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

originally posted by: TrueBrit
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".

Your picture of what is going on is false.
ISIS are in retreat. Their shells simply can not reach large swathes of land that are now safe from them.
Many countries in the ME are already in safe areas and are taking hundreds of thoudands of refugees and have the capacity to take many more, if we pay our share.
There are very few refugees that are fleeing form the actual areas that ISIS currently control.

The challenge is primarily one of humanitarian aid.

You are right that there is problem getting that aid to the places it needs to be, but the solution is not to bring everyone to Europe. The solution is stop Assad blocking aid routes - yes it is him who is the primary blocker to stopping aid. The idea that we can not solve this through aid is the kind of defeatism you moaned about. We need more investment and the military resources to ensure the safe passage of supplies. That is a far better solution than upping an entire population and sending them on a hazardous trek to Europe in which thousands are dying.

Your off piste reaction is not helpful. I want refugees to be taken care of, but I vehemently disagree that bringing them all here is a better solution to helping them in their own lands (which means all of the appropriate ME countries surrounding Syria), quite apart from the stated and demonstrated threat of terrorism. You realise that some of these countries have taken precisely zero refugees right? Right on their doorstep. Have you even stopped to consider what the refugees want? Whether they want to travel thousands of miles to an unfamiliar place or whether they would prefer to be safe and fed where they are?

At the conference, Tillerson said the coalition will seek to establish “interim zones of stability” in Iraq and Syria and allow refugees to return home safely. Rather than the “safe zones” protected by U.S. air cover that the Syrian opposition and some allies have long demanded for civilians besieged by Syrian and Russian bombing in the separate civil war against Assad, Tillerson’s “interim zones of stability” refer to areas cleared of Islamic State fighters by the coalition and Turkey. The Turkish military, with some assistance from rebels, the United States and Russia, has pushed the Islamic State from a zone of several thousand square miles inside Syria along the Turkish border. Turkey has declared this a “safe zone,” and indicated that it may begin sending Syrian refugees back inside. Other areas in Syria, participating in a partly successful cease-fire between Assad and the rebels, orchestrated by Russia, Turkey and Iran, are now also considered “safe.” In areas being cleared of the Islamic State by the coalition in both Syria and Iraq, the United States plans to install interim local governance during an upcoming “stability phase.”

Your anti-government extremism has clouded your judgement. Whilst I am not one to trust our govt. I am not going to let that work me into a frenzy in opposition to anything they do. I am thankful, in this instance, they do not think like you.

originally posted by: Krazysh0t
a reply to: UKTruth

I haven't seen you offer a better solution.

Already done. I suggest you get behind your President, because he is on the right track.

a reply to: UKTruth

No you offered a solution that was nowhere near as good as a solution as bringing them here because you are irrationally scared of Muslims. Lol at the President remark. You are in the UK. I'm not listening to your opinion on American politics. Nothing you say is based on any knowledge of the situation on the ground here and is all based from media outlets you consume.

originally posted by: Stevemagegod

originally posted by: Swills
a reply to: Stevemagegod

Oh FFS....

Does your partisan BS ever end?

Jesus...

Obama wanted 30% more voters I mean refugees to come to America from Syria. Thank God Hillary didnt win because she would increase it to 60% and thats a 60% Chance greater threat for a Major Terror Attack like we saw tonight happen in the UK.

Didn't Hillary want like over five fold more refugee intake, and in the event of a bigger crysis open border like loose gates allowing millions in?

originally posted by: muzzleflash
a reply to: TruMcCarthy

Islam might be a "danger" to the west...

But the west actually invades and destroyed their nations.
We utterly obliterated them.

We are so much more dangerous, especially since anytime we kill them we are morally justified.
Anytime they get mad it isn't because we are hypocrites it's definitely just because of their religion.

The west should be more careful, but it should definitely invade. Those nations, many within them are for the murder of innocents, even enshrined in the law of many of their lands, the murders of those who leave the cult or critique it which is considered blasphemy. No different than a dictatorship, only the dictator is a book that cannot be questioned or killed nor will die of aging.

Has anyone mentioned that the Manchester bomber grew up in, and lived in, the UK?

originally posted by: Krazysh0t
a reply to: UKTruth

No you offered a solution that was nowhere near as good as a solution as bringing them here because you are irrationally scared of Muslims. Lol at the President remark. You are in the UK. I'm not listening to your opinion on American politics. Nothing you say is based on any knowledge of the situation on the ground here and is all based from media outlets you consume.

This is about more than American politics - it is about a coalition of countries adopting the correct approach as opposed to the lunacy of taking an entire population and transplanting them thousands of miles away, with a backdrop of almost no vetting and increased terrorist risk.

