This video changed my opinion on the refugee 'crisis', probably for the better

a reply to: sjake111

Could you explain how "cucks" have anything to do with this? Last time I looked we were discussing a video.

Deny ignorance











Or be it.

a reply to: Phage

The only point you are making is that criminals carry guns, illegally.

a reply to: sjake111

They were deployed in their respective roles at the time of the Blitz. My grandmother was around for that period though. She had some close calls. My grandfathers were both doing their duty for years before the American contingent ever joined the war, one of them aboard destroyers engaged in various efforts to counter Nazi sea power, and the other in an infantry role.

Of course, much is made of the American arrival in the war, and it certainly turned a tide. However, let's face it, America would have left Europe to it if it had not have been for the Japanese launching a raid on Pearl Harbour. Let's be realistic here, the government of America at that point, was no less mercenary or morally defunct than it has been for the last thirty years.

And as for my use of the English language, I am unlikely to take instruction on the matter from someone who pronounces the word aluminium incorrectly.

a reply to: TrueBrit

when in doubt tell strangers a life story on the internet

originally posted by: DutchMasterChief

So again I ask you, how many refugees is the UK taking in? Or the US?

No where near enough. Given how much of our tax payers money was spent creating these circumstances, it would be wise, if we want a future worth living in, to take responsibility for those who have been displaced by wars we paid for.

God you are annoying with your ideological drivel.

I would imagine it must be very annoying, when someone expresses a nuanced, broad, geopolitically aware point of view, when all one can muster oneself is a blinkered, narrow, self interested approach. It is never pleasant to have ones failings and character flaws so utterly illuminated by the presence in ones midst of someone who is not part of the problem, but an element of its solution. I suggest you learn to deal with it, because I am not going away.

And how many times do you need to told that the majpority of these refugees are treasure seekers who are not even fleeing from war.

At least as many times as I have to explain that the only people who believe that drivel, believe it because it fits their bias, and not because it happens to be accurate.

a reply to: TrueBrit

Of course, much is made of the American arrival in the war, and it certainly turned a tide. However, let's face it, America would have left Europe to it if it had not have been for the Japanese launching a raid on Pearl Harbour. Let's be realistic here, the government of America at that point, was no less mercenary or morally defunct than it has been for the last thirty years.

Really? The only reason they didn't let half the world get conquered by Hitler is because of that little poke Japan gave them, which by the way, they let happen to provide a public excuse to go to war with Germany, something that would have happened no matter what because it would be against their own interest to let Hitler become stronger and stronger.

a reply to: sjake111

You suggested that my forefathers were on British soil during the Blitz, and I explained that you were mistaken. I fail to see where I have erred in providing you proper context for the events in question, as they relate to my participation in this thread.

originally posted by: Phage
a reply to: gator2001

My thought was how easy it is for the bad apples to act out and assault because they know there are no guns.

Yeah. Guns make it so much better. The more the better.

From what I've been reading, with respect to your video, taking guns away from LEO's would be a much more effective way to stop biker shoot outs at restaurants such as Twin Peaks

a reply to: DutchMasterChief

That, with respect, is utter rot.

It was entirely within their interests to allow Hitler to be about his business, because companies like IBM, Kodak, Ford and GM to name just a few, were making heaps of money out of Hitlers Germany until the breakout of war between America and Germany!

a reply to: TrueBrit

No where near enough. Given how much of our tax payers money was spent creating these circumstances, it would be wise, if we want a future worth living in, to take responsibility for those who have been displaced by wars we paid for

The things is, mainland Europe is stuck with the problem that we bear the smallest responsibility for. So again, it is easy to preach from your island state not letting these refugees in.

I would imagine it must be very annoying, when someone expresses a nuanced, broad, geopolitically aware point of view, when all one can muster oneself is a blinkered, narrow, self interested approach. It is never pleasant to have ones failings and character flaws so utterly illuminated by the presence in ones midst of someone who is not part of the problem, but an element of its solution. I suggest you learn to deal with it, because I am not going away.

