I get what you're saying and its noble how you think.
But nothing should override the notion of personal safety...nothing.
If theres a guarantee is that Im not going to sacrifice my own safety in order to cater to the needs of refugees or anyone for that matter.


Edited by SocaWho: 17/11/2015 11:12:26 AM

Interesting perspective from someone who was actually held hostage by ISIS for 10 months:

http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2015/nov/16/isis-bombs-hostage-syria-islamic-state-paris-attacks

As a proud Frenchman I am as distressed as anyone about the events in Paris. But I am not shocked or incredulous. I know Islamic State. I spent 10 months as an Isis hostage, and I know for sure that our pain, our grief, our hopes, our lives do not touch them. Theirs is a world apart.

Most people only know them from their propaganda material, but I have seen behind that. In my time as their captive, I met perhaps a dozen of them, including Mohammed Emwazi: Jihadi John was one of my jailers. He nicknamed me “Baldy”.

Even now I sometimes chat with them on social media, and can tell you that much of what you think of them results from their brand of marketing and public relations. They present themselves to the public as superheroes, but away from the camera are a bit pathetic in many ways: street kids drunk on ideology and power. In France we have a saying – stupid and evil. I found them more stupid than evil. That is not to understate the murderous potential of stupidity.

All of those beheaded last year were my cellmates, and my jailers would play childish games with us – mental torture – saying one day that we would be released and then two weeks later observing blithely, “Tomorrow we will kill one of you.” The first couple of times we believed them but after that we came to realise that for the most part they were bullshitters having fun with us.

They would play mock executions. Once they used chloroform with me. Another time it was a beheading scene. A bunch of French-speaking jihadis were shouting, “We’re going to cut your head off and put it on to your arse and upload it to YouTube.” They had a sword from an antique shop.

They were laughing and I played the game by screaming, but they just wanted fun. As soon as they left I turned to another of the French hostages and just laughed. It was so ridiculous.

After all that happened to me, I still don’t feel Isis is the priority. To my mind, Assad is the priority

It struck me forcefully how technologically connected they are; they follow the news obsessively, but everything they see goes through their own filter. They are totally indoctrinated, clinging to all manner of conspiracy theories, never acknowledging the contradictions.

Everything convinces them that they are on the right path and, specifically, that there is a kind of apocalyptic process under way that will lead to a confrontation between an army of Muslims from all over the world and others, the crusaders, the Romans. They see everything as moving us down that road. Consequently, everything is a blessing from Allah.

With their news and social media interest, they will be noting everything that follows their murderous assault on Paris, and my guess is that right now the chant among them will be “We are winning”. They will be heartened by every sign of overreaction, of division, of fear, of racism, of xenophobia; they will be drawn to any examples of ugliness on social media.

Central to their world view is the belief that communities cannot live together with Muslims, and every day their antennae will be tuned towards finding supporting evidence. The pictures from Germany of people welcoming migrants will have been particularly troubling to them. Cohesion, tolerance – it is not what they want to see.

Why France? For many reasons perhaps, but I think they identified my country as a weak link in Europe – as a place where divisions could be sown easily. That’s why, when I am asked how we should respond, I say that we must act responsibly.

And yet more bombs will be our response. I am no apologist for Isis. How could I be? But everything I know tells me this is a mistake. The bombardment will be huge, a symbol of righteous anger. Within 48 hours of the atrocity, fighter planes conducted their most spectacular munitions raid yet in Syria, dropping more than 20 bombs on Raqqa, an Isis stronghold. Revenge was perhaps inevitable, but what’s needed is deliberation. My fear is that this reaction will make a bad situation worse.

While we are trying to destroy Isis, what of the 500,000 civilians still living and trapped in Raqqa? What of their safety? What of the very real prospect that by failing to think this through, we turn many of them into extremists? The priority must be to protect these people, not to take more bombs to Syria. We need no-fly zones – zones closed to Russians, the regime, the coalition. The Syrian people need security or they themselves will turn to groups such as Isis.