As for my opinion on American politics, you are welcome to ignore, though if you had listened to it, you may not have been so shocked on Nov 8th.

originally posted by: Kryties
Has anyone mentioned that the Manchester bomber grew up in, and lived in, the UK?

Go back about 100 pages.

originally posted by: UKTruth

originally posted by: Krazysh0t
a reply to: UKTruth

No you offered a solution that was nowhere near as good as a solution as bringing them here because you are irrationally scared of Muslims. Lol at the President remark. You are in the UK. I'm not listening to your opinion on American politics. Nothing you say is based on any knowledge of the situation on the ground here and is all based from media outlets you consume.

This is about more than American politics - it is about a coalition of countries adopting the correct approach as opposed to the lunacy of taking an entire population and transplanting them thousands of miles away, with a backdrop of almost no vetting and increased terrorist risk.

No. It's about you being irrationally scared of muslims and making up reasons why you don't have to be near them.

As for my opinion on American politics, you are welcome to ignore, though if you had listened to it, you may not have so shocked on Nov 8th.

Being wrong about the outcome of the election doesn't mean Trump is the right answer politically to our political problems. It just means he is a better con man than I originally assumed. Snake oil is still snake oil at the end of the day though.

originally posted by: Kryties
Has anyone mentioned that the Manchester bomber grew up in, and lived in, the UK?

And his parents were allowed to move here despite links with Al Queda....He was also allowed back in after travelling to Iraq and Syria to fight for IS....

originally posted by: SprocketUK

originally posted by: Kryties
Has anyone mentioned that the Manchester bomber grew up in, and lived in, the UK?

And his parents were allowed to move here despite links with Al Queda....He was also allowed back in after travelling to Iraq and Syria to fight for IS....

Yes, his parents were refugees and actually never settled well here, moving back to the ME.
The POS son who did this mixed with a known and convicted terrorist and just before his despicable actions, was in Iraq and Syria.

originally posted by: Krazysh0t

originally posted by: UKTruth

originally posted by: Krazysh0t
a reply to: UKTruth

No you offered a solution that was nowhere near as good as a solution as bringing them here because you are irrationally scared of Muslims. Lol at the President remark. You are in the UK. I'm not listening to your opinion on American politics. Nothing you say is based on any knowledge of the situation on the ground here and is all based from media outlets you consume.

This is about more than American politics - it is about a coalition of countries adopting the correct approach as opposed to the lunacy of taking an entire population and transplanting them thousands of miles away, with a backdrop of almost no vetting and increased terrorist risk.

No. It's about you being irrationally scared of muslims and making up reasons why you don't have to be near them.

As for my opinion on American politics, you are welcome to ignore, though if you had listened to it, you may not have so shocked on Nov 8th.

Being wrong about the outcome of the election doesn't mean Trump is the right answer politically to our political problems. It just means he is a better con man than I originally assumed. Snake oil is still snake oil at the end of the day though.

This has nothing to do with Muslims, and once again it seems people like you always are the ones to conflate radical islamic terrorism with muslims and then project that onto the people you are arguing with. It means you have no argument.

My position is simple. There is a risk of increased terrorism by bringing in refugees AND the actual solution of upending refugees and bringing them here is not the best one. That is why, quite rightly, work is being done to stabilise the country, set up safe areas and increase aid. Trump's administration is spot on with the approach they are taking. The chaos of the migrant flows has cost thousands of lives.

I know from your lingering angst over Trump where you are coming from. You don;t have any agenda other than an anti_trump one. It has consumed you and like I said it's you dehumanising refugees by using them for political posturing despite your 'humanitarian and decent' solution being the wrong one.

a reply to: UKTruth

My position is simple. There is a risk of increased terrorism by bringing in refugees AND the actual solution of upending refugees and bringing them here is not the best one. That is why, quite rightly, work is being done to stabilise the country, set up safe areas and increase aid. Trump's administration is spot on with the approach they are taking. The chaos of the migrant flows has cost thousands of lives.

Why is it so hard for you to understand that the increased risk is negligible? There is no logical reasoning to support what you are saying other than fear and intolerance. That's it.

I know from your lingering angst over Trump where you are coming from. You don;t have any agenda other than an anti_trump one. It has consumed you and like I said it's you dehumanising refugees by using them for political posturing despite your 'humanitarian and decent' solution being the wrong one.

Yeah and I know that you can't get off his nuts. He's your messiah and can never do any wrong. Ever. Any agenda that Trump supports is immediately the best agenda ever and is beyond all reproach.

See. I can be stupidly hyperbolic about you too. It doesn't prove any points though.

PS: You don't even know what de-humanizing means if you think I'm doing it.

originally posted by: Krazysh0t
a reply to: UKTruth

"Blah blah blah. I'm just saying random crap that sounds good because I can't prove my point." That's all I hear from you.

