When you're unarmed.

And your entire village is.

There was also a chance of dying from a bomb in the middle of the night

Much less likely than my example

And again, 'people' (The state) could easily defend itself

IE, RAF.

And we did.

They, can't really

They don't have the facilities or capabilities to do so

Nor the knowledge to do so

If they had those capabilities, then I'd say refuse em

Maybe accept the children and elderly

Most refugees don't escape convoys just rolling up to their villages because those people don't normally escape.
I think such example is entirely unreasonable

I'd say only children at least

It's how ISIS operated

It's how the Kurds were slaughtered

And has been for generations tbh

Same with the incident in the Georgian mountains

I forget the country

A historical massacre, which Turkey denies

Yeah but there's also kurds who are fighting back and not to badly if I'm correct

True, now they are were, with US support

Support which has now been withdrawn

Turkey has moved into kill them, as well as ISIS and Assad

*What remains of ISIS*

Here:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Armenian_Genocide

That was it

I'm weary about arming groups in the ME

You should be too tbh

I have far less reason to care about their refugees tho. As I can't really care for letting in every starving Africa villager.
Keep them where they are, support them there if you like and might will be right at the end of the day.

The issue is:

'Supporting them' can cause MORE issues. Which means MORE refugees

Which means more cowards lol

Well, it makes for a powerful political tool

Al-Qaeda was US backed.

Look what happened as a result of that.

Honestly in some respects I'm really coming round to the might is right argument.
If your not willing to be strong and defend your people and culture then it has no right to survive.

Well, enjoy an Islamic world then

I won't enjoy it because I'd rather be dead

Well in your own words, you have no right to survive.