media any better, I don't. They are equally manipulative and hypocritical as the leftie/"progressive" ones.

I just want even a single impartial and neutral news media who will just report the **** news without **** editorializing and trying to affect the public opinion toward the causes/people/politics they themselves hold or agree with, the finnish equivalent for BBC, Yle, used to be like that but now they've gone more and more toward the left from the impartial/centre.

Disclaimer: I used "crying about the poor down-trodden" just to show how differently the media depicts the Syrian and Ukranian conflicts, and Nepal disaster, I think all of those three things are pretty much equally horrible events, and the people who would need our aid, should get it.

Eh? I must be forgetting those streams of Ukrainian and Nepalese asylum seekers, I strangely can't seem to recall them at all . . . 

You mean these two million refugees, of which 800 000 have left Ukraine?

http://www.euronews.com/2015/04/22/ukraine-crisis-has-created-more-than-2-million-refugees-un-reports/

edit: also http://www.theguardian.com/world/2015/may/13/ukraines-refugees-find-solace-in-poland-europes-most-homogenous-society

Your own links show that more than 650,000 of those refugees went straight over the border to Russia, and that the rest have settled in Poland and Belarus. There is no wave of Ukrainian refugees in western Europe - which is what your argument needs - and the line about Nepal is just risible nonsense. It's more than 8,500 km from Kathmandu to Berlin. Maybe they started walking six months ago though? 

So just the people who can travel to europe deserves our help, and our attention? Gotcha.

The point I was trying to make is that many of those people couldn't care rats ass about the Ukrainians or the Nepalese (who I took as an example because the earthquake was the latest big disaster I remember), but now that it's fashionable to care about these specific migrants they suddenly want to show how huge humanitarians they are.

The title of the post you are responding to is 'Refugee crisis'. We are specifically discussing the crisis in predominantly Syrian refugees attempting to enter western Europe this summer. All of this about Ukraine and Nepal is just blowing smoke. You have no idea - literally - whether anyone you're talking to 'gives a rats ass' about Ukraine or Nepal, so I don't see what basis you have to make that assumption. It also has nothing to do with the topic of the thread. People are showing compassion to these particular migrants because they're the migrants we're talking about. 

As I wrote in another post, I didn't mean people in this topic, I meant the people I've seen in finnish media (such as journalists, politicians etc) and the other people in other forums or social media I follow.

[Stevo985]

 

If I'd go back 1,5-2 years in your posting history, would I find posts where you'd call europeans to bring in ukranian refugees from the Crimea and Ukraine when Russians invaded Crimea?

 

 

I have no idea. I don't think I discussed the situation much on here. You certainly wouldn't see me opposing it.

But I don't see the relevance of that question. 

If I'm not opposed to Syrian refugees, why would I be opposed to Ukrainian ones?

I don't see what you're getting at. I have a feeling you don't either.

I've seen so many people spouting how europe needs to bring in all those poor middle-easterns in here and how they need to be helped, and how we need to show solidarity yada yada, just to show that they're supposedly "so progressive" and/or "so good people", but the same people were so **** quiet when there was that earthquake in nepal six months ago, and it didn't get nearly the same attention in the media.

I find those people to be utter hypocrites, if they'd really be such a good people they would've raised the same storm that european states need to bring in refugees from Nepal and pressured the european states to give much more humanitarian aid to the Nepal to bring them back up.

Same goes for the Ukraine in 2014 when the rebels started to fight in Ukraine and Russians invaded Crimea, sure it got media attention and it was followed by the news but I didn't see anyone saying how we need to bring in the Ukranian refugees from Crimea or Ukraine to the europe.

I was poking to see if you are one of those hypocrties, as so many others are, when the next big crisis starts somewhere in the world, I trust you to call out EU to bring the refugees in, as you are calling in to welcome the current migrants.

