Slashdot Mirror
Google Donates €1 Million To Help Refugees In Need
Mark Wilson writes: The on-going refugee crisis in Europe, Africa, and the Middle East has grabbed hearts and headlines around the world. As European governments argue over who should take in the thousands of desperate people, European citizens have criticized the speed and scale of the help offered, whilst simultaneously donating money, food, and equipment to help those in desperate need. Now Google has stepped in, offering €1 million ($1.1 million) to the organizations providing help to refugees. In addition to this, Google.org (the branch of the company 'using innovation to tackle some of the world's biggest challenges') is setting up a page to make it easier for people to make donations, and says that it will match any money donated by Google users.
and they are not refugees, they are economic migrants. Refugees do not pass through a dozen safe countries to settle in the richest country with benefits. Also they are almost all military age males.
These are not refugees. They are migrants.
What a crock of shit. These are the same people killing Christians by the tens of thousands in their real homes.
an ill wind that blows no good
Sweden and the United States give asylum to about the same number of refugees every year. Not per capita, but in absolute numbers. Also, the US gives 0.19% of their gross national income to foreign aid, compared to 1.02% of the above example.
It's the usual scenario. USA creates a big mess, other countries are stuck in it or have to clean it up.
And the US funds 22% of UN operating needs. Then it's Japan (19%), Germany (9.8%), France and the UK. That rounds out the top 10.
Sweden isn't in there. Neither is Saudi Arabia (sitting on piles of cash and basically a neighbor), neither is Russia (who contributes mightily to the Syrian war effort).
You should spend some quality time understanding how the world works. It's complicated.
Faster! Faster! Faster would be better!
Sweden isn't in there.
Sweden pays 1% of the UN funding. The US pays 22%, since they have a GDP that is 28 times bigger (they should have paid even more, but of course they've always whined about it, often by refusing to pay their fair share, and the UN reduced their quota accordingly).
Anyway, back to the refugees. If the US took in the same amount of refugees per capita as Sweden, they would receive about two and a half million refugees per year. That would alleviate a lot of suffering, and is all that matters in the end.
The ISIS war in the Middle East is Muslim against Muslim. Any action from the U.S. or other civilized nations is irrelevant. It's Muslim against Muslim, they cooked their own stew,
Not quite right. ISIS was founded by former Sunni members of Saddam Husseins armed forces. After the invasion of Iraq, the US had the genius idea of sanctioning all military personnel that served under Saddam by permanently excluding them from serving under any new government. This left thousands of officers and ten thousands of other enlisted personnel without any perspective at all in the new, Shia dominated Iraq.
The leadership of ISIS are disgruntled, unemployed former officers of the Iraqi army. The whole religious undertone is a means to attract foot soldiers and to keep the simple minded folk in line. The real war is about power and control of resources, as it has always been.
Had the US followed a policy of reconciliation and inclusion, none of this might have happened.
So what do we have to make out of this? These people are safe in Hungary.
When the copyright term is "forever minus a day", live every day like it's the last.
The vast majority of people currently flocking to Europe are not refugees from the war, but emigrants with economic motives. Throwing money at them is only going to encourage even more of them to make the (often dangerous) trek.
Refugees in Greece arrive with money and iPhones, checking with friends on the best places to go. Many arrive in Greece, Italy and Hungary, but very few stay in those countries even though they are safe there. They prefer Germany, Sweden and the UK, where the welcome is much warmer and comes with a house, medical care, a generous stipend, and the possibility of work. In Belgium, they see a large influx of young males (mostly from Iraq), all with identical rehearsed story about Syria and of course no papers to prove their identity. A great example is the story behind little Aylan, made famous by that heart-wrenching picture showing him washed ashore on a beach in Turkey. As it turns out, his family was already living in prefect safety in Istanbul for a few years, after fleeying the troubles in Syria. The father had tried to get asylum status in Canada (he has a relative there) but was denied. He then decided to try Europe, possibly because here he'd get the $14k in dental work he needed for free. He loaded his family in a crappy little boat and tried the crossing, which failed terribly as we know. The father lived, and is now back in Syria of all places to bury his family. This is a great tragedy, but it was brought on not by the war in Syria, not by ISIS, not by cold-hearted Europeans denying such people refuge, not by ruthless human trafficers, but by the man's own god-damned stupidity.
