Danno Posted 19 April 2015 Posted 19 April 2015 Which essentially gave the whole of North Africa a free ticket to Europe. This would increase the number of boats trying to get to Europe (with the belief that would be rescued and taken ashore if they got into trouble) and would increase the risk of serious casualties.So we should just let hundreds of children die at sea then because no one will help them after David Cameron has ****ed them over. I'm sure they'll happy to go back to their war torn country and ISIS will give them a big warm welcome, the friendly group that they are.
bovril Posted 19 April 2015 Posted 19 April 2015 Terrible tragedy but what do you propose? Rethinking foreign policy would be a start. Stop kissing Saudi's oily arse while they fund groups that destabilise the region and force people to flee. Make a serious, worldwide attempt to crack down on the people-trafficking scum. And yes, restart patrols. They cost peanuts compared to blowing the shit out of Tripoli. We don't have to settle the migrants in Europe, but at least stop them from drowning.
Strokes Posted 19 April 2015 Posted 19 April 2015 97% of your stats seem made up. You see I can invent 'facts' too. Bovril is 90% gravy, fact.
BlueSi13 Posted 19 April 2015 Posted 19 April 2015 So we should just let hundreds of children die at sea then because no one will help them after David Cameron has ****ed them over. I'm sure they'll happy to go back to their war torn country and ISIS will give them a big warm welcome, the friendly group that they are. So this is all David Cameron's fault? Interesting outlook on it all. But I understand your sentiments it really is a tragedy. But Europe tried the rescue missions but it only increased the carnage, and even if ISIS is defeated, the boats will not stop coming.
Danno Posted 19 April 2015 Posted 19 April 2015 Still waiting for more than anecdotal evidence on those "Sharia Zones", a word on how Islamic terrorism has a similar death toll in the UK to falling down stairs but people seem to want to be afraid of it and such paranoia is exactly what the extremists want and your views on those four areas of interest outside that purview as detailed above, mon ami. Any time you're ready. Alternatively if you want to just stick to issues supposedly solved by finger pointing at specific demographics that aren't your own, that's fine too. Just let us know which it will be. All of us are very interested. Love how he's conveniently missed out the groups of white paedophiles found by Operation Yewtree and the numerous conservative MPs too..
Webbo Posted 19 April 2015 Posted 19 April 2015 The fact you responded says it all. Your on a football website talking like you think your ed miliband. Pretty easy to out debate people on a football website to all feel smug about yourself as the average fan probably isn't that interested in it. Go somewhere else with your know it all shite. Id imagine the majority of you knock doors for the party of your choice. Total ******. This is General Chat on an election thread. As long as you're not offensive you can say what you like. don't like it, don't read it.
BlueSi13 Posted 19 April 2015 Posted 19 April 2015 Wait...are we seeing the usual self-hating hand-wringing but but but white people have been known to do it too when the topic of Pakistani grooming gangs comes up? Embarrassing. It's exactly that attitude that condemned the tens of thousands (estimated to now be in the hundreds of thousands) of predominately white working class girls to rape and torture. Absolute cowardice.
Buce Posted 19 April 2015 Posted 19 April 2015 The fact you responded says it all. Your on a football website talking like you think your ed miliband. Pretty easy to out debate people on a football website to all feel smug about yourself as the average fan probably isn't that interested in it. Go somewhere else with your know it all shite. Id imagine the majority of you knock doors for the party of your choice. Total ******. There are some pretty effective treatments for PMS now: why not see your GP - no point in suffering needlessly.
city187 Posted 19 April 2015 Posted 19 April 2015 There are some pretty effective treatments for PMS now: why not see your GP - no point in suffering needlessly. lol il get in contact now
L1HT Posted 19 April 2015 Posted 19 April 2015 I think it's reasonably clear there is a problem with Islamic extremism not only on the UK but all over the world. However people do like to enlarge the threat out of all proportion purely for their own purposes. In the UK (since you seem ever so keen on focussing specifically on there) there have been a grand total of around 50-60 deaths of UK non military nationals as a direct result of Islamic extremism in the last fifteen years (since this whole thing got more ingrained into the public consciousness), around 50 of them caused by a now-defunct terrorist organisation nearly ten years ago. I wonder what other violent causes of death have that kind of body count over that time period? Dog attacks, perhaps? Cattle trampling? Falling down stairs, maybe? And why, when compared to such incidents, are we so scared of this particular one, when all such fear and paranoia does is play into the hands of those instigating it? To answer this, and whoever compared terrorism to falling down the stairs: Governments spend BILLIONS world wide to prevent us being killed by terrorists. If they spent BILLIONS to prevent dog attacks, cattle trampling or falling down stairs then those deaths would be much less. Therefore if they didn't spend the BILLIONS foiling many terroist plots (see the news) more would die. So comparisons are stupid (like so much of this thread which is why I post)
Guest Posted 19 April 2015 Posted 19 April 2015 Nobody wants the illegal immigrants in their country. It's hypocritical to talk of saving those in boats trying to illegally enter Italy. A more honest approach would be to shoot the boats near the african coast - but of course that wouldn't be pc.
sphericalfox Posted 19 April 2015 Posted 19 April 2015 It's a shame there are no pubs in Leicester called The Ignorant.
MooseBreath Posted 19 April 2015 Posted 19 April 2015 to refer to them as 'paedophiles' is a misnomer, and is sensationalizing a serious issue. Paedophiles, by definition, are attracted to pre-pubescent children, not children beneath the age of legal consent (which is an arbitrary figure based on legal and cultural values: for example, in Germany, Italy, Austria and Portugal, the age of consent is 14). The victims of these gangs seem to range between 12-16. Most of the grooming gangs were raping girls as young as 12 as a minimum, at least one of the gangs had an 11-year-old victim. Most of the victims were 12/13. Some girls don't hit puberty until they're 14. Quite presumptuous to say they're not paedophiles, and I'm not really sure what you're trying to achieve by saying this, except perhaps, in what would be incredibly creepy, you're trying to make the gang rape of children appear slightly less serious?
