If someone wanted to enter house, take belongings Should you be forced to let in?

originally posted by: crostkev
a reply to: Aliensun
I don't disagree with with what you are saying n but if you don't think Muslim leaders have no agenda is lacking study into this subject, don't you think?

Think beyond that. It is our duty to not allow any religion to command people or countries. (About the only real "freedom" that we will have left.) Political Correctness is running its course and will learn to restrain itself as the need arises. New social standards for all will emerge and not satisfy everybody/anybody completely.

The Middle East will descend into chaos shortly and will solve much of the Muslim problem within itself.

originally posted by: CharlieSpeirs
So you lied about the "majority" of refugees being cowards who are too scared to fight...

You think able bodied men without PTSD from war torn areas of the world outnumber, women children the aged the disabled and the traumatised...
But you don't just think it, you advocate it as fact without a single source.

Fair enough.

Lied? no they are too afraid to fight for their own land and country otherwise they would be there instead of trying to invade the EU. AND I SAID the MAJORITY were not POOR! I didnt mention them being Afraid to fight until now. Way to twist someones words kemosabe.

a reply to: yuppa

You do realise a lot of refugees do stop at the early stages...

But seeing as most have English as a second language the ideal thing to do is reach an English speaking nation.


Would you not bypass a country you couldn't communicate in for one you could, in a SHTF scenario?
Of course you would.

a reply to: yuppa

NOPE no reason at all. They should had kept their countries in check to begin with and they paid the price when they didnt.

Are you really kidding me?

Keep their countrie's in check? WE ARE THE ONES THAT DESTROYED THEM.

For our own interests. Entirely.

And you blame them!?

A set up?!

HAHA. You really think that ALL those people are some how in cahoots with each other, for some nefarious plan put in place by....who?

Really!?

That's amazing.



~Tenth

a reply to: yuppa

Yes there ar epoor ones with them but a majority of them are not poor they were just to scared to stand up for themselves

Nice way to deny your own rhetoric, comrade.

a reply to: tothetenthpower

by...who?

Us Muslims planned it in the Super Mosque under Castle Greyskull...

a reply to: yuppa

Lovely... you know what makes me laugh about that attitude? It proves to me that I am on the right track, because the more folk coming here from elsewhere, the smaller the percentage of cold hearted nationalists per capita, and that pleases me no matter who turns up, or where they arrive from.

Thanks for providing an example which illustrates my original points so well !!

originally posted by: CharlieSpeirs
But seeing as most have English as a second language the ideal thing to do is reach an English speaking nation.

Yep, and that is the reason why the UK is continuing to defend it's border.
As I've said before many times, if we have an international agreement that people can choose to claim asylum at their preferred safe nation (when they have already reached a safe nation) then I'd be interested in the UK changing it's stance.
But, while Australia, Canada, New Zealand, and the US are not part of the 'English speaking nations group' accepting asylum seekers from safe nations I say no, because their only option is the UK.
Do the maths man, once folk know that all they need is to get into the EU for a free ticket to the UK, there truly will be an exodus.

a reply to: grainofsand

I don't begrudge refugees in the slightest.

Not only is it important morally, imo...


But being only a severe economic crash or ICBM button away from SHTF I'd like to know another Nation would do the same for us.

Migration is different and should only be the best of the best accepted.

a reply to: CharlieSpeirs

I don't begrudge refugees in the slightest either, that is a side track.
I'm saying that (as you stated, the majority second language is English) if the UK unilaterally agrees to take asylum seekers from safe nations while all other English speaking nations refuse, we would be swamped.

We have a housing crisis in the UK as it is, where would you house a million or more people?

It has to be an agreement between ALL English speaking nations, it is a world problem, but if all these English speaking people have a sole option of the UK we would face massive challenges.
Can you not see how logical my position is fella?

It is not about being uncaring, it's economics and resources. If the UK allows asylum seekers from safe nations on its own it would be madness because the majority speak English as a second language.

Such an act would exceed my meds and precipitate a PTSD incident.
NOT a great idea...

a reply to: grainofsand

I do see your point but I care more about people, women and children mainly, but people over resources which are not as scarce as is made out.

