The Hypocrisy of The British Media

The Migrant Crisis. After branding the buildup of refugees that's been accumulating for the past two years as 'immigrants,' 'holiday-ruiners,' 'scroungers,' 'swams,' among many other dehumanising terms - all it took was a picture of a dead child washed up on a Turkish beach for society to finally gain a conscience and brand this a 'crisis.' Except people still haven't...

It's extremely gratifying that overnight the equilibrium completely shifted. I was a minority when I said that these people weren't unskilled workers who see western countries as 'the land of the money trees' - but actual people who used to have jobs and homes and lives before they were taken away by war, terrorism, dictatorships, and/or corrupted governments. In fact, the majority of these refugees are wealthy and skilled - hence why they carry smartphones. Many speak good English and were able to pay the money to join a boat or stowaway on a truck. But you can't take all that money with you, and no amount of money in the world can buy you proof of citizenship; which is what you need to get a job and rent a home. Hence why these people need our help. 

Now only a third of England opposes helping refugees, which is helpful as we know who not to save should we ourselves be hit by a crisis. Now the British Media is supporting action to assist refugees, and in the process has revealed how despicable the media actually is. 

The very same newspapers who dehumanised and shunned the refugees now lament them. Within a heartbeat, their months of racist discourse apparently never happened. Their language completely shifted to simpering talk about 'showing humanity' and the struggle of the innocent when previously they'd lamented over how refugees were delaying peoples trips to Disneyland. They latched onto every word Nigel 'I resign' Farage said, every lie he told, and applauded David Cameron when he pledged to ensure that those waiting at Calais won't be welcome here. 

Not only this, but several newspapers are now actively calling for military intervention in Syria despite the fact that it's because of the war in Syria that refugees are fleeing. Assad's regime in Syria has killed seven times more civilians than ISIS have - and the reason why refugee's are leaving is not just because they fear terrorism but because they are caught between two equally evil sides. Even before ISIS begun it's invasion, the Syrian government was dropping bombs on civilians. In fact, Assad was dropping bombs on civilians before there was a rebel uprising. The reason why people attempted to rebel was because the Syrian government were dropping bombs on civilians. 

They're still doing it right now. Every day in Syria, a handful of helicopters fly above various towns and cities. Sometimes these are ISIS-occupied areas, but often the army is wrong. From the helicopters, barrels filled with explosives and shrapnel are dropped at complete random. It's akin to (and possibly inspired by) the last days of the Blitz where the Nazis sent over 'Doodlebugs' in a desperate attempt to cause as much damage as possible whilst using little to no resources. 

We would be allied with these people if Syrian air strikes are approved. We would be sharing a bed with the worst dictator currently alive. He may not be as infamous as Hitler or Stalin yet, but his body count is growing. 

Not to mention that many Daily Mail columnists suggest that air strikes would be more productive than accepting refugees when airstrikes would cost far more of the taxpayers money. In fact, already the taxpayers money goes towards the bombing of civilians in Yemen and the supplying of arms to Iran, Israel, Russia, Saudi Arabia, and China among many others. In 2013 alone, over £12 billion went towards this. Compare this to the £2 billion worth of welfare cuts made this year in an attempt to 'balance the books' and you can see why I hate the government so much. 

The Sun even had the gall to suggest that going to war against ISIS would avenge the little boy found dead on the beach. The paper completely forgets that more likely this child was running from the government and the more Syria is bombed then the more people will try to flee...if they don't get caught in the crossfire. 

Exactly how can anyone who claims to support the plight of refugees also support military action? This is an actual question that I want answers to in the comments. 

Syria is a stalemate situation. On the one hand you have ISIS, who behead people and are currently embarking on a campaign that can only be described as genocide. On the other hand, you have Assad who is the worst human rights abuser currently on this planet. And in the middle you have the Syrian people. Dying.

But the papers don't want you to think about that.