''They are running away and not fighting'' : what counter-example do you have ?

[sarahtasher]

The notion that young men in say, Syria, are incapable of firing a weapon at another soldier, is completely ridiculous. Any young man of fighting age, who flees as a refugee, is FACTUALLY a coward, assuming he is a patriot. The German occupation of France didn't stop them from fighting as best they could, when they could. Maybe Syrians should try to meet the low bar of French bravery? Just sayin...


[Infracted - Nation-bashing]

One, the French did not fought the Germans with inexistant weapons between 1940 and 1944 in France. The handful of armed uprising were crushed very easily, because in real life, 300 patriots in France (whose remote areas are neither very remote or very protective) versus a few thousands Germans with some tanks and aircraft, the result is very obvious from the get go.

(The 300 is not a Spartan allusion. It's the lone attempt to organize armed resistance in France, in the Glières. Unsurprisingly, the results where that the 300-400 ish maquisards repulsed one assault by collaborators, then were pitted against 2000-3000 ''Germans'' (most of them being collabo outfits raised in the East) who overwhelmed them with ease.)

Two, Syria had before the war around 200 000 grunts. I would daresay that this is very high number for the population show that the problem is not exactly not having enough bodies.

Three, like virtually every other country, the US of A don't have lessons to give in matter of heroism. In the only situation remotely comparable to a modern war occuring on US soil, the Civil War, the typical reaction of Southerners was not ''take up the hills and fire at the bluejackets'' .

[Deleted]

The notion that young men in say, Syria, are incapable of firing a weapon at another soldier, is completely ridiculous. Any young man of fighting age, who flees as a refugee, is FACTUALLY a coward, assuming he is a patriot. The German occupation of France didn't stop them from fighting as best they could, when they could. Maybe Syrians should try to meet the low bar of French bravery? Just sayin...


[Infracted - Nation-bashing]

FACTUALLY a coward! FACTUALLY!

[Eazy]

You're denying that people run from war when they can?

That's just silly, people have been doing it for at least 4000 years.

I said not all of them. Most? Okay. 90%? Fine. All? No.

[ParanoiD84]

The Kurds, who have vast diasporas abroad, have also generous air support. Each bout of repression brought waves upon waves of refugees in neighbouring countries.

The Resistance in WW2 is sigificantly more complex than people usually think it is-armed resistance was usually very punctual until there was an army nearby to support the insurgents. There are exceptions of course-Yugoslavia and the Soviet Union, but even there, the resistance was not exactly spontaneous.

In France (jokes about surrender asides), until 1944, armed uprisings against the Germans were very rare (the Glières ?)-and even in 1944, the Germans relatively easily crushed them (Mont Mouchet, Vercors, Tulle...) Not because French were cowards, but because such endeavours were hopeless.

Hmm lets see here, it took months of heavy fighting and heavy losses before they even started getting support and they didnt run away unike lets say the Iraqis who fled at first sight at enemies at mosul even when outnumbering them 50:1 and they where equiped with american weapons and veichles, something they left behind for isis to grab.

If they would have kicked isis out right there in mosul isis would have never got so much publicity and foreign fighters flocking to them reducing the chance they would have even been successful in their blitzkrieg in the middleeast.


Before kobani many didnt even know who the kurds where now the whole world knows, they have been praised by pretty much everyone as the best fighting force in the region and for their bravery in holding their ground.

If we are to support any group against isis the kurds is it.

beats supporting shia and sunni groups who only fight eachother.

[jackofwind]

I said not all of them. Most? Okay. 90%? Fine. All? No.

And since nothing in life is absolute, your entire premise falls apart.

There isn't even such a practical thing as "all" people in a country, since the population total changes constantly. What's "all now isn't what was "all" two minutes ago. "All" people is meaningless.

[sarahtasher]

Hmm lets see here, it took months of heavy fighting and heavy losses before they even started getting support and they didnt run away unike lets say the Iraqis who fled at first sight at enemies at mosul even when outnumbering them 50:1 and they where equiped with american weapons and veichles, something they left behind for isis to grab.

If they would have kicked isis out right there in mosul isis would have never got so much publicity and foreign fighters flocking to them reducing the chance they would have even been successful in their blitzkrieg in the middleeast.


Before kobani many didnt even know who the kurds where now the whole world knows, they have been praised by pretty much everyone as the best fighting force in the region and for their bravery in holding their ground.

If we are to support any group against isis the kurds is it.

beats supporting shia and sunni groups who only fight eachother.

The issue being that Kurdistan would require ''freedomizing'' four countries (Irak, Syria, Turkey, Iran). Strangely, ''freedomized'' countries, who had already poorly motivated armed forces before, tends to indeed have even more demoralized ones afterward (because, let's be honest, it's not exactly Iraqi hot blooded nationalists that fill the ranks...)

[ParanoiD84]

The issue being that Kurdistan would require ''freedomizing'' four countries (Irak, Syria, Turkey, Iran). Strangely, ''freedomized'' countries, who had already poorly motivated armed forces before, tends to indeed have even more demoralized ones afterward (because, let's be honest, it's not exactly Iraqi hot blooded nationalists that fill the ranks...)

Will be interesting to see what happens with the kurds after this is over considering turkey dont wants them to get shit.

[turboether]

How many safe countries do you need to walk through before you are safe enough?

[Knolan]

Well there is some validity in the question, technically what stops the government to become a dictatorship is that it is not feasible to fight it's entire population. Also, if you are not willing to fight for your rights, do you deserve them?

But, those questions aside, aren't most of the refugees (and by that I mean people that are actually from Syria) women and children? AFAIK most people who entered Europe in the last years from Africa and middle-east are not from Syria, but I can be wrong.