More empty drivel as usual. You are not part of the solution. you are just talking, chastising others for not wanting all these refugees, when your own country is not taking them in but has been one of the main aggressors.

At least as many times as I have to explain that the only people who believe that drivel, believe it because it fits their bias, and not because it happens to be accurate.

Really, so what is your proof that all these people are fleeing from wars directly caused by the west.

Most of them are not even from Syria. Do you deny this? That's funny because even European government officials are saying this.

The comments about the reality of economic migrants were made by Frans Timmermans, the European Commission’s First Vice-President, in an interview with the Dutch Broadcast Foundation (NOS). He said that far from fleeing warzones, migrants to Europe are mostly North Africans leaving their homeland for economic reasons, adding: “More than half of the people now coming to Europe come from countries where you can assume they have no reason whatsoever to ask for refugee status. More than half, 60 per cent.”

Basing his claim on the on the latest, as yet unpublished, data from Frontex — the European security agency which manages cooperation between national border guards securing the bloc’s external borders — Commissioner Timmermans said they are mainly economic migrants from countries such as Morocco and Tunisia, attempting to reach Europe via via Turkey.

www.breitbart.com...

a reply to: TrueBrit

Sure, that would be enough reason to let Hitler conquer the whole world. As if that would not be going to cost them.

Anyways, seems these companies did just fine regardless of the war between the US and Germany.

Accepting that a large number of people are in a desperate situation and need help is quite different from declaring that the poorest in society need to have their lives and opportunities further stunted by taking in whole swathes of people.

State schools are already oversubscribed with massive classes and budgetary problems due to the special needs of large numbers of children with English as a second language. Every thousand pounds spent on a classroom translator or courses for current teaching assistants in how to deal with kids of different needs means that there is a thousand pounds less to spend on the education of the kids already at the school.

It means that the schemes for free school meals that extend to help with school trips for kids from disadvantaged backgrounds get used up by people who come in leaving the existing kids missing out because in raw numbers, their need is greater.

It means that you can't get housed by the council or housing association, so you have to live cheek by jowl in whatever accommodation you currently have with no hope of ever getting anything better.

It means that you have to accept that due to the numbers involved, that there is a greater risk of alienation and street crime against certain groups because these people cannot be integrated properly.


The only people who will not have to make any sacrifice at all are those who have expensive houses in expensive areas, who send their kids to private school, visit a private doctor and don't have to use public transport or live among them generally.

They are also the same people calling most loudly for greater migration and, quite often are in the business of employing people so benefit from wage compression which is another side of the mass immigration coin...


In short, help them, yes, but not at such a great cost to those of us who are always the ones to pay the price.

a reply to: DutchMasterChief

I have remonstrated at great length with my MP, written to the Home Office, protested vigorously against the governments unwillingness to deal with the messes they create, at every level of civic life, wether that be in terms of the number of immigrants we take in, the amount of revenue we loose to corruption in government, or the disenfranchisement of my own people by the government directly, as is happening now through various cuts.

My nation may be failing to fulfil its responsibilities, but it is doing so for one main reason. There are too many people in this nation, who for some reason believe that it is fine to fail to take responsibility for their failure to elect decent leaders, that it is ok to screw an entire region over, and suffer no consequences what so ever, that what their leaders do is not a problem, as long as it is someone else's problem. There is not enough public and vocal support for a proper, concerted, targeted effort to relieve the genuine suffering of people displaced as a direct result of our foreign affairs policies.

We can shirk our responsibilities, and have to deal with these issues again and again, over and over, for decades upon decades more, or we can act to improve what we have allowed our leaders to destroy, while protecting those we left exposed to predatory influences beyond their control.

One of these things will result in no change, the same dance, the same circular moshpit of futility that got us here in the first place, and one of them could result in a unified, humane, and peaceful co-existence between people of differing faiths and origins.

