How is accepting refugees advocating a continued cycle of violence? How is accepting refugees violent? I wasn't even advocating anything in the statement you quoted, just laying out how difficult the situation was due to the West's involvement in the Middle East, making it a little hard to say "your country, your problem" when the problem was caused by Western meddling.
I call you out for this and you run straight back to it.
Do you know why 'the West' (including Russia, here) bitchslapped the Ottoman Empire?
Of course 'the West' is far from innocent. Guess what? No modern nation is. The modern nation of Turkey rests atop a mountain of a solid fraction of a billion skulls. Even though they're genetically not even Turk for the most part. Or Arab. Not even by male descent.
The issue isn't directly with the refugees. The problem is threefold.
1) A lot of people - almost exclusively young, frustrated men - are trying to illegally piggyback on the refugee system, straining it further and running up crime rates, particularly a certain very emotionally charged one.
2) On top of this, the housing situation in London specifically is ridiculous. No relief is being provided to the actual citizens of the country who make up these nations. Many homes stand empty in Britain. It is fully possible for them to take care of both, but they don't.
3) Rather than focusing on the actual issues at hand, you, and people like you, are blaming people who themselves have committed no wrong, and saying they should just accept it.
Do you have the slightest inkling of just how toxic this is? You are creating class distinctions between nations. Do not create class distinctions between nations. It is a bad idea and does not end well. If you cannot absorb them fully, without stressing your own population, you cannot afford to host them.
And, kinda. Sure the average British citizen has nothing to do with colonialism, but they also have very little to do with Britain's economic standing, and yet they reap the benefits of that freely.
No, they put in their life's labor and moral ethic into creating their society. They have very much to do with Britain's economic standing. They are emotionally, financially, and most importantly, politically
invested in their nation. They vote.
The West, mainly the USA, but other powers like Britain and France are not blameless, has a long history of meddling in Africa and the Middle East.
And you ignore just why that meddling came about. Yes, most individuals in the Middle East and North Africa had nothing to do with what their leaders did. The citizens of what was once the Ottoman Empire an the various pirate states paid for it.
I believe that if you are lucky enough to be born into a Western nation and inherit all the social, financial and political benefits, you should also inherit some of burden of dealing with the continued fallout from exploitation and interference your country rendered onto others, especially when it was these misdealing that contributed to the wealth the country enjoys today. We armed the Taliban and made it what it is today, so we cannot now flat out refuse to house refugees displaced by them.
The only people who clearly benefited from Britain's rule over the world were the ultra-rich. For the rest of British society, it looks more like a wash. The same is true of pretty much all exploitation of other nations, with perhaps the singular exception of the US/Canadian expansion into what was relatively underpopulated territory. The vast majority of the wealth in the 'West' is the mere fact that wealth does not need all that much protection. That is very much a cultural thing, and not one dependent upon exploitation.
Passing this sort of blame onto the citizenry, making them pay for something they did not profit from, do not see themselves as profiting from, all the while the upper crust eats off of golden plates, is, well, rich.
And is only going to continue the cycle of violence once they start electing people who agree with them.