Syrian refugees are lacking in honor

Author: triangle.128k

Posts

Total: 26
Topic's author
#1
triangle.128k
triangle.128k's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 502
3
2
6
triangle.128k's avatar
triangle.128k
3
2
6
When the left advocates for importing numerous amounts of refugees, I see a major cause for as to why they advocate for it and others don't.

Besides the fact that many of these people aren't actual refugees... Let's assume they are for a second.

Most "refugees" are young, fit, and healthy men. By chosing to migrate, they are betraying their honor as treason to their nation. Rather than joining the Syrian army or assisting in the war any way they can to support their country, they chose to escape the conflict.

A liberal will not view this as a problem, because they don't hold nationalism to the same extent as others - especially on the right. 

From a more nationalist and conservative perspective, these people have a nation to defend. If they are capable of assisting in some way, they should do so. It's an insult to their honor and nation to abandon it and their countrymen in times of conflict.


Though onto a broader and more philosophical subject, should this be the case? Should young and fit people capable of serving the nation in the army, or some other way, do so in times of conflict? Is it a selfish pursuit to escape their home to simply get away from war? 

#2
ravensjt
ravensjt's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 123
0
1
5
ravensjt's avatar
ravensjt
0
1
5
-->
@triangle.128k
This post is exactly whats wrong with Nationalism because it promotes ethnic prejudice. You are belittling the suffering of others based off of their Nation of origin.

such thinking leads to racism, discrimination and extreme prejudice (us vs them mentality)

Lastly, Wars should be fought by those willing....not just those who are "in shape"
#3
Greyparrot
Greyparrot's avatar
Debates: 4
Posts: 26,288
3
4
10
Greyparrot's avatar
Greyparrot
3
4
10
-->
@ravensjt
It's the same logic as removing fathers from households because life is just too hard. What about the kids? Screw the kids.
Topic's author
#4
triangle.128k
triangle.128k's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 502
3
2
6
triangle.128k's avatar
triangle.128k
3
2
6
-->
@ravensjt
How exactly is it ethnic prejudice? I am not belitting the suffering; I am simply saying they should work to end their suffering in an act of unselfishness.

It isn't racism or prejudice at all. It is simply the belief in nationalism, that people are subject to their nation and should be willing to serve it in times of crisis. Don't subsitute the race card for real logic and argumentation.


And to your last point: if you are in shape, you should honor the call the war. A young, fit, and physically able man that crosses deserts, swims through treachorous seas, and dodges border security, should be spending that energy on the battlefield or in some way to help their nation and countrymen.  
#5
Greyparrot
Greyparrot's avatar
Debates: 4
Posts: 26,288
3
4
10
Greyparrot's avatar
Greyparrot
3
4
10
-->
@triangle.128k



#6
drafterman
drafterman's avatar
Debates: 6
Posts: 5,653
3
6
9
drafterman's avatar
drafterman
3
6
9
-->
@triangle.128k
When the left advocates for importing numerous amounts of refugees,
Refugees aren't commodities to be "imported."

Most "refugees" are young, fit, and healthy men.
Simply not true. Only about a third could be considered men of fighting age, and that's presuming all of them are "fit and healthy."

By chosing to migrate, they are betraying their honor as treason to their nation. Rather than joining the Syrian army or assisting in the war any way they can to support their country, they chose to escape the conflict. A liberal will not view this as a problem, because they don't hold nationalism to the same extent as others - especially on the right. From a more nationalist and conservative perspective, these people have a nation to defend. If they are capable of assisting in some way, they should do so. It's an insult to their honor and nation to abandon it and their countrymen in times of conflict.Though onto a broader and more philosophical subject, should this be the case? Should young and fit people capable of serving the nation in the army, or some other way, do so in times of conflict? Is it a selfish pursuit to escape their home to simply get away from war? 
No. I see no obligation for anyone to fight in any war. Did they take any oath? Make a promise? If not, then they have no obligation to stay, fight, and die for any government.

