The Left kills children by letting Terrorists in the UK Terror Attack should be a Wake Up Call

originally posted by: Krazysh0t

originally posted by: UKTruth

originally posted by: Krazysh0t

originally posted by: UKTruth
Sounds like as long as other people are killed, your just fine and dandy.

I've fought against terrorism in the Army already. Have you?

That is irrelevant, but no I have not fought terrorists.
I have now disproven your claim that there are no terrorist who smuggle themselves in as refugees.
So we know the risk is there. It is a risk you seem willing to take - with other peoples lives.

There are risks to every decision you make. The odds of a terrorist coming in with a refugee are remarkably low. The risks are worth taking to preserve a sense of humanity and dignity to people fleeing a bad situation.

Ah, ok. At least you have the point I was looking for.

It's a sense of humanity and decency that is what you are after and the debate therefore is now a real one.

I disagree on two points.

1) I do not think the additional risk is necessary to make people feel better about their sense of humanity and decency.
2) Humanity and decency can be expressed in far better ways than taking a risk, however small you think it is, with people's lives. We can not solve the world's problems here in the UK, not even the ones we have contributed to, so why prioritise something that carries known risk of terrorism on our lands?

originally posted by: aethertek
a reply to: Stevemagegod

Liberal Policies let more Baby Killers in

The United States military has killed more babies in the past few years than any Muslim terrorist.
So when can we get rid of the idiot conservatards who push illegal war in foreign countries to balance the billionaires bank accounts.

You killed those poor children in England Steve, your policies & beliefs pushed the button on those kids.
Look in the mirror, you're the problem, you & people like you who have no clue that this is all blowback from your greed & willful ignorance.

Reap what you sow.

K~

America's crimes against humanity are not limited to conservatives.

originally posted by: UKTruth
Ah, ok. At least you have the point I was looking for.

It's a sense of humanity and decency that is what you are after and the debate therefore is now a real one.

I disagree on two points.

1) I do not think the additional risk is necessary to make people feel better about their sense of humanity and decency.
2) Humanity and decency can be expressed in far better ways than taking a risk, however small you think it is, with people's lives. We can not solve the world's problems here in the UK, not even the ones we have contributed to, so why prioritise something that carries known risk of terrorism on our lands?

Here is the thing. You are, in a highly partisan thread accusing the left of killing children, advocating that we don't let these refugees flee their country and remain in harms way of collateral damage between one of the MANY forces battling for ideological supremacy in that region of the world. You are basically signing these people's death warrants because you are scared of a few statistical anomalies in a field of crime that is itself a statistical anomaly (for as highly talked about in the media, terrorist attacks are very low in chances of something bad happening to you in the world). And you are doing that in a thread that is accusing the left of killing children. I just want you to understand what you are doing here.

a reply to: UKTruth

Ah...

So you lack the ability to take responsibility for your part in the apathy which has allowed the murder of millions of people since the beginning of the war on terror. How fortunate for you, that you have so little honour in and of yourself and so little respect for your ancestors.

And this pearler...

We can not solve the world's problems here in the UK, not even the ones we have contributed to, so why prioritise something that carries known risk of terrorism on our lands?

Get the hell off my island. Apathy and defeatism of the sort you carry in you will ENSURE that not only will we always fail to solve the problems we cause other nations, but that we never get what we deserve from our government here at home, and that is a circumstance which only continues to exist because of gutless, weak, pathetic, whining bile, such as that quoted above. If you do not have the backbone to behave like a Briton, I suggest you take up residence somewhere which has a reputation more akin to your own attitudes. Perhaps China would be more to your liking. Its chock full of problems, caused both to its own citizens and to neighbouring nations and other pacific entities, but no one there tries very hard to do anything about it. They just arrest all the people who seek social change and improvements in civil liberties. By your own statement above, you will fit right on in with the population of down trodden, put upon, apathetic, communist appeasers there.

I mean for goodness sake! How DARE you try to insinuate that YOUR weaknesses are anything but weaknesses? You believe that we cannot solve the problems we cause, because YOU are part of the problem, not because you have anything useful to say about solutions. How you can even have the temerity to place worth in your own opinion, when it is backed by this sort of spineless mindset is utterly beyond me.

originally posted by: Krazysh0t

originally posted by: UKTruth
Ah, ok. At least you have the point I was looking for.

It's a sense of humanity and decency that is what you are after and the debate therefore is now a real one.

I disagree on two points.

1) I do not think the additional risk is necessary to make people feel better about their sense of humanity and decency.
2) Humanity and decency can be expressed in far better ways than taking a risk, however small you think it is, with people's lives. We can not solve the world's problems here in the UK, not even the ones we have contributed to, so why prioritise something that carries known risk of terrorism on our lands?