But if dogmatic, biased, phobic and WEAK people continue to dictate the way of things to the rest, as has been the case thus far, then nothing will ever improve.

a reply to: SprocketUK

You are describing a part of the equation that I think is far too often overlooked.

Citizens of a nation elect officials to serve the interests of their (THEIR) nations. Their duty is first and foremost to provide safety and security (physical security, financial security, etc) to THEIR citizens. While it is of course true that any country is part of the world and has to have interactions with other nations, how does bringing in X-number of (alleged) refugees to further deplete limited resources help the citizens of the nations that are taking these people in?

I am not saying that we should ignore those in need. There are any number of ways to help. However, just blindly bringing in anyone and everyone that reaches and/or crosses the threshold of a border in no way helps a nations citizenship. Quite the contrary, it only serves to cause harm financially (which affects everything from housing to health care to education) to, as we are seeing in Europe, causes harm to people physically.

a reply to: TrueBrit

My nation may be failing to fulfil its responsibilities, but it is doing so for one main reason. There are too many people in this nation, who for some reason believe that it is fine to fail to take responsibility for their failure to elect decent leaders, that it is ok to screw an entire region over, and suffer no consequences what so ever, that what their leaders do is not a problem, as long as it is someone else's problem. There is not enough public and vocal support for a proper, concerted, targeted effort to relieve the genuine suffering of people displaced as a direct result of our foreign affairs policies.

In the case of your country, few political parties are directly opposing these policies, only it is people like you who actually oppose them.

Nigel Farage today spoke out against Tony Blair's comments on the present situation in Iraq and Syria. The UKIP leader said: "In almost every country in which the West has intervened or even implied support for regime change, the situation has been made worse and not better. "This is true of Libya, Syria and of course Iraq. Tony Blair's state of outright denial of the obvious consequences of his disastrous decision-making on Iraq is making increasingly uncomfortable viewing. "There was no place in Iraq for Al Qaeda or its affiliates under the dictatorship of Saddam Hussein. Yet now the country is over-run by Islamists who are also making advances in Syria and the whole region is sliding towards a full-scale Sunni versus Shia conflict. "The lesson is not, as Mr Blair implies, that the West should intervene in Syria, let alone once more in Iraq. The lesson is that the West should declare an end to the era of military intervention abroad.

www.ukip.org...


Taking in an entire nations is not going to solve the issue and is only creating more issues in western countries.

Proposal by UKIP,

Today, I’m calling for a proactive, long term, international solution in Syria, to tackle Islamic State (IS) head on, not a short term sticking plaster. For the past five years Syria has cropped up on the political agenda time and time again, but every time it does, it just seems to drop away without any real solution to the war and crisis being agreed upon.

www.telegraph.co.uk... .html

Seems more logical then just taking in streams of refugees.

So I guess you should be voting for them.

a reply to: DutchMasterChief

Bull.

For a start, Farages interest in the Middle East has nothing to do with doing the right thing. He is simply not in any way interested in the safety of people in those nations, and nor is his party. He just wants there to be less pressure at the borders, which is the LEAST concerning thing about what is going on at the moment, the LAST consideration we ought to be ruminating upon.

Compared to the fact that we have blood on our hands, it is NOTHING, and yet it is the prime concern of UKIP. The hell with them and their false order of priority.

a reply to: TrueBrit

See, this is exactly what I mean.

a reply to: TrueBrit

For a start, Farages interest in the Middle East has nothing to do with doing the right thing.

Doing the right thing....

Off course his main priority is the UK, as it should be. Funny how he is basically saying the same thing as you did, working towards the same desired end result, only his is bad, and yours is good, because yours is based on that bleeding heart leftist drivel, and his is pragmatic.

People like you are the biggest problem.

a reply to: DutchMasterChief

Farage could save a baby from a fire and some people would criticise him.

a reply to: SprocketUK


Especially long haired hippies. Get a f haircut!