#7
1harderthanyouthink
1harderthanyouthink's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 256
0
1
3
1harderthanyouthink's avatar
1harderthanyouthink
0
1
3
Adding to what Drafterman said, I don't think many Syrian citizens were asking for a multi-sided war involving a totalitarian government, Islamist terrorists, the US and NATO, and Russia. Why expect them to fight a war in which they support no side winning, where all sides involved seem to deal with their lives with total disregard?
#8
drafterman
drafterman's avatar
Debates: 6
Posts: 5,653
3
6
9
drafterman's avatar
drafterman
3
6
9
-->
@1harderthanyouthink
Glad you said it. I wasn't about to delve into the belligerents to determine if any of them were worth fighting for.
#9
Varrack
Varrack's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 48
0
0
5
Varrack's avatar
Varrack
0
0
5
From a more nationalist and conservative perspective, these people have a nation to defend. If they are capable of assisting in some way, they should do so. It's an insult to their honor and nation to abandon it and their countrymen in times of conflict.
No they don't. Are they military personnel? Did they swear some oath that makes fighting in a civil war their duty?

Why does someone automatically become obligated into a war just because they were born into the country hosting the war? Moreover, why are they obligated to fight for a certain side, considering that many Syrians are split over who to support?
#10
ravensjt
ravensjt's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 123
0
1
5
ravensjt's avatar
ravensjt
0
1
5
-->
@Greyparrot
Your response has nothing to do with what  said

#11
ravensjt
ravensjt's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 123
0
1
5
ravensjt's avatar
ravensjt
0
1
5
-->
@Greyparrot
Your White Guilt is only your fault, that's why you constantly bring it up

Topic's author
#12
triangle.128k
triangle.128k's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 502
3
2
6
triangle.128k's avatar
triangle.128k
3
2
6
Adding to what Drafterman said, I don't think many Syrian citizens were asking for a multi-sided war involving a totalitarian government, Islamist terrorists, the US and NATO, and Russia. Why expect them to fight a war in which they support no side winning, where all sides involved seem to deal with their lives with total disregard?
What's "totalitarian" to liberal westerners is the best solution to the eyes of a Syrian. The vast majority of Syrians are in favor of Assad's government, and his government is representing the native Syrian people's interests. The Syrian government deals with the lives of loyal Syrians in the best regard. There may be brutal acts on all ends, but war is seldom without brutality. 

At the end of the day, it's Assad's regime that most Syrians support and would fight for. So, why not go and support the government to bring order back to Syria? 
Topic's author
#13
triangle.128k
triangle.128k's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 502
3
2
6
triangle.128k's avatar
triangle.128k
3
2
6
-->
@1harderthanyouthink
forgot to mention
Topic's author
#14
triangle.128k
triangle.128k's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 502
3
2
6
triangle.128k's avatar
triangle.128k
3
2
6
Why does someone automatically become obligated into a war just because they were born into the country hosting the war? Moreover, why are they obligated to fight for a certain side, considering that many Syrians are split over who to support?
1. Most Syrians support the Syrian Government (Assad's regime).
2. I advocate for nationalism. People living in a nation are subject to it, and should be willing to fight for it in times of chaos. If they are patriotic Syrians that support their homeland, they should be fighting for it. From what's happened, the Syrian "refugees" are partaking in self interest and failing to even assimilate into the countries they fled to. If they're going to act Syrian in western Europe, why not go back to Syria and help? 
Topic's author
#15
triangle.128k
triangle.128k's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 502
3
2
6
triangle.128k's avatar
triangle.128k
3
2
6
-->
@drafterman
No. I see no obligation for anyone to fight in any war. Did they take any oath? Make a promise? If not, then they have no obligation to stay, fight, and die for any government.
Your perspective isn't on lines with nationalism.

I advovate for nationalism, and I therefore believe it is beneficial for a people to be subject to their nation rather than to their self interests. To flee the war (unless they're incapable of helping, such as the elderly or children) when they can assist means that their loyalties are not with the nation and that they are acting in self interest.

It is healthier for a nation to practice nationalism, as it unites its people. Instead of fleeing, they will have loyalty to one another and help their countrymen in times of war.

If the nation doesn't practice nationalism, the people are disunited and serve their self interest which is undesirable for a nation's society as it would allow for more instability, selfishness, and hedonism based on pursuing their self interests 100% rather than assisting the nation's interests when necessary. 
Topic's author
#16
triangle.128k
triangle.128k's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 502
3
2
6
triangle.128k's avatar
triangle.128k
3
2
6
-->
@drafterman
Alright, maybe I'm going a little off topic here. My main point is that fleeing from a war when you are capable of assisting, whether it be in the government, command, battlefield, or so on, is a selfish pursuit. Staying there and helping Syria restore itself is a selfless pursuit where you are honoring loyalty to your countrymen by wanting to help better their condition. 

