salsera:
So why is Europe playing Bigger Brother?

Whose to tell who is Syrian?
Why not the other Middle East countries that are in the region.

Europe cant handle this...there will be xenophobia and how will they know if they have not opened the floodgates for Isis members. Granting automatic asylum are they crazy?
They are just asking for an avalanche of just about everyone who wants to leave Syria Iraq and Africa sef. As if the refugees leaving through Syria is not bad enough.
I don't get the EU honestly

This is what I honestly don't get in the whole situation

The Arab nations can comfortably cater for these refugees unlike the EU whose facilities were already stretched even before their influx

The refugees are not going there, these super rich countries are not offering to help on their own and no one including the EU is looking in that direction. I honestly don't get it. Instead, they are looking at the US who is the farthest from the region airlifting as many of the refugees as possible

I keep asking myself, "Is this a grand plan or something"?

EfemenaXY:



Sweaty Piers Morgan? The guy's a joke, Saga.

Baby, abeg remove all the youtube links above from all your quoting me so the page can load faster when people get on it.

You can leave the quotes just remove the youtube video links.

One of the guests on Sky news raised an important point last week
She was concerned that a lot of the refugees were able, young men and her concern was that there is no knowing who is who as many of them don’t travel with papers and there is a possibility that these men may actually be isis and by opening borders they have just got a free pass into Europe to regroup and plan attacks.
It’s a rather scary thought, but what does one do?
Do you only let in families? And if so how do you even know if they are real families?

My instinct is to get rid of the problem in Syria once and for all and send all the refugees back home . . . . .but Iraq and Libya are still dangerous country’s to be in even after the went intervened.

I don’t really understand politics that well and we only get to see/hear what the media puts across. I am sure that we are not getting the full & true story.
For example I still find it very strange that Russia got away with shooting down that Air Malaysia flight. . . or have I missed something.

U.S. Na big brother now.

Always expected to solve the world's problems.


If those refugees find themselves in the UAE, won't there be enough for cater for them and not have them on the streets?
I guess they are too posh for those kind of people.

And what about their shared faith? Shouldn't that even be enough to get them saying "come in brothers"

I no understand too.

Kimoni:


This is what I honestly don't get in the whole situation

The Arab nations can comfortably cater for these refugees unlike the EU whose facilities were already stretched even before their influx

The refugees are not going there, these super rich countries are not offering to help on their own and no one including the EU is looking in that direction. I honestly don't get it. Instead, they are looking at the US who is the farthest from the region airlifting as many of the refugees as possible

I keep asking myself, "Is this a grand plan or something"?

cococandy:
U.S. Na big brother now.

Always expected to solve the world's problems.

If those refugees find themselves in the UAE, won't there be enough for cater for them and not have them on the streets?
I guess they are too posh for those kind of people.

And what about their shared faith? Shouldn't that even be enough to get them saying "come in brothers"

I no understand too.

My sister the thing tire me oo

This pic has gone viral - these tents in Saudi can convienently house 3 million refugees plus the proximity advantage but still, no one is talking about it. And like you said, they share the same faith...

And we have not even talked about UAE, Quatar....

http://www.infowars.com/saudi-arabia-has-100000-empty-air-conditioned-tents-that-can-house-3-million-people-yet-has-taken-zero-refugees/

http://www.globalresearch.ca/saudi-arabia-takes-zero-refugees-despite-having-100000-tents-able-to-house-3-million-people/5475650

Tearoses - Russia is a giant warlord with modern war equipment. If the situation is not managed, it will trigger a world war. Then, countries like North Korea and Iran who have been waiting for an opportunity to test their latest nuclear technology will join and hmnnnnn.....the end result will be disastrous.

@kimoni

Say it isn't so!!!
Ika ni Saudi oh
See better life.. Let them take refugees.
Make Uk no impload.

Sagamite:


Baby, abeg remove all the youtube links above from all your quoting me so the page can load faster when people get on it.

You can leave the quotes just remove the youtube video links.

Done

salsera:
@kimoni

Say it isn't so!!!
Ika ni Saudi oh
See better life.. Let them take refugees.
Make Uk no impload.

Lollzzz@impload

Na so oo

EfemenaXY:


Done

Aaah how cute. Did Saga just call you baby?

Dis kain love wey tsunami no quench.

salsera:
So why is Europe playing Bigger Brother?

Whose to tell who is Syrian?
Why not the other Middle East countries that are in the region.

Europe cant handle this...there will be xenophobia and how will they know if they have not opened the floodgates for Isis members. Granting automatic asylum are they crazy?
They are just asking for an avalanche of just about everyone who wants to leave Syria Iraq and Africa sef. As if the refugees leaving through Syria is not bad enough.
I don't get the EU honestly

What is there not to get? That they want to help people who flee from war with their children?