About the current refugee/migrant situation and the Ukranian crisis:

The news stories were much more carefully worded and the same leftist and "progressive" journalists/media who are now crying about the poor down-trodden syrian (or "syrian", depending who you believe) refugees (or "refugees", depending on who you believe), and anyone who questions them is a **** right-wing neo-nazi racist, made it so **** sure that there's not a single one of those "human interest" stories or photographs of the children in the battlefields to garner sympathy for the Ukranians, also I didn't see any stories how the ukranians' familes were broken, or how their lives are ruined due the warzones where the rebels and russians started to fight, at least not in the single one of the finnish news sites nor in the international european media I saw.

Neither I saw any interviews from the Ukranian refugee camps, or footage shown how utter shit are the conditions in the said camps.

Just so that you don't think I like conservative and/or right-wing media any better, I don't. They are equally manipulative and hypocritical as the leftie/"progressive" ones.

I just want even a single impartial and neutral news media who will just report the **** news without **** editorializing and trying to affect the public opinion toward the causes/people/politics they themselves hold or agree with, the finnish equivalent for BBC, Yle, used to be like that but now they've gone more and more toward the left from the impartial/centre.

Disclaimer: I used "crying about the poor down-trodden" just to show how differently the media depicts the Syrian and Ukranian conflicts, and Nepal disaster, I think all of those three things are pretty much equally horrible events, and the people who would need our aid, should get it.

What a load of utter, utter shite.

 

You've wandered way off the original conversation and appear to be trying to construct some strange argument against the media with me as some sort of leverage, based on me not announcing my calls for refugee acceptance at every disaster/warzone that there has ever been. It's so convoluted I don't even know where to start in reply.

Fwiw, my mother is an immigrant, so my stance on immigration has been pretty consistent for my whole life. If you want to trawl through my posting history then go right ahead, I'll leave you to it for now.

You as a leverage? That's rich, I mentioned you in one sentence and rest was about other people I've seen and about the media. If you'd welcome all refugees, that's good, if you're not one of those hypocrties then I'm glad, but it doesn't mean that other people wouldn't be hypocrites.

I find people hypocrties who couldn't care less about the plight of the, for example, Ukrainians or the Nepalese to start drives to collect aid packets for them, or pressure the governments to send much more aid to Nepal than what they did, but now that they see couple sensationalistic stories about refugees, they suddenly want to show how "good people" they are.

If they'd really care about the plight of the Syrian refugees, they would try to find the ways to help all those sick, children, women and the elderly who can't get to the europe from the refugee camps around the syria, instead of just welcoming and aiding all those people who were healthy or strong enough to travel and rich enough to pay for the human smugglers, which isn't cheap btw, or are those just worth of our aid and hospitality who can make it to the europe on their own, or is it just about getting people in who will potentially be value to us as the new cheap labor? Gee, that sounds like they actually don't care about helping those who would need it most, but just taking the people who can profit the european states.

Are you really going to claim that vast majority of the media from the both sides (left and right) doesn't try to push their own agendas and influence the public opinion with their sensationalistic articles and news items, or are you really going to claim that they have reported the Ukrainian crisis and the middle-east/refugee crisis both the same way? My wording on my previous post about the media and Ukraine wasn't probably worded well enough as I'm not a native english speaker, but I do certainly see big difference in reporting, at least in here, and I doubt british media is any better.

I actually (mostly) liked YLE's reporting on Ukrainian crisis as it was mostly not sensationalistic, and they reported what was going on without resolting in very annoying "human interest" stories to get views or push agendas.

Or is the agenda pushing alright from the media you like because you agree with them on politics and their agenda?

Again, you seem to be trying to drag me into an argument that is nothign to do with the original point we were debating.

 

I've expressed no opinion about the media, their agenda or politics. Your post stops being relevant to the point we were discussing after the first paragraph

[Stevo985]

because i believe it will be a strain on a country thats already suffering from muslim migration, yes muslim not eastern european or chinese and its going to create more tension and loss of housing for our own people that need it. ive made myself quite clear on my views of islam at the moment, how do we know who we are letting in? i think its pretty fair to say a number of these refuges will turn against the country that feeds them.