Here is the thing. You are, in a highly partisan thread accusing the left of killing children, advocating that we don't let these refugees flee their country and remain in harms way of collateral damage between one of the MANY forces battling for ideological supremacy in that region of the world. You are basically signing these people's death warrants because you are scared of a few statistical anomalies in a field of crime that is a statistical anomaly (for as highly talked about in the media, terrorist attacks are very low in chances of something bad happening to you in the world).

Firstly I am not accusing the left - those that are pushing for refugee flows are not just on the left, though likely they are more on the left.

Secondly, there are many things we can do to help that does not involve taking in refugees. There are other places for these refugees to flee... much much closer... but they are being stopped. We can certainly negotiate with ME countries to help solve this crisis and contribute financially to make it happen in combination with diplomatic pressure. Your President is doing exactly the right things and his pushing for safe zones is well past due. It makes no sense for a safe zone in say, the million tent city in KSA, to be more difficult to achieve than the passage of a million people to the UK over land and dangerous waters.

Most of those fleeing are no longer in direct danger from ISIS. Their plight is now one of poverty, disease and living conditions. We can certainly help there without bringing them to the UK. For those still caught in the war zones, they are unable to flee, so they do not make any significant numbers in the refugee flow anyway. Our best efforts remain in driving out ISIS from their cities and towns.

The refugee argument is an emotional one. It does not hold up to scrutiny when you consider what is actually the most effective solution and it is doubly worrying when you consider we can not vet for terrorism threats in the face of ISIS telling us they are sending terrorists.

originally posted by: TrueBrit
a reply to: UKTruth

Ah...

So you lack the ability to take responsibility for your part in the apathy which has allowed the murder of millions of people since the beginning of the war on terror. How fortunate for you, that you have so little honour in and of yourself and so little respect for your ancestors.

And this pearler...

We can not solve the world's problems here in the UK, not even the ones we have contributed to, so why prioritise something that carries known risk of terrorism on our lands?

Get the hell off my island. Apathy and defeatism of the sort you carry in you will ENSURE that not only will we always fail to solve the problems we cause other nations, but that we never get what we deserve from our government here at home, and that is a circumstance which only continues to exist because of gutless, weak, pathetic, whining bile, such as that quoted above. If you do not have the backbone to behave like a Briton, I suggest you take up residence somewhere which has a reputation more akin to your own attitudes. Perhaps China would be more to your liking. Its chock full of problems, caused both to its own citizens and to neighbouring nations and other pacific entities, but no one there tries very hard to do anything about it. They just arrest all the people who seek social change and improvements in civil liberties. By your own statement above, you will fit right on in with the population of down trodden, put upon, apathetic, communist appeasers there.

I mean for goodness sake! How DARE you try to insinuate that YOUR weaknesses are anything but weaknesses? You believe that we cannot solve the problems we cause, because YOU are part of the problem, not because you have anything useful to say about solutions. How you can even have the temerity to place worth in your own opinion, when it is backed by this sort of spineless mindset is utterly beyond me.

Get off your moral high horse and grow up.

My point is a practical one. We simply can not solve the worlds problems - and yes, not even the ones we created. Your emotional clap trap doesn't solve anything.

We do not need to take in refugees to help the people caught up in war zones in the ME. It's a terrible and ill fitting solution that is being pushed for no other reason than a sense of 'duty', despite it not being the best solution for anybody. You can play footloose and fancy free with people's lives to satisfy your sense of outrage at our history all you like, but it's BS. We may as well sink this f'ing island if we are going to get into making up for all Britains past crimes.

As for getting off 'your' island, PM me to explain your point of view. It's a truly fascinating point of view that belies some tendencies that would be worth exploring.

originally posted by: UKTruth
Firstly I am not accusing the left - those that are pushing for refugee flows are not just on the left, though likely they are more on the left.

I didn't say that. I said that you are posting your opinion in a thread that is accusing the left of killing children. I'm trying to demonstrate that MAYBE this isn't the best topic to pitch a conversation whose sole argument is stupidly partisan to this degree when I can easily repurpose your argument to say that you are advocating the killing of refugees by not letting them into the country.

Secondly, there are many things we can do to help that does not involve taking in refugees. There are other places for these refugees to flee... much much closer... but they are being stopped. We can certainly negotiate with ME countries to help solve this crisis and contribute financially to make it happen in combination with diplomatic pressure. Your President is doing exactly the right things and his pushing for safe zones is well past due. It makes no sense for a safe zone in say, the million tent city in KSA, to be more difficult to achieve than the passage of a million people to the UK over land and dangerous waters.

