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

a reply to: SprocketUK

I have my own views of hell as I believe we live the world we create even in death.

originally posted by: Krazysh0t

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.

You call it a statistically irrelevant risk, but we know terrorists have hidden in the refugee flows and helped murder hundreds. I do not think of those lives lost in statistical terms.

We don;t have to let others do it for us. We could send resources.. people, shelter, food, water and manage the whole thing with the Red cross for example. Whatever we are spending now on humanitarian aid.. multiply it by 10. I would rather we pay an extra 1% in tax to fund this than risk 1 life.

I will leave the argument about the political motivations on the travel ban - suffice to say I will never agree that it was anything but a political move with no real thought to refugees.

originally posted by: UKTruth
You call it a statistically irrelevant risk, but we know terrorists have hidden in the refugee flows and helped murder hundreds. I do not think of those lives lost in statistical terms.

No. You know of A terrorist. Singular. Not plural. Everything else is PURELY your suspicions and fears.

We don;t have to let others do it for us. We could send resources.. people, shelter, food, water and manage the whole thing with the Red cross for example. Whatever we are spending now on humanitarian aid.. multiply it by 10. I would rather we pay an extra 1% in tax to fund this than risk 1 life.

Or we could just accept them here and do all that stuff here where it is much easier to mobilize the resources to help them.

I will leave the argument about the political motivations on the travel ban - suffice to say I will never agree that it was anything but a political move with no real thought to refugees.

I'm beginning to doubt that Trump is truly fully intolerant myself. I think he's more so just ignorant of how things work and how wide reaching consequences for decisions and words you make can be. Though there may still be a kernel of intolerance there too. He has been traditionally intolerant to poor people when he was merely a citizen of New York City.

originally posted by: Krazysh0t

originally posted by: UKTruth
You call it a statistically irrelevant risk, but we know terrorists have hidden in the refugee flows and helped murder hundreds. I do not think of those lives lost in statistical terms.

No. You know of A terrorist. Singular. Not plural. Everything else is PURELY your suspicions and fears.

We don;t have to let others do it for us. We could send resources.. people, shelter, food, water and manage the whole thing with the Red cross for example. Whatever we are spending now on humanitarian aid.. multiply it by 10. I would rather we pay an extra 1% in tax to fund this than risk 1 life.

Or we could just accept them here and do all that stuff here where it is much easier to mobilize the resources to help them.

I will leave the argument about the political motivations on the travel ban - suffice to say I will never agree that it was anything but a political move with no real thought to refugees.

I'm beginning to doubt that Trump is truly fully intolerant myself. I think he's more so just ignorant of how things work and how wide reaching consequences for decisions and words you make can be. Though there may still be a kernel of intolerance there too. He has been traditionally intolerant to poor people when he was merely a citizen of New York City.

Yes a terrorist we KNOW of and over a hundred dead. Like I said, I just don't think of lives taken by terrorism in statistical terms.

No it is not easier to mobilise the resources to help them. Getting aid and resources to the middle east is far easier than transporting hundreds of thousands or even millions of people from those lands and settling them in new homes all across Europe.

I won;t pretend to know what is in Trump's mind. I will leave that to the media. I did SEE a complete over reaction by political opponents though in the midst of a very divided political landscape. It demonstrates to me that those people so against the travel ban were using refugees for political purposes.

originally posted by: UKTruth
Yes a terrorist we KNOW of and over a hundred dead. Like I said, I just don't think of lives taken by terrorism in statistical terms.

Statistical anomalies are DEFINITELY something to look at. You have no proof to support your claims so you dismiss inconvenient data instead.

A: I hope it's been pointed out by now that this guy was a born UK citizen, not an immigrant.

B: I blame white people, for letting white kids live in America, who may shoot up a school or movie theater.

Bad people are bad people. Period.

originally posted by: Krazysh0t

originally posted by: UKTruth
Yes a terrorist we KNOW of and over a hundred dead. Like I said, I just don't think of lives taken by terrorism in statistical terms.

Statistical anomalies are DEFINITELY something to look at. You have no proof to support your claims so you dismiss inconvenient data instead.