Based on what?

How have we suffered from Muslim migration? 

 

You keep saying these buzz words but I'm yet to see you actually give a reason for why you think Islam is making us suffer. 

WHy would it create tension? Because loads of people who share your views would get angry at the amount of muslims in the country? 

[StefanAVFC]

because i believe it will be a strain on a country thats already suffering from muslim migration, yes muslim not eastern european or chinese and its going to create more tension and loss of housing for our own people that need it. ive made myself quite clear on my views of islam at the moment, how do we know who we are letting in? i think its pretty fair to say a number of these refuges will turn against the country that feeds them.

WHy would it create tension? Because loads of people who share your views would get angry at the amount of muslims in the country? 

This is exactly it. People at angry at Muslims for being Muslims. Thinly veiled racism and I'm a bit shocked by it. There's no evidence or justification or anything. If anything, people holding these views are creating more tension (mosque protests, marches through towns with anti-islam chants and banners etc.

[NurembergVillan]

[StefanAVFC]

'The debate is now completely divorced from the facts'

Damn right. People spout buzzwords off because they read it on Facebook or in the media without actually doing any research.

UKIP in the last election were most popular in areas where immigration was lowest. Surely that says something. The people who actually live in with the immigrants see the good and the people who don't, and just read propaganda and made up Facebook posts see the bad. It's a nonsense and it's so frustrating that it's got to this point.

[Stevo985]

 

If I'd go back 1,5-2 years in your posting history, would I find posts where you'd call europeans to bring in ukranian refugees from the Crimea and Ukraine when Russians invaded Crimea?

 

 

I have no idea. I don't think I discussed the situation much on here. You certainly wouldn't see me opposing it.

But I don't see the relevance of that question. 

If I'm not opposed to Syrian refugees, why would I be opposed to Ukrainian ones?

I don't see what you're getting at. I have a feeling you don't either.

I've seen so many people spouting how europe needs to bring in all those poor middle-easterns in here and how they need to be helped, and how we need to show solidarity yada yada, just to show that they're supposedly "so progressive" and/or "so good people", but the same people were so **** quiet when there was that earthquake in nepal six months ago, and it didn't get nearly the same attention in the media.

I find those people to be utter hypocrites, if they'd really be such a good people they would've raised the same storm that european states need to bring in refugees from Nepal and pressured the european states to give much more humanitarian aid to the Nepal to bring them back up.

Same goes for the Ukraine in 2014 when the rebels started to fight in Ukraine and Russians invaded Crimea, sure it got media attention and it was followed by the news but I didn't see anyone saying how we need to bring in the Ukranian refugees from Crimea or Ukraine to the europe.

I was poking to see if you are one of those hypocrties, as so many others are, when the next big crisis starts somewhere in the world, I trust you to call out EU to bring the refugees in, as you are calling in to welcome the current migrants.

About the current refugee/migrant situation and the Ukranian crisis:

The news stories were much more carefully worded and the same leftist and "progressive" journalists/media who are now crying about the poor down-trodden syrian (or "syrian", depending who you believe) refugees (or "refugees", depending on who you believe), and anyone who questions them is a **** right-wing neo-nazi racist, made it so **** sure that there's not a single one of those "human interest" stories or photographs of the children in the battlefields to garner sympathy for the Ukranians, also I didn't see any stories how the ukranians' familes were broken, or how their lives are ruined due the warzones where the rebels and russians started to fight, at least not in the single one of the finnish news sites nor in the international european media I saw.

Neither I saw any interviews from the Ukranian refugee camps, or footage shown how utter shit are the conditions in the said camps.

Just so that you don't think I like conservative and/or right-wing media any better, I don't. They are equally manipulative and hypocritical as the leftie/"progressive" ones.