Refugee camps aren't exactly known for being humane you know?

Most of those fleeing are no longer in direct danger from ISIS. Their plight is now one of poverty, disease and living conditions. We can certainly help there without bringing them to the UK. For those still caught in the war zones, they are unable to flee, so they do not make any significant numbers in the refugee flow anyway. Our best efforts remain in driving out ISIS from their cities and towns.

In America this is written on the Statue of Liberty, “Give me your tired, your poor, your huddled masses yearning to breathe free.” Accepting the poverty stricken, sick, and hungry is an American tradition.

The refugee argument is an emotional one. It does not hold up to scrutiny when you consider what is actually the most effective solution and it is doubly worrying when you consider we can not vet for terrorism threats in the face of ISIS telling us they are sending terrorists.

All you are doing is scapegoating a vulnerable segment of people because of your irrational fears that don't hold up to statistical analysis.

According to Pew Research Center, half of Muslims worldwide support the implementation of Sharia law.

www.pewforum.org...

originally posted by: Krazysh0t

originally posted by: UKTruth
Firstly I am not accusing the left - those that are pushing for refugee flows are not just on the left, though likely they are more on the left.

I didn't say that. I said that you are posting your opinion in a thread that is accusing the left of killing children. I'm trying to demonstrate that MAYBE this isn't the best topic to pitch a conversation whose sole argument is stupidly partisan to this degree when I can easily repurpose your argument to say that you are advocating the killing of refugees by not letting them into the country.

Secondly, there are many things we can do to help that does not involve taking in refugees. There are other places for these refugees to flee... much much closer... but they are being stopped. We can certainly negotiate with ME countries to help solve this crisis and contribute financially to make it happen in combination with diplomatic pressure. Your President is doing exactly the right things and his pushing for safe zones is well past due. It makes no sense for a safe zone in say, the million tent city in KSA, to be more difficult to achieve than the passage of a million people to the UK over land and dangerous waters.

Refugee camps aren't exactly known for being humane you know?

Most of those fleeing are no longer in direct danger from ISIS. Their plight is now one of poverty, disease and living conditions. We can certainly help there without bringing them to the UK. For those still caught in the war zones, they are unable to flee, so they do not make any significant numbers in the refugee flow anyway. Our best efforts remain in driving out ISIS from their cities and towns.

In America this is written on the Statue of Liberty, “Give me your tired, your poor, your huddled masses yearning to breathe free.” Accepting the poverty stricken, sick, and hungry is an American tradition.

The refugee argument is an emotional one. It does not hold up to scrutiny when you consider what is actually the most effective solution and it is doubly worrying when you consider we can not vet for terrorism threats in the face of ISIS telling us they are sending terrorists.

All you are doing is scapegoating a vulnerable segment of people because of your irrational fears that don't hold up to statistical analysis.

I'd suggest safe zones with enough food and water is a damn site more humane than crumbling dangerous cities and towns with a lack of food and clean water...and also much easier to leave and return home when the time is right and rebuilding is complete.

There is no unfettered entry into the US and even when the country was being built into what it is today by immigrants, they were not allowed in under certain situations. Today, America is very difficult to get into to live and work. Up until recently it required a VISA to even travel for a holiday from the UK.

I am not scapegoating anyone - I am saying there is a known risk of terrorism in any refugee community and it makes more sense to help refugees on their own land than bringing them here to satisfy a sense of humanity and decency.

a reply to: UKTruth

Grow up?

That is rich, coming from the child hiding behind the skirt hems of their government, rather than being prepared to risk something in order that liberty be promoted and defended.

My emotional claptrap, as you so shortsightedly put it, has a damned sight more chance of bearing the fruit of peace than your absolute terror, your quaking knee. And your assertion that this is about history is absolute bunkum. Our government are still paying for terror by the back door NOW. They are still selling arms to the wrong countries NOW, still doing deals that they know will bolster terrorist regimes in the Middle East NOW! Not yesterday, or last year, or ten or twenty or thirty years ago, but RIGHT NOW! The fact that we created a considerable portion of the problems we are facing today, by the actions of governments of yesteryear, only COMPOUNDS the necessity to make a proper fist of mitigating for the situation, because it is not a situation that we stopped causing at some notional stage, but one we are STILL causing, and until we stop that, we are STILL responsible for the drivers that cause the flood of migrants from the Middle East and North Africa.

As for PMing you, I will tell you what. If you have something to say to me, you can say it here, where everyone can see what you asked, and what I answered.

originally posted by: UKTruth
I'd suggest safe zones with enough food and water is a damn site more humane than crumbling dangerous cities and towns with a lack of food and clean water...and also much easier to leave and return home when the time is right and rebuilding is complete.