[Noomz]

In the obligatory daily threads about refugees, a comment that come like clockwork is that the refugees are ''cowards'' since they are not firing with (inexistant) handguns at the tanks and aircraft firing at them.

Sarcasm aside, do you have an actual example of a country that fought to the death, understood the death of it's citizens ? (As opposed as surrendering, accepting occupation or running away)

(There is in fact one, Paraguay. )

It's often said by people who have no courage themselves and have never had to deal with any kind of situation even remotely comparable to war.
There may have been nations like that. But they dont exist anymore.

[Malacrass]

Even if there would be a country where the citizens fought till the bitter end, it still doesn't compare to the situation of the 21 century.

You can't resist your government with torches and pitchforks anymore, hell you can't even fight back with handguns or basic artillery weapons if you have to oppose your government backed by a global super power.
The moment Assad had Putin's approval it wasn't a question of fighting or not fighting, but of fleeing or dying.

How many safe countries do you need to walk through before you are safe enough?

The thing is that those who flee are mostly young men, those who are strong enough to a) survive the trip and b) are less likely to get captured and abused by slave traders / human traffickers. Women and children are even easier targets for those.

"But why aren't they fleeing with their women and children?" Apart from the fact that their presence doesn't necessarily protect them on the journey, the main reason is money. They simply can't afford to pay for the expenses.

Now back to your original question "how long do you need to walk before you are safe"?
The answer is simple when you consider that they not only walk for themselves, but also for their families who have to stay in the warzone. So the idea is to reach a country that won't only grant them asylum, but also allows reunification with their family. You make it through, you save your family.

That's why Germany and Sweden are such a massive pull for refugees. Britain or France should be logical choices due to language reasons, but in Germany and Sweden you can even sue you and your family in if you know what are doing.

[Nehezbegar]

That's why Germany and Sweden are such a massive pull for refugees

Only because of social welfares. For isntance in Poland, even if we take "refugees", they would immediately leave to Germany because they want social money, and its non existant in Poland .

[Malacrass]

Only because of social welfares. For isntance in Poland, even if we take "refugees", they would immediately leave to Germany because they want social money, and its non existant in Poland .

As far as I know Poland doesn't take any refugees - and is pretty open about it. Now if your goal is to seek not only asylum for you, but also your family back home, you obviously don't try to stay in a country that openly claims that it doesn't want you - but instead a country that even pays you a laywer to go to court to make your case. It isn't just about the social benefits at the end of the month, it's the entire legal situation you find yourself in when you apply in Germany or Poland. Not even talking about hungary where they immediately throw you in jail.

A ton of the "real" refugees have a responsiblity towards their family, they are the only hope they have to get them out of the conflict. Even if the social benefits in Poland would be zero, I'm sure they would stay if at least family reunification would be a possibility.

[Nehezbegar]

As far as I know Poland doesn't take any refugees - and is pretty open about it. Now if your goal is to seek not only asylum for you, but also your family back home, you obviously don't try to stay in a country that openly claims that it doesn't want you - but instead a country that even pays you a laywer to go to court to make your case. It isn't just about the social benefits at the end of the month, it's the entire legal situation you find yourself in when you apply in Germany or Poland. Not even talking about hungary where they immediately throw you in jail.

A ton of the "real" refugees have a responsiblity towards their family, they are the only hope they have to get them out of the conflict. Even if the social benefits in Poland would be zero, I'm sure they would stay if at least family reunification would be a possibility.

Sadly, i dont have pink glasses on my nose and i think realistically. Even if Poland was open on "refugees", they would move on to Germany for the benefits. There was plenty of cases in Poland where churches took "refugees" from the middle east. As long as the church paid for food and flat everything was ok, but when they was obligated to go to work after half a year or so, they just disappeared, i imagine where they went, definetly not back to Syria, but to Germany, for the social benefits.

[Halicia]

for the social benefits.

You really think a 5 year who watched their parents get raped and murdered is really leaving because of foodstamps ?

[Malacrass]

Sadly, i dont have pink glasses on my nose and i think realistically. Even if Poland was open on "refugees", they would move on to Germany for the benefits. There was plenty of cases in Poland where churches took "refugees" from the middle east. As long as the church paid for food and flat everything was ok, but when they was obligated to go to work after half a year or so, they just disappeared, i imagine where they went, definetly not back to Syria, but to Germany, for the social benefits.

Nothing to do with pink glasses.

I'm perfectly aware that easily 50% or more are not fleeing from war, but simply seek a better life. That those move from country to country shouldn't be a surprise to anyone. But the discussion was about legit Syrians running from war, not afghan or east european adventurers.

[Deleted]

You look so brave, please go fight in Syria to teach them.

Why should we fight for a coward's home? The cowards fleeing their homes (demanding that we take them in, or fight for their home) should be left to waste away in their refugee camps.

[Nehezbegar]

You really think a 5 year who watched their parents get raped and murdered is really leaving because of foodstamps ?

I haven't seen many 5 year olds on boats.

[sarahtasher]

Why should we fight for a coward's home? The cowards fleeing their homes (demanding that we take them in, or fight for their home) should be left to waste away in their refugee camps.

And in the real world, both idols of the alt-right-the Nazis and the CSA talked a lot about fighting to the death, but did not, far from it.

[Deleted]

You really think a 5 year who watched their parents get raped and murdered is really leaving because of foodstamps ?

never see any kids unless they come with their parents

- - - Updated - - -

Only because of social welfares. For isntance in Poland, even if we take "refugees", they would immediately leave to Germany because they want social money, and its non existant in Poland .

they left from latvia fast too