I just want even a single impartial and neutral news media who will just report the **** news without **** editorializing and trying to affect the public opinion toward the causes/people/politics they themselves hold or agree with, the finnish equivalent for BBC, Yle, used to be like that but now they've gone more and more toward the left from the impartial/centre.

Disclaimer: I used "crying about the poor down-trodden" just to show how differently the media depicts the Syrian and Ukranian conflicts, and Nepal disaster, I think all of those three things are pretty much equally horrible events, and the people who would need our aid, should get it.

What a load of utter, utter shite.

 

You've wandered way off the original conversation and appear to be trying to construct some strange argument against the media with me as some sort of leverage, based on me not announcing my calls for refugee acceptance at every disaster/warzone that there has ever been. It's so convoluted I don't even know where to start in reply.

Fwiw, my mother is an immigrant, so my stance on immigration has been pretty consistent for my whole life. If you want to trawl through my posting history then go right ahead, I'll leave you to it for now.

Not disrespect chap, but the sentance above explains everyone of your posts on here, an I do mean no disrepect. But to start, your a gonna be a little biased on Camerons latest immigration/refugee policy. Also what I have seen from your posts is alot of backing on letting all the refugees into our country but no real positives we may reap from it. So how is gonna help us letting another 10000+ into our small over populated island, because even though I am not opposed to immigration, I cannot see many postives to allowing more to settle here.

Is saving people from a warzone not a positive?

Do we just say "nah, soz. Don't see how this is going to help us so see ya later."?

 

What a strange argument.

Its a positive maybe yeah. So should you think we should que them up at our borders? Take a million maybe?

Nope. I don't think that. Why would I?

You've jumped from 10,000 to a million.

I just wondered how far your sympathy for the refugess would stretch.

What a bizarre post.

Did you actually have a point?

[HanoiVillan]

 

If I'd go back 1,5-2 years in your posting history, would I find posts where you'd call europeans to bring in ukranian refugees from the Crimea and Ukraine when Russians invaded Crimea?

 

 

I have no idea. I don't think I discussed the situation much on here. You certainly wouldn't see me opposing it.

But I don't see the relevance of that question. 

If I'm not opposed to Syrian refugees, why would I be opposed to Ukrainian ones?

I don't see what you're getting at. I have a feeling you don't either.

I've seen so many people spouting how europe needs to bring in all those poor middle-easterns in here and how they need to be helped, and how we need to show solidarity yada yada, just to show that they're supposedly "so progressive" and/or "so good people", but the same people were so **** quiet when there was that earthquake in nepal six months ago, and it didn't get nearly the same attention in the media.

I find those people to be utter hypocrites, if they'd really be such a good people they would've raised the same storm that european states need to bring in refugees from Nepal and pressured the european states to give much more humanitarian aid to the Nepal to bring them back up.

Same goes for the Ukraine in 2014 when the rebels started to fight in Ukraine and Russians invaded Crimea, sure it got media attention and it was followed by the news but I didn't see anyone saying how we need to bring in the Ukranian refugees from Crimea or Ukraine to the europe.

I was poking to see if you are one of those hypocrties, as so many others are, when the next big crisis starts somewhere in the world, I trust you to call out EU to bring the refugees in, as you are calling in to welcome the current migrants.

About the current refugee/migrant situation and the Ukranian crisis:

The news stories were much more carefully worded and the same leftist and "progressive" journalists/media who are now crying about the poor down-trodden syrian (or "syrian", depending who you believe) refugees (or "refugees", depending on who you believe), and anyone who questions them is a **** right-wing neo-nazi racist, made it so **** sure that there's not a single one of those "human interest" stories or photographs of the children in the battlefields to garner sympathy for the Ukranians, also I didn't see any stories how the ukranians' familes were broken, or how their lives are ruined due the warzones where the rebels and russians started to fight, at least not in the single one of the finnish news sites nor in the international european media I saw.