Therefore, the young men that are "refugees" are pursuing selfish interests. They abandoned their countrymen when they have the potential to help. 
#17
drafterman
drafterman's avatar
Debates: 6
Posts: 5,653
3
6
9
drafterman's avatar
drafterman
3
6
9
-->
@triangle.128k
Your perspective isn't on lines with nationalism.
Correct.

My main point is that fleeing from a war when you are capable of assisting, whether it be in the government, command, battlefield, or so on, is a selfish pursuit.
Ok. Selfish isn't necessarily bad. We all have to take care of ourselves and our families at some level.

Staying there and helping Syria restore itself is a selfless pursuit where you are honoring loyalty to your countrymen by wanting to help better their condition.
You presume that people owe a country loyalty by default. I do not agree with that assumption.

Therefore, the young men that are "refugees" are pursuing selfish interests. They abandoned their countrymen when they have the potential to help. 
And why is that bad and what does that have to do with honor?
Topic's author
#18
triangle.128k
triangle.128k's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 502
3
2
6
triangle.128k's avatar
triangle.128k
3
2
6
Ok. Selfish isn't necessarily bad. We all have to take care of ourselves and our families at some level.
Selflessness is the basis of civilization. We may have personal interests, but our lives and safety were granted to us by broader society. It is without doubt that we should take care of ourselves and direct friends or family, but what is also required is the need to take care of civilization. 

You presume that people owe a country loyalty by default. I do not agree with that assumption.
A healthy and stable country is one with loyal citizens that take care of it whenever it's "sick." If a country's people aren't loyal, then it will be more prone to collapse and instability. To the contrary, a country with loyal patriots will survive times of chaos as its citizens will help restore law and order.

On the individual level, your country is what provided you with what you know. If it be your friends, neighbors, literacy, education, luxuries, or so on. You should therefore be loyal to your country for the fruits of civiliized society it provided you with. 

And why is that bad and what does that have to do with honor?
Because they are leaving their countrymen to suffer. I view it as immoral to leave your neighbors to suffer under the brutality of a war, when you have the potential to contribute towards helping them in some sort of way. Selflessness is a virtue.

The Syrian man who embarks on an expedition to Germany could have potentially show down a terrorist controlled tank heading towards a hospital. 
#19
drafterman
drafterman's avatar
Debates: 6
Posts: 5,653
3
6
9
drafterman's avatar
drafterman
3
6
9
-->
@triangle.128k
Selflessness is the basis of civilization.
I would counter by saying that mutual self-interest is the basis of civlization (along with the specialization of labor made possible through agriculture.)

We may have personal interests, but our lives and safety were granted to us by broader society.
Except the society they live in is no longer safe. It's a warzone. If their society has failed to ensure safety, then I would consider whatever implicit agreement there is between individual and nation to be null and void.

A healthy and stable country is one with loyal citizens that take care of it whenever it's "sick." If a country's people aren't loyal, then it will be more prone to collapse and instability. To the contrary, a country with loyal patriots will survive times of chaos as its citizens will help restore law and order.
Ok, so what? The country then collapses. Let it collapse! You haven't articulated why it's somehow the duty of a person to ensure the survival of their nation, especially over the survival of themselves or their family.

On the individual level, your country is what provided you with what you know. If it be your friends, neighbors, literacy, education, luxuries, or so on. You should therefore be loyal to your country for the fruits of civiliized society it provided you with. 
I would not depict the status of these refugees as one of luxury.

Because they are leaving their countrymen to suffer. I view it as immoral to leave your neighbors to suffer under the brutality of a war, when you have the potential to contribute towards helping them in some sort of way. Selflessness is a virtue.
It's admittedly a hard choice, one without a really clear "right" answer. Stay and join others in suffering (including you and your family, risking their deaths) or make a decision for the betterment of your family. A hard choice, but I don't fault them for seeking a better life for their family.