@kimoni
Salsera
Efemenaxy
Sagamite et al.

I don't know if y'all have seen this clip but it demonstrates what some people mean by saying it's not totally safe to open the floodgates for all refugees.

Apart from letting in outright terrorists, there'll be more room for extremists who can't let others be until they all tow the same path.
Like this man in this clip.



https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=T8fzcT7jHG8

Its is just a matter of time before there is another attack in Europe.

At least before now, the authorities knew where the suspected terrorists were and they had their eye on them; now they dont know who is who and where they are. It will take months before they gather intelligence and by then it may be too late.

Everything is just a mess right now. Things are happening all over the world these days that one never imagined could happen.

We have fathers raping daughters, beheadings, terrorist attacks, kids being exposed to porn on social media and the list goes on. God help us.

cococandy:
@kimoni
Salsera
Efemenaxy
Sagamite et al.

I don't know if y'all have seen this clip but it demonstrates what some people mean by saying it's not totally safe to open the floodgates for all refugees.

Apart from letting in outright terrorists, there'll be more room for extremists who can't let others be until they all tow the same path.
Like this man in this clip.



https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=T8fzcT7jHG8

What do you mean by "opening floodgates"? And are you implying that Muslims do not deserve to be given refuge because they MAY be extremist?


The problem is that the European Union is failing at implementing the laws they already have.
The European asylum law states that all refugees MUST be registered and their fingerprints taken. Then the fingerprint is transmitted to the EURODAC central system. Hungary is the country that is currently doing it BUT some people think that it is discriminatory to do so forgetting that it serves the purpose of security among others and that it already is the LAW they have agreed on.

Another problem that the European Union has is that its members forget that it is a shared responsibility to welcome asylum seekers. If they share this responsibility in a sensible way, it will be no problem to help MANY people seeking asylum.

Moreover, granting people asylum is for a limited period of time. Once the war in Syria is over, they have to go back. Many people from former Yugoslavia had to go back once the situation got better. It is also easier to deport an asylum seeker than an immigrant. So once they break the law, they should and can be deported with immediate effect.

People are confusing asylum and immigration law nowadays a lot.

The journalist in the video is not very sharp. She mentions democracy and he says that he has the right to establish the sharia law because he has freedom of speech. The first and foremost core value of a democracy is that law-making is decided by the MAJORITY. Is he and his friends majority?

Last, the man was born in Britain. He is not a refugee.

Mind you I'm not saying anyone deserves to be denied asylum. I'm only saying now I see why some people are concerned about letting them all in like that. And no matter how we put it, it is a well founded a fear.

Whether European born and asylum seeker, what this man in this video needs is a few more people who are extreme minded like him for a full on crisis and major harassment of people on the streets to occur for them not following his sharia ways.

Anyway what's your opinion about other countries like the UAE, Saudi etc granting them asylum.
What's your opinion about their silence on the matter.

Mindfulness:


What do you mean by "opening floodgates"? And are you implying that Muslims do not deserve to be given refuge because they MAY be extremist?


The problem is that the European Union is failing at implementing the laws they already have.
The European asylum law states that all refugees MUST be registered and their fingerprints taken. Then the fingerprint is transmitted to the EURODAC central system. Hungary is the country that is currently doing it BUT some people think that it is discriminatory to do so forgetting that it serves the purpose of security among others and that it already is the LAW they have agreed on.

Another problem that the European Union has is that its members forget that it is a shared responsibility to welcome asylum seekers. If they share this responsibility in a sensible way, it will be no problem to help MANY people seeking asylum.

Moreover, granting people asylum is for a limited period of time. Once the war in Syria is over, they have to go back. Many people from former Yugoslavia had to go back once the situation got better. It is also easier to deport an asylum seeker than an immigrant. So once they break the law, they should and can be deported with immediate effect.

People are confusing asylum and immigration law nowadays a lot.

The journalist in the video is not very sharp. She mentions democracy and he says that he has the right to establish the sharia law because he has freedom of speech. The first and foremost core value of a democracy is that law-making is decided by the MAJORITY. Is he and his friends majority?

Last, the man was born in Britain. He is not a refugee.

cococandy:


Mind you I'm not saying anyone deserves to be denied asylum. I'm only saying now I see why some people are concerned about letting them all in like that. And no matter how we put it, it is a well founded a fear.

Like I said, the law clearly states that they should not be let in JUST like that.

Whether European born and asylum seeker, what this man in this video needs is a few more people who are extreme minded like him for a full on crisis and major harassment of people on the streets to occur for them not following his sharia ways.