Neither I saw any interviews from the Ukranian refugee camps, or footage shown how utter shit are the conditions in the said camps.

Just so that you don't think I like conservative and/or right-wing media any better, I don't. They are equally manipulative and hypocritical as the leftie/"progressive" ones.

I just want even a single impartial and neutral news media who will just report the **** news without **** editorializing and trying to affect the public opinion toward the causes/people/politics they themselves hold or agree with, the finnish equivalent for BBC, Yle, used to be like that but now they've gone more and more toward the left from the impartial/centre.

Disclaimer: I used "crying about the poor down-trodden" just to show how differently the media depicts the Syrian and Ukranian conflicts, and Nepal disaster, I think all of those three things are pretty much equally horrible events, and the people who would need our aid, should get it.

What a load of utter, utter shite.

 

You've wandered way off the original conversation and appear to be trying to construct some strange argument against the media with me as some sort of leverage, based on me not announcing my calls for refugee acceptance at every disaster/warzone that there has ever been. It's so convoluted I don't even know where to start in reply.

Fwiw, my mother is an immigrant, so my stance on immigration has been pretty consistent for my whole life. If you want to trawl through my posting history then go right ahead, I'll leave you to it for now.

You as a leverage? That's rich, I mentioned you in one sentence and rest was about other people I've seen and about the media. If you'd welcome all refugees, that's good, if you're not one of those hypocrties then I'm glad, but it doesn't mean that other people wouldn't be hypocrites.

I find people hypocrties who couldn't care less about the plight of the, for example, Ukrainians or the Nepalese to start drives to collect aid packets for them, or pressure the governments to send much more aid to Nepal than what they did, but now that they see couple sensationalistic stories about refugees, they suddenly want to show how "good people" they are.

If they'd really care about the plight of the Syrian refugees, they would try to find the ways to help all those sick, children, women and the elderly who can't get to the europe from the refugee camps around the syria, instead of just welcoming and aiding all those people who were healthy or strong enough to travel and rich enough to pay for the human smugglers, which isn't cheap btw, or are those just worth of our aid and hospitality who can make it to the europe on their own, or is it just about getting people in who will potentially be value to us as the new cheap labor? Gee, that sounds like they actually don't care about helping those who would need it most, but just taking the people who can profit the european states.

Are you really going to claim that vast majority of the media from the both sides (left and right) doesn't try to push their own agendas and influence the public opinion with their sensationalistic articles and news items, or are you really going to claim that they have reported the Ukrainian crisis and the middle-east/refugee crisis both the same way? My wording on my previous post about the media and Ukraine wasn't probably worded well enough as I'm not a native english speaker, but I do certainly see big difference in reporting, at least in here, and I doubt british media is any better.

I actually (mostly) liked YLE's reporting on Ukrainian crisis as it was mostly not sensationalistic, and they reported what was going on without resolting in very annoying "human interest" stories to get views or push agendas.

Or is the agenda pushing alright from the media you like because you agree with them on politics and their agenda?

While I'm criticising your posts, another couple of points:

a] Why does someone who wants to accept some immigrants need to favour accepting all immigrants, if they don't want to be a hypocrit?

b] How do you know whether or not people care or otherwise about other geopolitical issues, and where do you get off starting from a position that everyone you're debating with is a hypocrit?

c] You're going to need to make your peace with the fact that the arrival in western Europe of tens of thousands of refugees is news, in the first place, and consists of human interest stories, in the second place. Of course journalists are going to interview them, ask them their opinions and so forth. You can call that 'pushing an agenda' if you like. But all news is bias. When they decide whether to cover an event or not - that's bias. When they decide which journalist to send to cover it - that's bias. When they decide what angle to take with the material they've gathered - that's bias. When they decide whether to run it on page 1 or on page 36 - that's bias. There's no such thing as objective reporting. 

