Drives me up the fucking wall. Spend years bombing the shit out of countries and selling arms to despots, then having the gall to complain when refugees from the situation you encouraged turn up on your doorstep.
You solve the “refugee crisis” by fostering peace and prosperity in countries that don’t have it, not by spreading lies about it.
It was the US that pushed for and did (is doing?) most of the bombing, and Europe that got hit with refugees.
But even if it were the same country, it's not the same people - the wars were pushed from the top [1], the resistance to immigrants from the bottom ("populism").
You really need to update your knowledge of history. Look at Belgian, French, Dutch and British colonial empires. Especially the Belgian one and its brutality might interest you. And the British one was active in Middle East waaaay before America.
It's the colonial empires that caused the refugee crisis? I thought it was the much more recent bombings. But if it was the colonial empires, how come Turkey faced no refugee crisis from their colonies in south-eastern Europe [1,2]? How come the refugee crisis was now, and not at the height of those colonial empires you blame?
You see colonialism when it suits you, and are blind to it when it doesn't.
> You solve the “refugee crisis” by fostering peace and prosperity in countries that don’t have it, not by spreading lies about it.
That's really not an actionable goal.
Fostering war and misery is really easy, you just have to bomb some places. Fostering peace and prosperity isn't something you can actively do.
Even if you refrain from participating in abroad wars, they still happen. People still rise up against governments they don't like, the governments still violently crush uprisings, etc. The only difference if you get to say it's not your fault.
You solve the “refugee crisis” by fostering peace and prosperity in countries that don’t have it, not by spreading lies about it.