I was going to post the scene inside the Bataclan, blood soaked floor and strewn dead bodies to counter your 'inconvenient data' and 'statistical anomaly' language, but your dehumanisation of victims to mere statistics is enough to make my point.

a reply to: UKTruth

Good. I don't care about your sick and depraved appeal to emotion fallacy. You would just be politicizing those people's deaths to pitch a point that doesn't hold up to research and analysis.

originally posted by: Krazysh0t
a reply to: UKTruth

Good. I don't care about your sick and depraved appeal to emotion fallacy. You would just be politicizing those people's deaths to pitch a point that doesn't hold up to research and analysis.

I'll leave you to your statistics. Numbers are so much easier to deal with than dead bodies, murdered at the hands of a terrorist posing as a refugee.

originally posted by: LordAhriman
A: I hope it's been pointed out by now that this guy was a born UK citizen, not an immigrant.

B: I blame white people, for letting white kids live in America, who may shoot up a school or movie theater.

Bad people are bad people. Period.

No. This point doesn't matter to them. That is why I'm debating refugees with someone right now. Furthermore. This idiotic thread exists in the first place because they don't care about that distinction.

originally posted by: Krazysh0t

originally posted by: LordAhriman
A: I hope it's been pointed out by now that this guy was a born UK citizen, not an immigrant.

B: I blame white people, for letting white kids live in America, who may shoot up a school or movie theater.

Bad people are bad people. Period.

No. This point doesn't matter to them. That is why I'm debating refugees with someone right now. Furthermore. This idiotic thread exists in the first place because they don't care about that distinction.

The point doesn't matter to anyone actually focused on the issue. If the proposal was to import a bunch of white kids who shoot schools and movie theatre's then my position would be the same.. don't let them in... even if only a small percentage of those kids would commit these crimes. This is about putting people in more danger for no reason other than to satisfy a "sense of humanity and decency", which can be achieved in much more than a 'sense' through other means.

originally posted by: UKTruth

originally posted by: Krazysh0t
a reply to: UKTruth

Good. I don't care about your sick and depraved appeal to emotion fallacy. You would just be politicizing those people's deaths to pitch a point that doesn't hold up to research and analysis.

I'll leave you to your statistics. Numbers are so much easier to deal with than dead bodies, murdered at the hands of a terrorist posing as a refugee.

Which didn't happen in Manchester.

originally posted by: UKTruth

originally posted by: Krazysh0t

originally posted by: LordAhriman
A: I hope it's been pointed out by now that this guy was a born UK citizen, not an immigrant.

B: I blame white people, for letting white kids live in America, who may shoot up a school or movie theater.

Bad people are bad people. Period.

No. This point doesn't matter to them. That is why I'm debating refugees with someone right now. Furthermore. This idiotic thread exists in the first place because they don't care about that distinction.

The point doesn't matter to anyone actually focused on the issue. If the proposal was to import a bunch of white kids who shoot schools and movie theatre's then my position would be the same.. don't let them in... even if only a small percentage of those kids would commit these crimes. This is about putting people in more danger for no reason other than to satisfy a "sense of humanity and decency", which can be achieved in much more than a 'sense' through other means.

Yeah I got it. You are an irrational hater. You don't have to keep trying to explain it in slightly different ways. There are only so many ways you can back up an argument without facts and evidence. So I've heard all this propaganda and rhetoric before though.

originally posted by: Krazysh0t

originally posted by: UKTruth

originally posted by: Krazysh0t
a reply to: UKTruth

Good. I don't care about your sick and depraved appeal to emotion fallacy. You would just be politicizing those people's deaths to pitch a point that doesn't hold up to research and analysis.

I'll leave you to your statistics. Numbers are so much easier to deal with than dead bodies, murdered at the hands of a terrorist posing as a refugee.

Which didn't happen in Manchester.

So? This thread is not about Manchester.
The fact is that a terrorist posed as a refugee and helped slaughter over 100 people. That's just the one we now about - we also have no idea how many support or aid other terrorist attacks.
I don't view those 100+ dead people as an anomaly, like you do.

a reply to: UKTruth

You can think of me what you like, but if you continue to treat me like a fool, then that is your look out.

Look at the weakness in your argument.

We can far better help refugees in their own lands...

False. There is no where safe in the lands where the refugees are piling in from. The areas we are talking about here have cities which are utterly in ruins, where water no longer runs through the pipes, where temperatures during the day, without shelter, are enough to cause death by heatstroke, where nighttime lows can kill the injured, the sick, the weak, the old, the young, and anyone who is compromised by... oh, I don't know, a lack of food? Yes, supply lines are a mess too, meaning food aid is not reaching the nations which need it, within their borders, because of how dangerous it is for ANYONE to be in the region.