We in Europe (the vast majority of the people, not the politicians) do not want these people here. We'll take real refugees and care for them as best we can, but there are limits to what we can take. The social fabric in Sweden, Germany, France and other countries is already under tremendous strain, despite desperate attempts by media and government to paint a rosy picture. Should we do nothing? Of course not. One of the things we can do for example is to help Turkey manage the vast influx of refugees, help set them up in decent camps, and ensure that they stay there. Another thing we can do is what Australia does: tow these immigrants back from where they came, and destroy the boats. But the one thing we should be doing is to make it crystal clear: if you are not a real refugee, there is no future for you here.
If construction was anything like programming, an incorrectly fitted lock would bring down the entire building...
Give me a break, it's just a couple of thousand people. Millions are staying, in Lebanon and Turkey, because that is the region that they call home. There is no mass migration, that is a news bias.
NB: The message above might reflect my opinion right now, but not necessarily tomorrow or next year.
The second I in ISIS stands for Iraq. Which is a country that has been invaded by the USA and had its secular government destroyed.
So yep, they are to blame.
"It's such a fine line between stupid and clever" -- David St. Hubbins, Spinal Tap
A lot of Muslims are as afraid of the extremists as everyone else. When the government can't maintain control and order and extremists can murder other Muslims who speak out against them with impunity, you're not going to see many people standing up to the extremists. Look at what they did to one girl who just wanted to get an education. Standing up to that takes a kind of bravery that most people simply don't have.
That's b'cos in most Muslim countries, the non-Muslim population has fled. Why did they flee? In most cases, it was b'cos under Islamic law, their status was that of dhimmis, or 3rd class citizens. That exodus has become more pronounced in recent years, w/ Egyptian Copts, Lebanese Maronites, Iraqi and Syrian Assyrians, et al moving to non-Islamic havens.
So once they're gone, Muslims are only surrounded by other Muslims. Normally, that should make them all very happy, but guess what? There is that small question about what is the true Islam? In all other societies, people of different sects of a religion recognize their differences and move on. In Israel, you don't have Reform Jews or Orthodox Jews trying to obliterate each other. In France or Austria, you don't have Catholics try and persecute Protestants. In Britain or Germany or Netherlands, you don't have Protestants try making life hell for Catholics. Even in Russia, you don't have the Orthodox Church persecuting Catholics or Protestants. In Sri Lanka or Thailand, you don't have Mahayana or Theravada Buddhists trying to wipe out each other. In India or Nepal, you don't have Vaishnavs and Shaivyas try and obliterate each other. Main reason being none of their scriptures say anything on the subject.
It's a different story w/ Islam. Mohammed himself once was at war w/ a group of Muslim insurgents, and massacred them and destroyed their mosque. So the question of 'what is true Islam' is a pretty major one in any Muslim country, and usually, it's defined by the major sect/madhab in force in that country. So in Saudi Arabia, true Islam is Wahabism. In Iran and Iraq, it's Shi'ite Islam. In Yemen, Egypt, Indonesia and Malaysia, it's the Shafi'i. In most of North Africa as well as Emirates, it's Maliki. In most of Sunni Asia - Jordan, Turkey, Afghanistan, Pakistan and the 'stans', it's Hanafi. And in each of these countries, it's forcefully enforced (except in the stans, which still have their Communist era rulers).
So your implication above that Muslims are more tolerant of non-Muslims than they are of each other is hogwash. Best example being India's partition in 1947: there was a forced exodus of Hindus from the 2 Pakistans (one of which is today Bangladesh). In Muslim countries that still have significant non-Muslim populations, such as Malaysia or Indonesia, the majority of victims of Muslim violence are not Muslims: they are non-Muslims. In Iraq, ISIS still prefers persecuting non-Muslim Yazidis and Assyrians, even if they look at Shi'ites w/ equal contempt.