Canada withdrew from the air war after the election of Justin Trudeau. I desperately want France to do the same, and rationality tells me it could happen. But pragmatism tells me it won’t. The fact is we are trapped: Isis has trapped us. They came to Paris with Kalashnikovs, claiming that they wanted to stop the bombing, but knowing all too well that the attack would force us to keep bombing or even to intensify these counterproductive attacks. That is what is happening.

Emwazi is gone now, killed in a coalition air strike, his death celebrated in parliament. I do not mourn him. But during his murder spree, he too followed this double bluff strategy. After murdering the American journalist James Foley, he pointed his knife at the camera and, turning to the next intended victim, said: “Obama, you must stop intervening in the Middle East or I will kill him.” He knew very well what the hostage’s fate would be. He knew very well what the American reaction would be – more bombing. It’s what Isis wants, but should we be giving it to them?

The group is wicked, of that there is no doubt. But after all that happened to me, I still don’t feel Isis is the priority. To my mind, Bashar al-Assad is the priority. The Syrian president is responsible for the rise of Isis in Syria, and so long as his regime is in place, Isis cannot be eradicated. Nor can we stop the attacks on our streets. When people say “Isis first, and then Assad”, I say don’t believe them. They just want to keep Assad in place.

At the moment there is no political road map and no plan to engage the Arab Sunni community. Isis will collapse, but politics will make that happen. In the meantime there is much we can achieve in the aftermath of this atrocity, and the key is strong hearts and resilience, for that is what they fear. I know them: bombing they expect. What they fear is unity.

Yeah fair point and pretty reasonable too, but lets say that low chance got you or someone close to you killed?

Except that the odds are not equivalent to "a few poisonous jelly beans in a packet".

A more accurate analogy is saying that you won't swim in the ocean from fear of being bitten by a shark.

Everything overrides the notion of personal safety :lol:
Every day, you step outside your house and get into a car. You eat food prepared by total strangers. You walk down the street next to strangers who in the 90s opposed gun regulations. You walk down the street next to pedophiles, rapists, drug lords... The works :lol:
Personal safety :lol:

Wishful thinking I feel....

I think posts like the one from the OP are a good to give you an insight into the irrationality of people, typically right wingers.
From a neurological perspective, fMRI scanning research shows that, right wingers have on average a larger amygdala, which is considered one of the major fear response centres in the brain (its unfortunate being animal testing, but research on monkeys that had surgery to damage their amygdala had very little fear response after surgery). There has also been some psychological research that shows right wingers have greater fear response (I would have to look into it)
The question with people like the OP, is the fear & irrationality nature or nurture? My guess is its predominantly genetic, with a little bit of social environment & upbringing.
As others have pointed out, the likelihood of being involved in a terrorist attack is infinitesimally small compared to all the other things in life that you could be injured or killed by. Yet, as to be expected, the response from society & governments will be woefully disproportionate to the threat and the irrationality of people like the OP are what ultimately drives it.
The simplistic thinking of societal constituents propagate the problems through their subtle xenophobia & mental laziness.
At the end of the day, its the most vulnerable people that are trying to escape for their own self preservation and we will potentially turn them away or continue their suffering.
So what can we do? Not much really, as its one person one vote and most aren't informed enough or critical in their thought process approach to the vote they place. Adults by & large are pretty much set for life with their mental roadmaps.

Could we offer the jobs in the Army, then send them back with guns to sort ISIS out ?

Save risking Aussies in there

as i said ....move to North Korea...you will be among your own brethren

This is about immigration and poverty rather than refugees but most of the principles are the same.

[youtube]LPjzfGChGlE[/youtube]

Why isn't Japan taking any of these people? They are richer and have a bigger population.

What a ridiculous video :lol:

Explain how it is ridiculous.

We don't take immigrants in to reduce poverty in the country of origin for one.
Refugees we do take in on humanitarian grounds but no one is pretending it's the entire solution.

The guy has an agenda on population growth and it's effect on the environment. That's a position I can respect but the whole premise of this video is alarmist and frankly flawed.