I don't honestly think or care about what other English speaking nations do...
That's their business.

& ultimately if our country did the same, there is nothing I can do about it...

But I know my opinion wouldn't change.

A Muslim majority in the UK then EU will be the first nail in the coffin to supreme Islamic religious leaders making Islamic law the norm in the area. There is scientific fact with regard to population growth in the UK, Islamic child birth outstrips all other demographics.

a reply to: CharlieSpeirs

But there are a potential 30 odd million people who presumably would wish to leave the ruined nations of Syria and Libya, say half of them made it and the majority speak English as a second language, what, 10 million people to be housed and fed in the UK? All because they of course prefer to settle in a new land where they understand the language.

Are you really saying that if word went out that the UK will take any English speaking asylum seekers from safe countries that there would not be a greater exodus than there already is?
No need for crossing the Med then, they could all use the land borders and every country in the way would happily assist them in the journey to their preferred nation, the UK.

I do care about what other countries do because there are many other English speaking nations they could choose from. Why should it be solely the UK just because they make it to a safe EU nation? We are not even part of the Schengen agreement or the Eurozone, so we have no more legal or moral obligation to take them than the US or Canada.

I love your righteous caring, blue sky thinking, but I ask again, where exactly will the UK house 2, 3, more million people who want to live here because they speak English?
The UK acting unilaterally would be absolute madness, and I think you know it in your heart, but it is nicer to think we can shelter all English speaking asylum speakers in the world.

Here's a thought, how about the oil rich Islamic countries taking folk? I don't see your Muslim brothers doing much to help...do you, and why not?

originally posted by: TrueBrit
a reply to: crostkev

I am not going to debate this, I am just going to explain how things are, and leave it at that..

then why say anything at all?
Mohamed is the number 1 name most used in the naming of children as of 2015

originally posted by: crostkev
A Muslim majority in the UK then EU will be the first nail in the coffin to supreme Islamic religious leaders making Islamic law the norm in the area. There is scientific fact with regard to population growth in the UK, Islamic child birth outstrips all other demographics.

How does that translate into Sharia law?!

Explain this to me. How they will go about, convincing the populace to change their charter of rights, or entire system of government.

Please provide their detailed plan of 'attack', along with supporting evidence.

You do realize that in the most populous of Muslim centers...like some Asian countries, do not practice any form of Islamic law? Where they already are the majority?

~Tenth

a reply to: grainofsand

They'd have to answer that, but a lot of them stop off in Turkey, Egypt etc.

I'd stop aiding people like Saudi Arabia before I rejected refugees.

It's not so much a blue sky thinking, it's just where my moral compass lays...

Like I said, if the UK refused there is nothing I could do except spout my disagreement, and that will likely be the case sooner or later.

a reply to: crostkev

2014 actually...

And when compared to every other English name chosen means absolutely nothing.


But you keep believing 5% of the population will be the majority in 10 years...
It's nothing but fearmongering.

originally posted by: CharlieSpeirs
a reply to: crostkev

2014 actually...

And when compared to every other English name chosen means absolutely nothing.

But you keep believing 5% of the population will be the majority in 10 years... It's nothing but fearmongering

.

child reproduction is what I'm trying to get you to understand and you refuse, why is that, you seem to know the facts so why the obfuscation?

a reply to: CharlieSpeirs

Difference between scare and limits. If you want to have a different talk on limits and how to address them, cool.

As it is there are resource limits. Money, food, medicine, etc. So until limits are addressed then it is a matter of attempting to address all existing issues, in addition to an influx of people requiring more resources and how to use resources in existing limits. You seem to confuse the reality of limits with scarcity and it's different.

Example: housing, you get x number of million people in an area you need more housing. Can it be built from what's there or do you need to bull doze a bunch of trees. You now need more water, more food, more whatever. To account for that. Current limits means something else must be cut to increase elsewhere.

If you do not address this then what you end up with resources spread too thin to be effective for anything and in no way prepared for emergencies. While heartless it's fact.