gitzy16v wrote: » Right... But its not a selective closing of borders to Muslims...its a total closure of borders to illegal migrants.
Cheerful Spring wrote: » So we are innocent? We did nothing to destroy Iraq, Libya, Syria Yemen? And we looking to start another war in Iran. Why do we allow Israel to concentration camp millions of people? We not innocent in all this. Western interference has caused lot of this. There is nobody today ( who is sane anyway) will say we Invaded Iraq for humanitarian reasons?
Richard Hillman wrote: » How do you see Europe in 20 years time?
murpho999 wrote: » I don't like the populist, "arrest all muslims", "stop all immigration", "string em up" mob mentality that is promoted by many posters on this thread and I have argued against it. Somebody earlier wanted all 1st and 2nd generation muslim immigrants interned earlier. Just think how ridiculous and impractical that is.
Senor Fancy Pants wrote: » I agree with closing borders to irregular migrants.
EagererBeaver wrote: » Complete deflection. Explain your assertion that we're heading for "total war". I'm not sure your even understand the concept.
Gravelly wrote: » Perhaps you should read back your posts to jog your memory. What comes across is that your primary, if not sole concern, is for the rights of the terrorists. If that's not what you are aiming for, perhaps make it clearer, because that's certainly how it's coming across to me and others.
gitzy16v wrote: » Islam has a goal and ISIS are trying to carry it out and ISIS themselves has said that Western Intervention is way down the list of reasons for any attacks....Main reason is to create a global caliphate and this would be done with or without Western invasion of the ME.
Senor Fancy Pants wrote: » Your comprehension skills seem to be lacking. "So we should open the borders to more muslims in case we make the ones already here angry enough to kill more of us?" The above was your rebuttal to that posters comment. Then I said it is not UNREASONABLE to SUGGEST that native Muslims would react negatively to such an event. That does NOT mean we keep borders open so they wont "kill us faster". You seem to want to be outraged instead of listening and putting forward a coherant argument. I am pro border restriction btw but any plan put in force must take account of any possible reactions.
ligerdub wrote: » I haven't seen the previous 73 pages on this thread but I'm going to assume there have been a lot of posts along the line of: - Irish people shouldn't be so quick to judge, we're not so squeaky clean in terms of our history. The IRA did such and such in [insert year] - Extremists come in all sides, we have seen only last week the dangers of white Christian terrorism. - We need to not focus on those who committed this atrocity, we need to focus on the victims. - They weren't Middle Eastern, they were born in [insert EU country] - Some sort of excuse regarding poverty. - Kick them all out. Won't get into a debate on this but we're beyond the pale at this stage. It's high time people recognise that sitting on our hands isn't working. There are terror cells out there that are hellbent on destruction, and they are targeting the vulnerable to do their bidding. I don't care what political persuasion or ethnic background (fairly clear some are a lot more dangerous than others) they are they need to be sorted out. I don't buy this Sadiq Khan line of "we need to accept this in a big city" attitude.
Gravelly wrote: » Maybe you invaded Iraq but I didn't. Neither did anyone in Sweden - what's the excuse there?
Cheerful Spring wrote: » Majority of Muslims deplore Isis. Imagine an Arab country invading France and wiping it out and moving onto the next country and killing people! This is what we have done over there. There is billions of Muslims and most of them are not fighting christens or killing them.
gitzy16v wrote: » Irregular?...never heard them described that way before? Any reason?just curious.
ligerdub wrote: » I don't buy this Sadiq Khan line of "we need to accept this in a big city" attitude.
Sadiq Khan has ordered a review of London's strategy for coping with multiple terror attacks Sadiq Khan has said he believes the threat of terror attacks are “part and parcel of living in a big city” and encouraged Londoners to be vigilant to combat dangers. The Mayor of London revealed he had a “sleepless night” after the recent bombing in New York, and said major cities around the world “have got to be prepared for these sorts of things” to happen when people least expect them. The Mayor of London revealed he had a “sleepless night” after the recent bombing in New York, and said major cities around the world “have got to be prepared for these sorts of things” to happen when people least expect them. “That means being vigilant, having a police force that is in touch with communities, it means the security services being ready, but it also means exchanging ideas and best practice”, Mr Khan told the Evening Standard shortly before a meeting with New York mayor Bill de Blasio.Mr Khan was elected as Mayor in May and quickly appointed former Met Police Authority chair Lord Harris to review London’s terrorist attack response, in particular how the capital would cope in the event of multiple attacks taking place simultaneously.“Nothing is more important to me than keeping Londoners safe,” Mr Khan said at the time. “I want to be reassured that every single agency and individual involved in protecting our city has the resources and expertise they need to respond in the event that London is attacked.”
murpho999 wrote: » Well maybe people should read posts properly as I know what I meant.
Gravelly wrote: » This royal "we" you keep using is puzzling. "We" who? Did the children lying dead in the streets of Barcelona invade an Arab country? Did the little girl killed in Sweden? Did anyone in Sweden? What about all the muslims being killed by other muslims in Arab countries - what arab country did they invade?
murpho999 wrote: You need to adjust your profile settings.
murpho999 wrote: Page 29 for me.
Gravelly wrote: » We all know what you meant, that's the problem.
Cheerful Spring wrote: » No they don't deserve to be attacked by scumbags who follow a cruel version of their religion, but lets be real here. There was no Isis, in Saddam time. We played a big part in this and allowing groups like this to grow and spread.
gitzy16v wrote: » So what?Whats your point man,spit it out? I told you ISIS said that what the west did doesnt really matter...Global caliphate is the goal not revenge. Dont know what your going on about the majority of Muslims for...I mentioned Islam(the ideology) and ISIS(the terror group) not Muslims(who come in all different flavours of Islam)
Gravelly wrote: » There's that "we" again. If you mean the hard left, yes I'd agree, but please don't include me in that.