There are already many of them all around the world. Plenty of them in Britain too. When you think of 9 / 11, you will remember that the attack was done by people who were NOT asylum seekers or residents in the USA.

Anyway what's your opinion about other countries like the UAE, Saudi etc granting them asylum.
What's your opinion about their silence on the matter.

It does not surprise me. These countries are not democracies and human rights are not what they are famous for.

You mean fingerprinting and their vital info taken down? That's the precaution? If a European born Muslim can be responsible for terrorist attacks, what's to say that an asylum seeker can't?
How will deport a terrorist who committed a suicide attack?

Whether born there or not, the end result will be the same if the population increases. Among every twelve, there will be a judas. Count how many judases in multiple groups of twelves.

I'm not saying this to be offensive in case you're taking offense. But it has become socially clear that it's always better to have a majority Muslim and minority Christian / secularist population or have majority Christian/ secularist and minority Muslim population than have both in sizeable numbers coexisting side by side.
There's always friction.

Well hopefully their democracy won't be their undoing.

Mindfulness:


Like I said, the law clearly states that they should not be let in JUST like that.



There are already many of them all around the world. Plenty of them in Britain too. When you think of 9 / 11, you will remember that the attack was done by people who were NOT asylum seekers or residents in the USA.



It does not surprise me. These countries are not democracies and human rights are not what they are famous for.

cococandy:
You mean fingerprinting and their vital info taken down? That's the precaution? If a European born Muslim can be responsible for terrorist attacks, what's to say that an asylum seeker can't?
How will deport a terrorist who committed a suicide attack?

We should be very careful here. The Bush era, the era of terrorist attacks, has revealed that second or third generation born Muslims tend to be more extremist than their parents who were the first generation to enter their host countries.

Whether born there or not, the end result will be the same if the population increases. Among every twelve, there will be a judas. Count how many judases in multiple groups of twelves.

So what do you suggest? The EU should not let any Muslims in?

I'm not saying this to be offensive in case you're taking offense. But it has become socially clear that it's always better to have a majority Muslim and minority Christian / secularist population or have majority Christian/ secularist and minority Muslim population than have both in sizeable numbers coexisting side by side.
There's always friction.

I do not feel offended at all but you are a bit funny now. Do you really think that any European country will accept so many refugees that they will be equal in number to the people born there? Or that they will accept so many Muslims that the religion will become the dominant one or equal the number of Christians?

Well hopefully their democracy won't be their undoing.

I am SURE it won't.

What I suggest? I'm not saying they shouldn't accept any at all.

Maybe some families with little kids. whatever they have to do to keep safety first, then I'm in support. All I'm saying is that they should not be emotionally blackmailed (that's what I see all those social media pics to be) into opening their doors to trouble.

And I don't think there's any day the refugees will equal in number to the population to the residents. I didn't even imply that.

I only said if they get to a sizeable population (which they can easily do) there will be more extremists like that man up there to forment trouble.

And most importantly, all these people mouthing off at the UK and U.S. Should direct their energies to other countries also. Because they are not democracies doesn't mean they are not human to do the right thing too.

Mindfulness:


We should be very careful here. The Bush era, the era of terrorist attacks, has revealed that second or third generation born Muslims tend to be more extremist than their parents who were the first generation to enter their host countries.




So what do you suggest? The EU should not let any Muslims in?



I do not feel offended at all but you are a bit funny now. Do you really think that any European country will accept so many refugees that they will be equal in number to the people born there? Or that they will accept so many Muslims that the religion will become the dominant one or equal the number of Christians?



I am SURE it won't.

cococandy:
What I suggest? I'm not saying they shouldn't accept any at all.

Maybe some families with little kids. whatever they have to do to keep safety first, then I'm in support. All I'm saying is that they should not be emotionally blackmailed (that's what I see all those social media pics to be) into opening their doors to trouble.

So families with teenage kids should not be accepted? Young people without kids should not be accepted? Elderly folks should not be accepted?

As for the emotional blackmailing, it is easier said than done since some European countries are haunted by their guilt that results from the bloody history of their countries and what colonialism did to people. It is a psychological thing.

And I don't think there's any day the refugees will equal in number to the population to the residents. I didn't even imply that.

I only said if they get to a sizeable population (which they can easily do) there will be more extremists like that man up there to forment trouble.

So you believe that extremism is the result of the number of people they let in?
There are about 1,5 million Turkish people in Germany. Most of them are moderate. Germany has had very few problems with Turkish extremists.

And most importantly, all these people mouthing off at the UK and U.S. Should direct their energies to other countries also. Because they are not democracies doesn't mean they are not human to do the right thing too.

Being human does not mean that you will do the right thing. If it did, we wouldn't have wars, poverty and hunger. Since the countries you mentioned are not democratic and do not value human rights too much, they do not feel any sense of responsibility for people who in their own country oppose their dictator.