Spoken like someone who hasn't stepped into a city in years.

There is no unfettered entry into the US and even when the country was being built into what it is today by immigrants, they were not allowed in under certain situations. Today, America is very difficult to get into to live and work. Up until recently it required a VISA to even travel for a holiday from the UK.

Yeah I know. It is spitting in the face of where we came from.

I am not scapegoating anyone - I am saying there is a known risk of terrorism in any refugee community and it makes more sense to help refugees on their own land than bringing them here to satisfy a sense of humanity and decency.

Exactly. You scapegoating a vulnerable segment of people because there is a low risk of danger from them. Never mind that the odds are extremely low and that 99.99999999999% of those people aren't terrorists looking to kill others. You want to dehumanize them anyways by appealing to some vague threat of a "risk".

a reply to: Stevemagegod

Well by that logic the right killed people in the Sydney siege in Australia.

This is not a flipping political problem, it's a religious ideological problem. There is bipartisan support to stop this torment and Trump and Australian Prime Minister both agree that Muslims leaders should work with the community to avoid radicalization.

However they forgot the elephant in the room which is called, how do you say it...THE INTERNET! neither left nor right is to blame for a global crisis. Sudan, Mali and Indonesia have had their share of problems and that has nothing to do with politics, and placing blame squarely on the left can be countered by placing the blame on the right for creating the power vacuum in Iraq and don't lie to yourself if you believe that's false.

But I don't blame the left or right, I blame the extreme Islamists and while Islam is a peaceful religion but they will retaliate if they feel threatened-not take an pre emptive strike like their equivalent of their right wing-as like politics there are many sides to the story.

originally posted by: TrueBrit
a reply to: UKTruth

Grow up?

That is rich, coming from the child hiding behind the skirt hems of their government, rather than being prepared to risk something in order that liberty be promoted and defended.

My emotional claptrap, as you so shortsightedly put it, has a damned sight more chance of bearing the fruit of peace than your absolute terror, your quaking knee. And your assertion that this is about history is absolute bunkum. Our government are still paying for terror by the back door NOW. They are still selling arms to the wrong countries NOW, still doing deals that they know will bolster terrorist regimes in the Middle East NOW! Not yesterday, or last year, or ten or twenty or thirty years ago, but RIGHT NOW! The fact that we created a considerable portion of the problems we are facing today, by the actions of governments of yesteryear, only COMPOUNDS the necessity to make a proper fist of mitigating for the situation, because it is not a situation that we stopped causing at some notional stage, but one we are STILL causing, and until we stop that, we are STILL responsible for the drivers that cause the flood of migrants from the Middle East and North Africa.

As for PMing you, I will tell you what. If you have something to say to me, you can say it here, where everyone can see what you asked, and what I answered.

Yes, grow up. Your continued over emotional reaction is child like.

I get it, you are one of those anti-govt keyboard activists...and anyone who disagrees with your faux Che Guevara mentality must be hiding under govt skirts. Riiight.

I didn't think your calls for me to get off 'your' island was worthy of discussion here, so will leave you to your militant fantasies.

My point remains - we can far better help refugees in their own lands and yours or anyone else's 'sense' of humanity is not worth subjecting this country to an increased risk of terrorism.

originally posted by: Krazysh0t

originally posted by: UKTruth
I'd suggest safe zones with enough food and water is a damn site more humane than crumbling dangerous cities and towns with a lack of food and clean water...and also much easier to leave and return home when the time is right and rebuilding is complete.

Spoken like someone who hasn't stepped into a city in years.

There is no unfettered entry into the US and even when the country was being built into what it is today by immigrants, they were not allowed in under certain situations. Today, America is very difficult to get into to live and work. Up until recently it required a VISA to even travel for a holiday from the UK.

Yeah I know. It is spitting in the face of where we came from.

I am not scapegoating anyone - I am saying there is a known risk of terrorism in any refugee community and it makes more sense to help refugees on their own land than bringing them here to satisfy a sense of humanity and decency.

Exactly. You scapegoating a vulnerable segment of people because there is a low risk of danger from them. Never mind that the odds are extremely low and that 99.99999999999% of those people aren't terrorists looking to kill others. You want to dehumanize them anyways by appealing to some vague threat of a "risk".

No. I would like our govt to help them, in their own lands or as close to their home as possible.
The people dehumanising are the ones treating refugees like cattle they move around the political field. Help them where they are.

originally posted by: UKTruth

originally posted by: Krazysh0t

originally posted by: UKTruth
I'd suggest safe zones with enough food and water is a damn site more humane than crumbling dangerous cities and towns with a lack of food and clean water...and also much easier to leave and return home when the time is right and rebuilding is complete.