I'll be brief as it's late and I'm going to sleep soon.

a] I probably didn't explain myself well enough, at least the people in here (Finland, in the media and in the social media, didn't mean this forum specifically) who are against taking in the migrants coming to europe now gets attacked that they are being racist and prejudiced, by the same people who didn't care enough about other people who were refugees to write stories or demand that they'd be brought into europe and/or finland. You don't find this funny at all?

b] I didn't say that everyone I've debated are hypocrite, and I didn't mean people in this forum, I meant the people I've seen in the internet (such as people in social media, journos who writes news/articles, internet forums etc).

c] You can try to be as objective and impartial as possible, even if you can't be objective/impartial completely. What I was trying to say is that the journalists and the media has gone worse from what it used to be, for example, in Finland the news medias were much better being unsensationalistic and impartial/objective before, such as 15 years ago. They didn't put angles, or clear biases on the news reports about, for example, the refugees back then, which they clearly do now. So why shouldn't they try to be impartial or unsensationalistic now, when they achieved that 15 years ago? Either the media has turned much more politicised or that the journalists are nowdays much worse than they were 15 years as they can't do their job as well as the previous ones.

Talk about the media would probably be more suited into own topic though.

Like I quoted Samuel Fuller, film director, professional reporter and WW2 veteran: "Just report the news, no editorialising.".

Hi Jarpie,

Thank you for explaining your thoughts, I understand a little more clearly. 

a] and b] - I obviously know nothing about the media in Finland, or your friends and acquaintances on social media, so I can't comment on what those people are saying. All I would say is I think you need to be a little careful in assuming hypocrisy - some people send money to charities after disasters like the earthquake in Nepal, and then don't boast about it afterwards. Some of those who seem to be caring more about the events this summer, may actually be doing more than you realise. 

c] I agree that this is best for a media thread - don't know if we have one, might be good if we did - but in general, as you say, it's impossible to be completely objective and impartial, and it wouldn't be a good thing even if it were possible. American media outlets often try it, leading to he said/she said reporting, where they feel it's acceptable to collect one quote from eg. a scientist who says smoking harms your health, and one quote from a lobby group funded by a tobacco company, and then just leave it there because they've provided 'balance'. It's better if media outlets don't try to pretend an impartiality they don't have, but are instead honest about their biases, and don't tell outright lies. 

[Wainy316]

Wow, that string of convo with multiple broken quotes is making this thread pretty hard to read, at least on tapatalk.

[chrisp65]

quote wars

very important there's a winner

[NurembergVillan]

[Brumerican]

Muslamic rape gangs are well annoying to be fair . 

[NurembergVillan]

Sounds like he's saying Muslamic ray guns at one point.

Pew pew pew!

[Keyblade]

Genuine question, not supposed to cause offence.

If the roles were reversed and non-muslim communities wanted to migrate to the Middle East.  Would they be allowed to build churches, open up bars, betting shops etc with fear of them being bombed/burned down?

 

Dubai/Qatar/Oman say hello.

 

Even in those countries you can't just rock up and start looking for work. You have to have a job to go to, work visa in place etc. Once that visa expires or if you are arbitrarily sacked you have no right to stay and your visa is cancelled at the airport as you fly out.

Forget any right to a family life stuff, you could have a kid in school (which you have to pay for privately), 11 months paid up on your accommodation (normally 12 months paid in advance annually) and lose the lot with no recourse or right to appeal.

You'd also better make damn sure you follow their rules, anything from public affection with your wife to eating/drinking in public during Ramadan (yes, that applies to non-Muslims) can land you in jail and/or deported. Ditto swearing or shouting at a local. If a local accuses you of something to the police you are also for it, no witnesses required. I've known a few people fall foul of this last one based on nothing more than spite. 

All of this applies to me too, as a foriegner even though I'm Muslim. None of these have anything to do with being non-Muslim except for perhaps the eating/drinking in Ramadan as a non-Muslim.