Help people in their lands say you. Simply stand by and watch their ramshackle tents and shanty towns blown apart by ISIS shells, or Russian or Syrian missiles, is what you mean when you say that. Or even better, lets put more military resources on the ground in land we have already destroyed badly enough as it is through the back door! Even better, some lovely corporate money in the pockets of our government for that little bit of business! Wonderful!

As for your characterisation of me as a anti-government keyboard activist...I am only anti-government when the government prove to me that I cannot trust them to act in the best interests of the citizen, nor to act on the world stage in a manner which brings positive results either for those living outside our nation, or those who are citizens of it. I am DRASTICALLY anti-government, because this government and the previous five or six administrations have been utterly successful at stealing from our taxpayers, helping their friends avoid taxes by refusing to go after the REAL drains on our society, and spending our tax money unwisely on unjust, for profit, proxy warring. THIS MUST END.

Further more, it must end BEFORE we have any reasonable expectation of seeing an end to the proxy armies they started, or the terror they represent. I am not a militant, but I bloody well refuse to permit the absolute lies which support the state of things as they are, to go uncountered, and you are either deliberately propagating lies, or simply incapable of doing anything other than parroting the ones you have heard. I no longer care which it is. There is no time to consider what has left you in the forest of incompetence where discussion of these issues is concerned. The simple facts, accept them or not, are that things cannot change here, until they have been corrected elsewhere. This is simple cause and effect. If we want to be blase about the lives of the citizens of other nations, we must be prepared to be inconvenienced or worse, as a direct result. If we are not prepared to suffer the effects, we must prevent the cause, and the cause is not as simple as "Those people over there are "other" than us, therefore what we do to them is irrelevant".

a reply to: UKTruth
Really? Out of total terrorist deaths what percentage is 100 of that? It is less than 1%. That's what it is. Dead people die all the time to a myriad of reasons. Yes. It sucks, but being scared of a group of people because a FEW of them maybe bad eggs is irrational fear no matter how you slice it. This is why you still continue to fail to produce any evidence supporting your reasoning. Just emotion and partisan rhetoric.

originally posted by: Krazysh0t

originally posted by: UKTruth

originally posted by: Krazysh0t

originally posted by: LordAhriman
A: I hope it's been pointed out by now that this guy was a born UK citizen, not an immigrant.

B: I blame white people, for letting white kids live in America, who may shoot up a school or movie theater.

Bad people are bad people. Period.

No. This point doesn't matter to them. That is why I'm debating refugees with someone right now. Furthermore. This idiotic thread exists in the first place because they don't care about that distinction.

The point doesn't matter to anyone actually focused on the issue. If the proposal was to import a bunch of white kids who shoot schools and movie theatre's then my position would be the same.. don't let them in... even if only a small percentage of those kids would commit these crimes. This is about putting people in more danger for no reason other than to satisfy a "sense of humanity and decency", which can be achieved in much more than a 'sense' through other means.

Yeah I got it. You are an irrational hater. You don't have to keep trying to explain it in slightly different ways. There are only so many ways you can back up an argument without facts and evidence. So I've heard all this propaganda and rhetoric before though.

Your reply is actually irrational.
An argument about white American kids shooting up a school has nothing to do with an argument about letting in terrorists disguised as refugees. We know that has happened and we know ISIS has threatened it. We also know that thousands of refugees have actually died trying to make the journey to Europe, but hey as long as you have your sense of humanity, why quibble about the actual reality of your argument.

originally posted by: Krazysh0t
a reply to: UKTruth
Really? Out of total terrorist deaths what percentage is 100 of that? It is less than 1%. That's what it is. Dead people die all the time to a myriad of reasons. Yes. It sucks, but being scared of a group of people because a FEW of them maybe bad eggs is irrational fear no matter how you slice it. This is why you still continue to fail to produce any evidence supporting your reasoning. Just emotion and partisan rhetoric.

Which takes us back to your statistics and your willingness to roll the dice on behalf of others to feed your sense of humanity, even if rolling the particular dice you have in your hands is not the best solution to the problem.

a reply to: UKTruth

There is nothing irrational about statistical analysis. It is a proven science. Also, I never brought up white kids shooting a school. And ISIS can threaten all day that doesn't mean they can carry through on those threats.

a reply to: UKTruth

I haven't seen you offer a better solution.