OP who appears to be attempting diversion from this fact by the sneaky use of 'rich'
I wouldn't say so. Saudi Arabia for example is the biggest promoter of extremism, more precisely Wahhabism, financing various extremist materials, islamic schools/unvieristies, "scholars", imams and so on.
They have a huge responsibility for what's happening right night now in the Islamic world. ISIS are just trying to enforce what the Saudis believe in and are promoting through financing but refuse to acknowledge officialy.
There is plenty of space in the UK, no need for that, and anyway the fact is that I joined the march against the war in Iraq, wrote to my MP before the Commons vote, wrote to him after the vote, wrote to him during the war, wrote to him after the war, wrote to my community newspaper, wrote to my local newspaper, wrote to the Mayor etc etc.
I suspect I did rather more to oppose this ignominy than the hypocritical right wingers gracing this thread.
You shouldn't jump to so many conclusions.
I was on the march with a large homemade placard saying "IN SHOCK BUT NOT IN AWE".
Since the Iraq situation is a British-created mess, it behoves Britain to accept any and all asylum seeker /refugee wishing to come here.
I fail to see why any Arab country should be expected to mop up UK incompetence, greed or hypocrisy or all three.
'If you don't like asylum seekers stop bombing other people's countries' is the message.
Only if you stop history at certain points. Saddam was mortal, his chosen heirs were bonkers, and minority Sunni dictatorship in Iraq couldn't have lasted forever.
If you tack back to the post WW1 settlement, its true that it was unsustainable in the long run, because it mixed up hostile tribes and religions- but there may have been few better alternatives. And the core problem was the Ottoman empire imploding.
If you go back further , the core problem is the Sunni v Shia civil war within Islam - but thats 1300 years old, and reflects the nature of the religion.
If you go back further, most of whats going on now is recognisably the modern version of the wars between competing tribes, cities, regions and empires - that dates well into the centuries before even the Romans turned up to try and impose some order. The Egyptians and Persians are still in their same roles, and the regions of Iraq and Syria are still at war.
If I decide to burn down your house because there are rats living in the loft and end up raising the entire neighbourhood, shouldn't I take on the responsibility of finding you alternative accommodation?
Yes but thats not an accurate analogy. If you think the neighbour is building a bomb to blow up the whole town, and says so, shouldn't the police go in and see if its there, and stop him if it is?
Equally, if everyone in the town wants to kill everyone else in the town, leaving them alone just ends up in a massive fight one day. Leaving the most bloody gang leaders in charge to deter each other has already failed in that region twice by 2003. Leaving bloody gangsters in charge never works out well - as they create either houses made of cards, that collapse without them, or they are succeed by even crazier, more brutal, gangsters.
Equally, leaving a Sunni minority to butcher the Shia and Kurds in Iraq, and now a Shia minority to gas the Sunni majority, and Kurds, in Syria, is a bizarre, amoral, and anti-democratic position to sustain. Its interesting that much of the western left dislikes the US, more than it supports its own supposed values.
Comments
They have a huge responsibility for what's happening right night now in the Islamic world. ISIS are just trying to enforce what the Saudis believe in and are promoting through financing but refuse to acknowledge officialy.
WHY don't they accept refugees?
You shouldn't jump to so many conclusions.
I was on the march with a large homemade placard saying "IN SHOCK BUT NOT IN AWE".
Only if you stop history at certain points. Saddam was mortal, his chosen heirs were bonkers, and minority Sunni dictatorship in Iraq couldn't have lasted forever.
If you tack back to the post WW1 settlement, its true that it was unsustainable in the long run, because it mixed up hostile tribes and religions- but there may have been few better alternatives. And the core problem was the Ottoman empire imploding.
If you go back further , the core problem is the Sunni v Shia civil war within Islam - but thats 1300 years old, and reflects the nature of the religion.
If you go back further, most of whats going on now is recognisably the modern version of the wars between competing tribes, cities, regions and empires - that dates well into the centuries before even the Romans turned up to try and impose some order. The Egyptians and Persians are still in their same roles, and the regions of Iraq and Syria are still at war.
Yes but thats not an accurate analogy. If you think the neighbour is building a bomb to blow up the whole town, and says so, shouldn't the police go in and see if its there, and stop him if it is?
Equally, if everyone in the town wants to kill everyone else in the town, leaving them alone just ends up in a massive fight one day. Leaving the most bloody gang leaders in charge to deter each other has already failed in that region twice by 2003. Leaving bloody gangsters in charge never works out well - as they create either houses made of cards, that collapse without them, or they are succeed by even crazier, more brutal, gangsters.
Equally, leaving a Sunni minority to butcher the Shia and Kurds in Iraq, and now a Shia minority to gas the Sunni majority, and Kurds, in Syria, is a bizarre, amoral, and anti-democratic position to sustain. Its interesting that much of the western left dislikes the US, more than it supports its own supposed values.
Very interesting watching Adam Curtis' recent doc.