Is that an official chant from the death cult you belong to? I'm pretty sure their ultimate goal is to study and worship death, while they wait for their imaginary utopia to form.

originally posted by: Krazysh0t
a reply to: UKTruth

My position is simple. There is a risk of increased terrorism by bringing in refugees AND the actual solution of upending refugees and bringing them here is not the best one. That is why, quite rightly, work is being done to stabilise the country, set up safe areas and increase aid. Trump's administration is spot on with the approach they are taking. The chaos of the migrant flows has cost thousands of lives.

Why is it so hard for you to understand that the increased risk is negligible? There is no logical reasoning to support what you are saying other than fear and intolerance. That's it.

I know from your lingering angst over Trump where you are coming from. You don;t have any agenda other than an anti_trump one. It has consumed you and like I said it's you dehumanising refugees by using them for political posturing despite your 'humanitarian and decent' solution being the wrong one.

Yeah and I know that you can't get off his nuts. He's your messiah and can never do any wrong. Ever. Any agenda that Trump supports is immediately the best agenda ever and is beyond all reproach.

See. I can be stupidly hyperbolic about you too. It doesn't prove any points though.

PS: You don't even know what de-humanizing means if you think I'm doing it.

Increased risk is increased risk and not worth taking when there are better solutions...and who are you to say it is "negligible". A single extra dead innocent person due to terrorism is too much when their are better solutions to the issue at hand.

As for Trump, I can link specific things I have criticised him on, including his policies. In your world I 'can't get off his nuts' because I refuse to play along with the propaganda and nonsense and criticise every single thing he does. I wonder can you point to a single one of your posts that has given him credit for even the slightest thing??.. I doubt it.

originally posted by: UKTruth
Increased risk is increased risk and not worth taking when there are better solutions...and who are you to say it is "negligible". A single extra dead innocent person due to terrorism is too much when their are better solutions to the issue at hand.

So letting hundreds of refugees starve, suffer exposed to the elements, or any other number of awful conditions people experience in refugee camps is all outweighed by a single person's death in the UK? Your priorities are lopsided. Your "better" solutions don't work out that way in practice no matter how much you suggest them. It just comes back to you trying to pitch an alternative because you are scared of these people. Irrationally.

As for Trump, I can link specific things I have criticised him on, including his policies. In your world I 'can't get off his nuts' because I refuse to play along with the propaganda and nonsense and criticise every single thing he does. I wonder can you point to a single one of your posts that has given him credit for even the slightest thing??.. I doubt it.

I gave Trump credit for Neil Gorsuch. I never had a problem with his appointment and felt like all things considered it was the best options at hand. I also disagreed with Democrats wasting their one shot to filibuster a nomination on a relatively moderate choice. So clearly you don't know me at all. Which isn't surprising, you guys never guess my opinions correctly.

But hey, way to miss my point about being hyperbolic altogether. I find it funny that you felt compelled to rebut that piece of deliberate hyperbole being used to show how silly your own hyperbole about me was.

originally posted by: Krazysh0t

originally posted by: UKTruth
Increased risk is increased risk and not worth taking when there are better solutions...and who are you to say it is "negligible". A single extra dead innocent person due to terrorism is too much when their are better solutions to the issue at hand.

So letting hundreds of refugees starve, suffer exposed to the elements, or any other number of awful conditions people experience in refugee camps is all outweighed by a single person's death in the UK? Your priorities are lopsided. Your "better" solutions don't work out that way in practice no matter how much you suggest them. It just comes back to you trying to pitch an alternative because you are scared of these people. Irrationally.

As for Trump, I can link specific things I have criticised him on, including his policies. In your world I 'can't get off his nuts' because I refuse to play along with the propaganda and nonsense and criticise every single thing he does. I wonder can you point to a single one of your posts that has given him credit for even the slightest thing??.. I doubt it.

I gave Trump credit for Neil Gorsuch. I never had a problem with his appointment and felt like all things considered it was the best options at hand. I also disagreed with Democrats wasting their one shot to filibuster a nomination on a relatively moderate choice. So clearly you don't know me at all. Which isn't surprising, you guys never guess my opinions correctly.

But hey, way to miss my point about being hyperbolic altogether. I find it funny that you felt compelled to rebut that piece of deliberate hyperbole being used to show how silly your own hyperbole about me was.

Nope. You have no basis for saying the safe zones, aid and $billions of infrastructure spend being put forward leads to starvation, exposure to elements and awful conditions. I would suggest you go and actually research what is being proposed in detail and then you might understand why it is a far better solution that trying to migrate an entire population, which is sheer lunacy. The deaths from the migrant trail already runs into thousands that we know of, possibly over 10,000 by now, and also involves horrendous conditions on the journey.