Why would a monarch support people who want to overthrow their president dictator? Do you want them to accept them so that next these people will try to do same in their country?

The responsibility falls on the west then?

Well let's agree to disagree.

Mindfulness:


So families with teenage kids should not be accepted? Young people without kids should not be accepted? Elderly folks should not be accepted?

As for the emotional blackmailing, it is easier said than done since some European countries are haunted by their guilt that results from the bloody history of their countries and what colonialism did to people. It is a psychological thing.



So you believe that extremism is the result of the number of people they let in?
There are about 1,5 million Turkish people in Germany. Most of them are moderate. Germany has had very few problems with Turkish extremists.



Being human does not mean that you will do the right thing. If it did, we wouldn't have wars, poverty and hunger. Since the countries you mentioned are not democratic and do not value human rights too much, they do not feel any sense of responsibility for people who in their own country oppose their dictator.

Why would a monarch support people who want to overthrow their president dictator? Do you want them to accept them so that next these people will try to do same in their country?

cococandy:
The responsibility falls in the west then?

Well let's agree to disagree.

You give up easily.

Mindfulness:


You give up easily.

No need to draw the debate out.

cococandy:

No need to draw the debate out.

If you say so.

I thought it was an important one and one that we can learn from.

In some familys after the women put to bed the woman leaves her home with the baby and goes and live with relatives be it on her side or the husbands side

My concern with this is, when does the man get to bond with his new baby and wife? is this a good time for a couple to be separated?

The wife too needs her husbands support, his warmth & his presense round her. Is it not stressful for her to move to another house? A house that probably has different "rules" that she needs to adapt to. . . then add that to her hormones and tiredness. Is this emotionaly healthy?

Im just thinking that in todays age, good planning and with all the information at our fingertips, and with so many men hands on anyway, Do they need to leave their homes and husbands or is this a tradition that should be phased out?

tearoses:
In some familys after the women put to bed the woman leaves her home with the baby and goes and live with relatives be it on her side or the husbands side

My concern with this is, when does the man get to bond with his new baby and wife? is this a good time for a couple to be separated?

The wife too needs her husbands support, his warmth & his presense round her. Is it not stressful for her to move to another house? A house that probably has different "rules" that she needs to adapt to. . . then add that to her hormones and tiredness. Is this emotionaly healthy?

Im just thinking that in todays age, good planning and with all the information at our fingertips, and with so many men hands on anyway, Do they need to leave their homes and husbands or is this a tradition that should be phased out?

If the husbands say no, I don't think the ladies will go ahead to move.
I agree it should be phased out. That bonding stage is important for fathers too.

It all depends on the men. Their wives think they can't help out enough and they so too think.hence the arrangement.

This is one of the typical sources of the social-deceit called "happily married".

https://www.nairaland.com/2599087/ibe-kachikwu-wife-elizabeth-thisday/2#38118437

i wonder how "girls nigt out" turn to political science lecture.

cococandy:

If the husbands say no, I don't think the ladies will go ahead to move.
I agree it should be phased out. That bonding stage is important for fathers too.

It all depends on the men. Their wives think they can't help out enough and they so too think.hence the arrangement.

The hubbys probably think they are doing the right thing by letting their wives go
it also excuses them from any responsibility of caring for their wife and new baby
what they dont realise is that they miss out with bonding with their baby and wife.

tearoses:


The hubbys probably think they are doing the right thing by letting their wives go
it also excuses them from any responsibility of caring for their wife and new baby
what they dont realise is that they miss out with bonding with their baby and wife.

My oga will say leave the baby with him and go to you moms place if you want to

tearoses:
In some familys after the women put to bed the woman leaves her home with the baby and goes and live with relatives be it on her side or the husbands side

My concern with this is, when does the man get to bond with his new baby and wife? is this a good time for a couple to be separated?

The wife too needs her husbands support, his warmth & his presense round her. Is it not stressful for her to move to another house? A house that probably has different "rules" that she needs to adapt to. . . then add that to her hormones and tiredness. Is this emotionaly healthy?

Im just thinking that in todays age, good planning and with all the information at our fingertips, and with so many men hands on anyway, Do they need to leave their homes and husbands or is this a tradition that should be phased out?

That's so archaic. Who who does that now? And where? Here? Or in the village??

Mindfulness:


What is there not to get? That they want to help people who flee from war with their children?

We can't take them all. We're only but a small island and our limited infrastructure is stretched to full capacity as it is now.

The neighbouring countries should take them in. Afterall they do have a lot in common, both culturally and religiously.

EfemenaXY:


That's so archaic. Who who does that now? And where? Here? Or in the village??

sis it happens up until now