Guest Bilo Posted 19 April 2015 Posted 19 April 2015 No facts in there, and certainly not on your claim that 90% of terrorism is Islamic. Time for some fun stats: https://www.europol.europa.eu/content/te-sat-2014-european-union-terrorism-situation-and-trend-report-2014- vast majority of terrorist attacks aren't religiously motivated http://www.globalresearch.ca/non-muslims-carried-out-more-than-90-of-all-terrorist-attacks-in-america/5333619- FBI stats on terrorist attacks on America show your terrorist is far more likely to be latino or far left, and islamic terrorism is barely more prevalent than communist terrorism. lol Look at what he's put in the comments on the World's Worst Political Blog ©! Nice to know I've made such an impression!
sphericalfox Posted 19 April 2015 Posted 19 April 2015 lol Look at what he's put in the comments on the World's Worst Political Blog ©! Nice to know I've made such an impression! stop clicking on it, you are just feeding the trolls ego with hits. He might even break his record 370k hits just from FT alone...
Guest Bilo Posted 19 April 2015 Posted 19 April 2015 Two points one is you are wrong, one is you are right: You are wrong in that you are suggesting Muslim communities should police themselves, you would probably be the first to claim sharia law was being implemented and that they should be policed by the UK police, on the same point in what way are "Muslim communities" aware of all the crimes that happen in their community, they don't all live in the same house it isn't one big family, it is groups of hundreds/thousands of people. If you went to church would you know what everyone in that church was up to? In your workplace? Social group? Family? The idea the community all know about the paedophile gangs is ridiculous, so how are they hiding them? You are right though to say if the trends point towards increased risk of paedophile grooming gangs in certain groups of people then they should be investigated and religious sensitivity be damned priority has to be protect vulnerable children. I would question your statistics as it does look like you are pulling figures out your ass to suit your agenda. It's the politics of a pub bore who knows nothing about the political world besides what he reads in The Sun and on the Daily Mail website. You can't expect evidence from someone like this.
Buce Posted 19 April 2015 Posted 19 April 2015 Most of the grooming gangs were raping girls as young as 12 as a minimum, at least one of the gangs had an 11-year-old victim. Most of the victims were 12/13. Some girls don't hit puberty until they're 14. Quite presumptuous to say they're not paedophiles, and I'm not really sure what you're trying to achieve by saying this, except perhaps, in what would be incredibly creepy, you're trying to make the gang rape of children appear slightly less serious? If you read the last paragraph of my post before yours, you will see that I catagorically state the opposite. They, of course, may well be paedophiles also, or at least indifferent to whether their victims are pre-pubescent, but the age-group of the victims doesn't suggest that they are. As usual, your only contribution to a discussion is to troll and misrepresent what has actually been said.
MooseBreath Posted 19 April 2015 Posted 19 April 2015 If you read the last paragraph of my post before yours, you will see that I catagorically state the opposite. They, of course, may well be paedophiles also, or at least indifferent to whether their victims are pre-pubescent, but the age-group of the victims doesn't suggest that they are. As usual, your only contribution to a discussion is to troll and misrepresent what has actually been said. to refer to them as 'paedophiles' is a misnomer, misnomer mɪsˈnəʊmə/ noun noun: misnomer; plural noun: misnomers a wrong or inaccurate name or designation. "‘King crab’ is a misnomer—these creatures are not crustaceans at all" a wrong or inaccurate use of a name or term. "to call this ‘neighbourhood policing’ would be a misnomer" Most of the grooming gangs were raping girls as young as 12 as a minimum, at least one of the gangs had an 11-year-old victim. It's not a misnomer.
Guest Bilo Posted 19 April 2015 Posted 19 April 2015 I'm not sure scoring cheap political points is the best way to deal with paedophilia, it's clearly not a left right thing and it would be far better if both sides of the political spectrum were United on how to fight it. Best post on the discussion. The suffering of children is absolutely not one to play cheap party politics with. You have to question the motives of anybody who's willing to do so.
MooseBreath Posted 19 April 2015 Posted 19 April 2015 Best post on the discussion. The suffering of children is absolutely not one to play cheap party politics with. You have to question the motives of anybody who's willing to do so. Probably motivated by not allowing dangerous left wing attitudes towards race issues facilitate the further gang rape of children I expect. I agree it has no place in party politics though, but there's definitely a clear left right divide at play.
Guest Bilo Posted 19 April 2015 Posted 19 April 2015 Probably motivated by not allowing dangerous left wing attitudes towards race issues facilitate the further gang rape of children I expect. I agree it has no place in party politics though, but there's definitely a clear left right divide at play. Obviously the safety of children has to take priority over the feelings of hyper-sensitive communities, though it's more usually well-intentioned but naive council staff that impede tackling abuse by minorities than the minorities themselves. This is more prevalent on the left I would argue and it is something that has to be challenged by all sides of the political divide, finger pointing will achieve absolutely nothing while paedophiles of all creeds go unchallenged. The labelling of Labour councils as paedophile friendly as one idiot has done on here is abhorrent though.
Rincewind Posted 19 April 2015 Posted 19 April 2015 I don't.I believe in being honest not manipulative..
Rincewind Posted 19 April 2015 Posted 19 April 2015 He's an intelligent, witty, polite person and you're a delusional ****. I bet he's won an award for that too.
Buce Posted 19 April 2015 Posted 19 April 2015 I bet he's won an award for that too. lol Easily the best put-down of the year..
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.