72% of refugees fleeing war and oppression are men

I guess women and children are much safer than men when it comes to oppression and violence.
The breakdown is
72% men
13% women
15% children

the little boy on the beach was sure used as a big propaganda opportunity so I'm not sure how they can justify 3 out of 4 refugees being male. So much for women and children first.

data.unhcr.org...

Well that is odd. Should we assume they just left their families behind or that they were single? If single then I would wonder what percentage are part of the movement of terrorist threats in the refugees....also typically a male heavy group.

With that many refugees, I can't imagine how they are going to regulate anything or do checks on anyone.

Sounds like an army to me. And we need to stop this crisis, using diplomancy instead of war tactics to destablize ME, like the Obama administration and its parners in crime are doing, is the cause of what seems to be a massive trojan horse. In fact this was probably planned from the word "go".

originally posted by: Unity_99
Sounds like an army to me. And we need to stop this crisis, using diplomancy instead of war tactics to destablize ME, like the Obama administration and its parners in crime are doing, is the cause of what seems to be a massive trojan horse. In fact this was probably planned from the word "go".

Trojan horse definitely seems the appropriate term here.

They're not fleeing war & oppression, they're delivering it.

#Refujihad

They interviewed some refugees here and one of them told that he had to sell his house to be able to buy a escape ticket and couldn´t afford to pay his wife ( possibly children ? ) trip so he left his wife behind. I kinda find this odd in our culture women and children's well being comes first. Sold the house and wife( family? )is homeless.

a reply to: dollukka


She might be lucky he didn't sell her.

a reply to: Bluntone22

Saw a man interviewed on CNN state that once he was established he would send for his family. Could it be that simple?

If I was fleeing on a death trap of a boat, maybe I leave my family behind until I can afford to bring them over safely.

I guess they'll need to keep these refugees in gun free zones (i.e. Europe). Can't do anyone harm without a gun...

This fact is missing from most of the reports.

The UN themselves have admitted that about 75% of these 'refugees' are male, but they claim to have no data on the age of these males. Intuition (and viewing the photos) tells me they mostly fall in that 18-30 male demographic - which are statistically the most likely to be radicalized.

a reply to: Feltrick
The threat back home must not be too severe if these guys are just leaving their families behind to be sent for at a later date...

Mabee the family is in a refugee camp , and the man were sent to make money.

Or mabee they were soldiers who got tired of war.

a reply to: OpenMindedRealist


I thought the same thing.

It's invasion. Look out below.

originally posted by: boozo
It's invasion. Look out below.

What else can you call it?
Especially since the wealthy gulf states are doing nothing to help.

mobile.news.com.au...

originally posted by: boozo
It's invasion. Look out below.

Here's my take: it's an invasion. But it's an orchestrated invasion:

It serves the purpose of huge distraction,
while UN Troops take over N. America.

thank you for bringing up this important topic!

today someone was talking how it's only upper middleclass that's flooding europe.
i thought: so why does upper middleclass not come by plane (at least from neighbouring countries) and why don't the have money to take their wives and children with them?

what happened to the "ladies first" mentality if there was ever one down there?
military aged men fleeing their country instead of fighting IS and leaving back their family is so disgusting, i have no words for it!
just shows they don't belong here because it's entirely another mentality.

then there is still the threat that IS terrorists are among them.

close the borders, annihilate IS and send them back.

Hundreds of thousands if not millions of Syrian refugees are now in relative safety in Turkey, Lebanon, Jordan, etc. but are in dire economic straights.

It seems obvious that a man would take chances to go west in search of economic opportunity in hopes of bringing his family later in a safer manner. It's been like that for hundreds of years in the settlement of North America for example.

originally posted by: DelMarvel
Hundreds of thousands if not millions of Syrian refugees are now in relative safety in Turkey, Lebanon, Jordan, etc. but are in dire economic straights.

It seems obvious that a man would take chances to go west in search of economic opportunity in hopes of bringing his family later in a safer manner. It's been like that for hundreds of years in the settlement of North America for example.

then they are economic refugees, not war refugees.
europe doesn't take economic refugees.
of course no one talks about that becaus this means to send them back home.

a reply to: DelMarvel

They didn´t leave their wives and family into warzone...Big difference. At least news are all about refugees who are running away from war..

Has anyone thought why it is more men with a sensible hat on? are we not jumping the gun a little?.
Maybe the men were more able to flee? maybe they were the ones with the means to flee? not saying it is right in what they have done but lets think why and not just they are all ISIS.