The Syrian man who embarks on an expedition to Germany could have potentially show down a terrorist controlled tank heading towards a hospital. 
Sorry, but I don't view people as nothing more than a nation's cannon fodder.
#20
Mister_Man
Mister_Man's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 98
0
0
5
Mister_Man's avatar
Mister_Man
0
0
5
The left wants to mindlessly accept millions of people from shitholes because 1) they genuinely feel bad for them, somewhat fair point, and 2) they want votes.

Our countries cannot handle mass immigration when we already have homeless problems among other issues. It also doesn't help that the majority of these "migrants" do not conform and adapt to our way of life. They run from their shithole then turn the countries they immigrate to into their past shithole.

There's a difference between accepting a couple thousand a year and keeping a close eye on them, making sure they aren't violent, conform to our way of life, etc, and blindly allowing hundreds of thousands to flood in without any vetting. Several Western European countries which were once the epitome of happiness, safety and low crime rates are now hot spots for rape and grooming gangs, daily riots and senseless violence, and literal no-go zones where people and police won't patrol because Sharia Law has become the law of the land due to a takeover in sheer numbers.

I however don't necessarily agree that the refugees should be required to fight for their country. I agree that it's selfish and cowardly not to, but I don't think it should be mandatory. I definitely would, as I love my country and would die to protect it, but I don't think that should be mandatory. However because not every country can accommodate them, it should be strongly recommended or pay out a big reward. 
Topic's author
#21
triangle.128k
triangle.128k's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 502
3
2
6
triangle.128k's avatar
triangle.128k
3
2
6
-->
@Mister_Man
I however don't necessarily agree that the refugees should be required to fight for their country. I agree that it's selfish and cowardly not to, but I don't think it should be mandatory. I definitely would, as I love my country and would die to protect it, but I don't think that should be mandatory. However because not every country can accommodate them, it should be strongly recommended or pay out a big reward. 
I don't think it should be mandatory (unless they're drafted), but certainly encouraged. It's a much better alternative than to flee, and thus should be recognized as such. I'm mainly spiting the argument about "muh poor refugees" that the left uses as an emotional appeal to take them in. 

#22
Mister_Man
Mister_Man's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 98
0
0
5
Mister_Man's avatar
Mister_Man
0
0
5
-->
@triangle.128k
I'm mainly spiting the argument about "muh poor refugees" that the left uses as an emotional appeal to take them in. 

Yeah with that I agree. Started off with one dead kid on a beach to push the narrative that it's children and women escaping war-torn countries, then they send the masses of their 20-30 year old healthy men to take over beautiful European cities and spread the disgusting culture they had to flee from to begin with.
#23
Swagnarok
Swagnarok's avatar
Debates: 7
Posts: 1,266
3
2
6
Swagnarok's avatar
Swagnarok
3
2
6
As for young men being duty-bound to fight in their country's wars (or at least are not allowed to flee the way zone), I agree to this only so far as there is due compensation to them for this sacrifice (that is, they'd be regarded as heroes and they'd be able to find wives, should they survive). If a large number of women flee, that creates a gender imbalance, reducing the likelihood that there'd be any payoff in that regard for the men in question.
Topic's author
#24
triangle.128k
triangle.128k's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 502
3
2
6
triangle.128k's avatar
triangle.128k
3
2
6
-->
@Mister_Man
spread the disgusting culture they had to flee from to begin with.
I wouldn't call Syrian culture disgusting; the migrants are just among the worst among Syrians. Syria was a pretty honorable and stable country under Assad's government, and was among the only places where non-Muslims weren't persecuted. (And thanks neo-cons for ruining it!) 
#25
Mister_Man
Mister_Man's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 98
0
0
5
Mister_Man's avatar
Mister_Man
0
0
5
-->
@triangle.128k
Actually yeah good point I take that back, I'm referring to basically every other country the refugees come from. Most of Africa and the Middle East has a pretty backwards way of life.

I guess it just so happens that every refugee tends to be the worst people of each country they're from LOL
#26
Swagnarok
Swagnarok's avatar
Debates: 7
Posts: 1,266
3
2
6
Swagnarok's avatar
Swagnarok
3
2
6
According to this source, about 1/3 of Syrian refugees are men ages 18-59. The majority of the refugees are male, constituting roughly 50-something to 60 percent of the refugees. However, many of these are minors. There are more women age 60+ than men 60+.
Source:

While the majority of Syrians in general are male, the natural gender ratio imbalance is small enough that it cannot possibly make up for this disparity.