I am coming to the conclusion you don't know anything about this subject, but are just willing to jump on the 'save the refugee' bandwagon regardless of what is actually going on.

a reply to: UKTruth

How about you prove your own point instead of telling me to prove it for you?

All i'm hearing from them is the same old, #notall policy we've tried and seen fail over and over. This is the cult of scientology/ hollywood marxism is in not? We tried it your way guys, keeps turning up dead kids. We're now gonna keep em' out, for now. Don't like it? Try a better answer than "in the future socialist utopia, all things will magically transform into a rainbow of happiness, you'll see" because that is all you offer ideology, not solutions.

originally posted by: Krazysh0t
a reply to: UKTruth

How about you prove your own point instead of telling me to prove it for you?

You want me to prove Tillerson's plan that he outlined over 2 months ago???
I would have thought given your comments so far you would be well aware of it.

Here is AP's summary:

PHASE ONE: DEFEAT THE ISLAMIC STATE GROUP
Despite carrying out airstrikes against Assad's forces, Trump's national security adviser, H.R. McMaster, said Sunday the U.S. wasn't planning to send in more ground troops. "Our priority remains the defeat of ISIS," Defense Secretary Jim Mattis said last week.

PHASE TWO: STABILIZATION After IS is defeated or its threat neutralized, the administration will try to broker regional cease-fires between Assad's government and rebels. Such truces have rarely held. The Trump administration has spoken about "interim zones of stability." These would be different than "safe zones" the Obama administration considered but never opted for because they would have required a U.S. military presence to enforce, potentially putting American aircraft in conflict with Syria's air force. Under Trump's plan, the Assad government would be party to the stability zones and U.S. or Arab aircraft could ostensibly patrol them without clashing with Syrian warplanes. Read also Syrian war closer than seems With security restored, the administration hopes local leaders who were forced to flee can return and lead local governments. They could help restore basic services and police Syria. The basic idea would be Sunni forces policing predominantly Sunni areas, Kurdish forces policing Kurdish areas and so on. At the national level, the aim is to set up a transitional authority to govern Syria temporarily. U.N.-sponsored peace talks have striven and failed for years to establish such an authority.

PHASE THREE: TRANSITION The emerging plan envisions a peaceful transfer of power. Assad's departure could occur in various ways. One possibility foresees elections held under a new constitution, with Assad barred from running. A grimmer possibility involves Assad going the way of former dictators Moammar Gadhafi in Libya or Saddam Hussein in Iraq, who were killed after being deposed. A third option aims to use the threat of war crimes charges as leverage. While the administration believes Syria's government is culpable, the key is connecting the war crimes to Assad himself. Secretary of State Rex Tillerson told President Vladimir Putin and Russia's foreign minister last week in Moscow that such an offer and Assad's voluntary departure is the administration's preferred path, officials said. "The longer time goes by, it's possible that the case will be made," Tillerson said during a news conference. "And there are certain individuals who are working to make that case."

POST-TRANSITION Despite differences, Trump officials insist Russia's involvement is critical to resolving the war, given the influence it gained in Syria after helping Assad retake Syria's largest cities. It seeks Russian support by guaranteeing Russian access to the Tartus naval base and Latakia air base in any post-Assad scenario. Yet it's unclear how the U.S. could make such an assurance given the uncertainty of who would be running Syria at that point. Tillerson conveyed the outlines of this plan to Putin and Russian officials in Moscow, officials said, while requesting Russia to clarify its essential interests. He didn't seek an immediate response, telling Russia to think it through. It's unclear when Russia will respond, the officials said.

******************************************************


Your plan : Move the population of Syria to Europe and America and if you disagree you hate Muslims.

originally posted by: Krazysh0t

originally posted by: UKTruth
Increased risk is increased risk and not worth taking when there are better solutions...and who are you to say it is "negligible". A single extra dead innocent person due to terrorism is too much when their are better solutions to the issue at hand.

So letting hundreds of refugees starve, suffer exposed to the elements, or any other number of awful conditions people experience in refugee camps is all outweighed by a single person's death in the UK?

As for Trump, I can link specific things I have criticised him on, including his policies. In your world I 'can't get off his nuts' because I refuse to play along with the propaganda and nonsense and criticise every single thing he does. I wonder can you point to a single one of your posts that has given him credit for even the slightest thing??.. I doubt it.

Which child, then mate? You prepared to pull the trigger and kill that kid yourself to save these mythical hundred refugees?

Happy to strangle your own firstborn to make room for them? Because if you aren't you have no bloody right to expect someone else to agree to the sacrifice of their own child for a stranger.