A whole generation of conflict the democratic west has mistakenly started by trying to 'help' barbaric backwards Muslim countries become democratic...A despot that kills thousands of his own people but keeps a country stable on fear or a country ripped apart by sectarian hatred and in doing so begins seeding domestic and foreign terror?
The current stats for Iraq's civilian death rate is horrific. How is this any better than a tyrant who kills his own? Is morality dictated by who does the killing? Pseudo communist China is no democracy but its civilians by and large support the government or at least accept the political process.
But back to immigration. Freedom, where is your lineage? My own has Italian blood. How many Britain's have foreign descendants? When do we close our doors to humanity? How many hospital beds or food packages can the annual bonus of one fucking London banker buy?
I agree with your sentiments, but I would like to point out that the last 7 years have seen a more hands-off approach from Western countries than we had witnessed during the first decade of the 21st century. It's true that Iraq has been in shambles ever since the Coalition invaded and attempted to set up their own "legitimate" government, but there are examples of other countries that have taken their own initiative (perhaps not without a little encouragement on the side from the Western powers/former Eastern bloc, but still, on their own initiative) in trying to overthrow the systems of government that they have been so accustomed to.
Syria and Iraq are not the best candidates since both Assad and Hussein were members of the minority ruling elite that did not represent the demographics of their respective countries. On the other hand, Afghanistan is a perfect example. King Zahir Shah and the country's first PM, Mohammed Daoud, both led Afghanistan on the slow path of reform. From 1964 (the year that the Shah's constitution came into play) to 1978 (the year Daoud was overthrown by the communist coup), Afghanistan had been attempting to modernize, with the construction and operation of its first universities, with technologies brought in from abroad. Although you obviously couldn't vote the King or the "PM" out of office, there was very little Islamic influence in the laws of a traditionally Islamic country, and they had an albeit slow-moving Parliament too. Hafizullah Amin, on the other hand, basically the chief architect of the communist coup and the PDPA, was
educated in the United States. The US did not provide support for him, since the Shah and Daoud regimes were favourable to the West. He educated himself on Marxist principles and infiltrated the Afghan army, where he instigated the coup of 1978.
This wasn't a popular revolution. Virtually everyone save for the people in the PDPA opposed this new communist movement, because they could have had everything under Daoud (who was killed by the PDPA during the coup). On the other hand, people saw hope in Daoud and they called King Shah (who self-exiled during Daoud's coup to give Afghanistan a few more years of peace) "Baba" right up until his death in '07. 37 years later, having fought the PDPA, the Soviets, and those who were formerly their "fellow" mujahideen but turned into Hekmatyar's militants and the Taliban, Afghans just don't want to fight anymore. When they have nothing left to put up a resistance, not even the world's most advanced armed forces can turn the country around. The moderates like Massoud and Haq have all been assassinated save for Karzai (who also had a few close calls) and all that's left is Karzai on one side and all the now-extremist mujahideen era warlords like Hekmatyar (was the one reason why Afghanistan couldn't achieve peace after 1979, now designated a terrorist) on the other.
So, true, Western powers ought to stop interfering where they shouldn't (Syria especially, let the SAA and their Russian equipment do the work), even though the plight of the Syrians is horrific. Islamic State isn't going to be the next Taliban; they're going to be far worse than anything we've ever seen. However, those Islamic countries aren't all so barbaric as they're made out to be. Saudi's super racist, Iran's still poor as hell and somewhat stuck in the "revolutionary" mindset, Iraq has Muslims killing Muslims everywhere, and Afghanistan is just a breeding ground for poverty and a recruiting center for the Afghan/Paki Taliban and ISIS, but I wouldn't go so far as to call them barbaric. They've demonstrated that an effective government can lead them to modernization and social reform, but they've yet to find one.
TLDR: the government systems that those Muslims come up with are really shitty and never last, but they're not too barbaric.
My understanding of Islam that it is a compassionate Religion ( supposed to be a )
So why are these Refugee's coming to Europe ( Generaly a Christian Community ) and not to the Muslim OIL RICH GULF STATES where they share a common religion and world perception and can afford to look after these Refugee's
Most of the general populace in Syria is Sunni, but Saudi Arabia couldn't give less of a damn about them. They're poor, desperate but Saudis are rich and confident. A little bit like white Christians persecuting black Christians in the United States.