Spoken like someone who hasn't stepped into a city in years.

There is no unfettered entry into the US and even when the country was being built into what it is today by immigrants, they were not allowed in under certain situations. Today, America is very difficult to get into to live and work. Up until recently it required a VISA to even travel for a holiday from the UK.

Yeah I know. It is spitting in the face of where we came from.

I am not scapegoating anyone - I am saying there is a known risk of terrorism in any refugee community and it makes more sense to help refugees on their own land than bringing them here to satisfy a sense of humanity and decency.

Exactly. You scapegoating a vulnerable segment of people because there is a low risk of danger from them. Never mind that the odds are extremely low and that 99.99999999999% of those people aren't terrorists looking to kill others. You want to dehumanize them anyways by appealing to some vague threat of a "risk".

No. I would like our govt to help them, in their own lands or as close to their home as possible.
The people dehumanising are the ones treating refugees like cattle they move around the political field. Help them where they are.

It's funny how you don't realize you are doing exactly that with your suggestion right now. "We don't want them! They are scary. Send them to another country and have them deal with them!"

How many lone nuts does it take to fulfill an agenda?

If he even exist in reality outside of
made-for-public-opinion media,
I'm positive he was neither a nut or alone.


Unfortunately too many fail to discern
this act of terror, and the narrative it will ensue
is directed to bring negative pressure upon Syria.

sigh

originally posted by: Krazysh0t

originally posted by: UKTruth

originally posted by: Krazysh0t

originally posted by: UKTruth
I'd suggest safe zones with enough food and water is a damn site more humane than crumbling dangerous cities and towns with a lack of food and clean water...and also much easier to leave and return home when the time is right and rebuilding is complete.

Spoken like someone who hasn't stepped into a city in years.

There is no unfettered entry into the US and even when the country was being built into what it is today by immigrants, they were not allowed in under certain situations. Today, America is very difficult to get into to live and work. Up until recently it required a VISA to even travel for a holiday from the UK.

Yeah I know. It is spitting in the face of where we came from.

I am not scapegoating anyone - I am saying there is a known risk of terrorism in any refugee community and it makes more sense to help refugees on their own land than bringing them here to satisfy a sense of humanity and decency.

Exactly. You scapegoating a vulnerable segment of people because there is a low risk of danger from them. Never mind that the odds are extremely low and that 99.99999999999% of those people aren't terrorists looking to kill others. You want to dehumanize them anyways by appealing to some vague threat of a "risk".

No. I would like our govt to help them, in their own lands or as close to their home as possible.
The people dehumanising are the ones treating refugees like cattle they move around the political field. Help them where they are.

It's funny how you don't realize you are doing exactly that with your suggestion right now. "We don't want them! They are scary. Send them to another country and have them deal with them!"

That would appear to be your reaction to what i am saying.

What I am actually saying is that letting in refugees carries additional risk of terrorism to our country.
Helping refugees in their own lands is a better solution.
Therefore there seems zero logic to bringing in refugees to satisfy ones sense of humanity.

The reaction to the travel ban is no more than using these refugees to score political points, and thus that is where the dehumanising is occurring.

originally posted by: UKTruth
That would appear to be your reaction to what i am saying.

What I am actually saying is that letting in refugees carries additional risk of terrorism to our country.

I know what you are saying and I keep telling you that the increased risk is statistically irrelevant. You keep blatantly ignoring that point to pitch your fear and paranoia angle.

Helping refugees in their own lands is a better solution.
Therefore there seems zero logic to bringing in refugees to satisfy ones sense of humanity.

There is no reasoning to make the above sound logic. If you truly wish to help someone then the best way to do so is to do it yourself not count on others to do it for you.

The reaction to the travel ban is no more than using these refugees to score political points, and thus that is where the dehumanising is occurring.

The reaction and subsequent overturning of the travel bans is from Donald Trump's OWN words which he kept on his campaign website WELL after he assumed the office of the Presidency. That and the first ban literally stranding people in airports around the world.

Is interesting that the Pig that targeted the children in the concert was full of enough crap to enjoy the concert before killing all those children.

He will be roasted in hell like the pig he is, and so all those that were behind him his murderous agenda.

originally posted by: marg6043
Is interesting that the Pig that targeted the children in the concert was full of enough crap to enjoy the concert before killing all those children.

He will be roasted in hell like the pig he is, and so all those that were behind him his murderous agenda.

I don't believe in hell, but when it comes to filth like this, I cross my fingers and hope he is suffering for his actions.