How is it flawed?

Its an uncomfortable truth. We may wish to take people on humanitarian grounds, but who makes it?

Look at Europe, there was a higher proportion of young fit men who made it simply because they weren't infirmed and could last the journey, these people are likely less deserving on humanitarian grounds. The sick, injured and children would've struggled in comparison.

Who are we taking? Why are some countries in a better position than us taking none, and getting no backlash? Is Japan's form of humanitarian support better and more effective? Is there a better solution?

Yes.

The middle east should take these people. They are culturally similar. This should be a regional problem, not a global one.

Many already are. Our quota is nothing compared to Lebanon, Turkey, Jordan, Egypt and even Iraq of all places. 12000 is a drop in the ocean

HOW CAN THEY ALL BE MOVING TO AUSTRAL OH MY GOODNESS CARNES HILL SHOPPING CENTRE WILL BE A MESS!

I explained already why it's flawed :-k

I think it's a subjective opinion as to whether sick and injured people are more deserving than "fit males". Certainly as a social species young fit men tend to have families too. Regardless, what Australia is doing with these 12,000 Syrians is different.

I don't know if they're getting any backlash. I read often about Japan being this awesome place but in my mind it has never been a social utopia. Certainly east asians have their issues regarding racism. There's some wealthy middle eastern countries that should be taking some too. It doesn't mean that the countries that are taking in refugees should stop though otherwise it's a similar argument to "China is polluting the air more than us so we should do nothing until they do something".

My main concern is to whether my own countries are doing what I believe is appropriate. I think Australia could do more but I'm satisfied that at least the language around our efforts are more in line with my views.

How many are Saudi Arabia taking out of interest?

They are the richest and most powerful Arab state. Their treatment of illegal immigrants has been very poor over the years. Would be interested to know how many they are taking if it isn't zero.

Is what Japan doing more helpful in the long term for humanity? Focusing humanitarian efforts in more effective ways. Now there is a good discussion point. Maybe we've got it all wrong. :-k

The Refugees and possible link to terrorism seems to be a big concern (on social/real media).
But for me, these people will be investigated and allowed into the country/ if Australia feels uncomfortable they will not get one of the spots.
These people will be a known quantity, that can be observed and monitored if we really had too.

What really concerns me, just like paris, just like the bus bombs in England all that time ago is the home grown terrorists.

Australian born teens being radicalised. How do you prepare for them. The signs may be so subtle that you have one in your street and dont know?

12000 people we have investigated before they land is manageable. The invisible homegrown threat is more worrying.

Moving to Saudi Arabia would be like jumping out of the frying pan in to the fire. You don't flee a country to escape religious persecution just to go to a country to be persecuted.

It hasn't made me more worried, it just reaffirmed my worries.

And I laugh at MCJules in his nice whitebread Adelaide suburb telling it how it is in Western Sydney.

As long as we choose only Christian women and children as was the plan originally, then I think we should be fine.

I don't enough about what Japan is doing in regards to humanitarian efforts to be honest but I don't see how any one approach is going to be a silver bullet. The Abbott government slashing foreign aid is a disgrace though.

A bit like an 18 year old that hasn't finished high school who thinks he's not a teenager anymore can tell us how anything is :lol:

Laugh all you like because you and a couple of others are amongst the best comedians on the site ;)

Edited by mcjules: 17/11/2015 01:55:09 PM

Precisely, because Saudi Arabia is a disgustingly, horrible Islamic Republic.

No addressing my point, alright.

Enjoy your ivory tower, enforcing multiculturalism on people yet experiencing none of it yourself.

Its not completely invisible as most of them are radicalised on the internet by reading websites that inspire them. They all have a treasure trove of internet activity that only a fool couldnt see where they're headed.

More resources in the cyber space is what is needed. You can complain about Snowden leaks but if you're going to compromise your safety over some outdated they're tekkin away our freedoms mantra then you can hardly complain when the chickens come home to roost.

Any of 'em got a decent left foot ?