French police watch on as migrants cross Channel

a reply to: Freeborn

Twas me or them so im going to save my bacon before theirs. its not about being a big person.

originally posted by: alldaylong

originally posted by: yuppa

originally posted by: alldaylong

originally posted by: yuppa

originally posted by: alldaylong

originally posted by: yuppa

originally posted by: alldaylong
a reply to: yuppa

Shooting invaders.

If indigenous peoples had taken that approach, many countries around the world would never have come into existence,your own included.

The Indians tried that and look where it got them.

You just made my point, shooting invanders don't work.

THE INDIANS DIDNT HAVE ANY GUNS SO THEY COULDNT STOP PEOPLE WHO DID...smh (caps for slow talking emphasis)

When an arrow is fired it's called " shooting an arrow " Did you not know that ?

A shot doesn't have to be from a firearm. Ever heard of a " sling shot " ?

This lessaon comes free of charge.

Little thing called RANGE there chief.

Are you trying to say that the invaders where never killed by an Indian arrow ?

You are streching it now.

I never said that. Where did i say that at? The reason most indians were beaten was the range difference. of course a few people would be hit by arrows but for the most part it was one sided.

originally posted by: bastion
a reply to: yuppa

Jesus was all about having empathy, caring foryour fellow man and looking after the most vulnerable - at the feeding of the 5000 he didn't pull out a machine gun, kill them all then keep the loaves and fishes for himself.

Murdering people is a strange definition of 'caring' and guns aren't much use against chemical weapons, missiles and fighter jets especiallly when they run out of bullets. A lot of the refugees are fleeing warzones and failed states the west created or fleeing persecution and genocide by regimes the west arms and sells spying tech to. You can't distinguish between refugee and economic migrant with a rifle scope.

It's a complex problem that needs addressing but granting the right to murder people without trial is even stupider than Pritti Patel's ideas.

Wow lets go tell this to the taliban who fought 20 yrs guerilla war and finally won. A civil war in this country would not be fought like a regular war. why? because in this war there will be no front lines or battalions to drop bombs on. Destroy their own infrastructure to hit their enemies too? HEat cams can be spoofed by thermal blankets as well,there goes the heat seeking missiles being used.

Those soldiers,cops also have families,so they have 2 choices. put them in danger by siding with the wrong people or not. Easy to say they will but when it comes down to it they will not.

I do have care for other humans,but i am also wary of them because more often than not they are up to no good. I also want others to respect the law,like I do.

I do unto others as i would have done to me. you might not believe it but if i was invading I would want to be treated the same. I love my fellow man as well,but i dislike the sins they commit and expect them to act the same. You do not have to hate someone to shoot them. how hard is that to grasp?

originally posted by: andy06shake
a reply to: yuppa

More like disbelief at the nonsense you are coming away with.

How are people arriving on an English beach putting your life in danger, or ours for that matter?

You have always been a bit "this is my rife this is my gun" praying for revolution type fellow.

But now you are suggesting shooting human beings, men, woman, and children simply because they turned up without permission in the wrong postcode at the wrong time.

As to shooting people before, i hope it was not for the likes of mere trespass?

Might wanna screw the nut mate and keep in mind "don't hate the players, hate the game".

I have always been a play to win at any means legally allowed player. Empathy can get you killed. They are criminals who break the law by not following the rules. We can turn them around and immediatly deport them to their original countries instead. Majority of those claiming Asylum are holders of it in the next country already,and as such have no right to claim it. Unless the system changes we have to use harsher options.

a reply to: yuppa

So you are stating categorically that if it were legal to do so, you would have no issue in doing so

perhaps just say that then

Its the law stopping you not your own morale compass of what is right and wrong, gotcha

a reply to: yuppa

Lack of empathy is a big red flag where sociopathic and psychopathic behaviour is concerned.

And you are alluding to it being somehow ok to shoot innocent people who happen to be in the wrong place at the wrong time because you think they are criminals.

"Danger Danger Will Robinson"

Your simple not going to convince me yuppa, but you have yourself a peaceful evening.

originally posted by: andy06shake
a reply to: yuppa

Lack of empathy is a big red flag where sociopathic and psychopathic behaviour is concerned.

And you are alluding to it being somehow ok to shoot innocent people who happen to be in the wrong place at the wrong time because you think they are criminals.

"Danger Danger Will Robinson"

Your simple not going to convince me yuppa, but you have yourself a peaceful evening.

how do we know they are innocent?

originally posted by: UpThenDown
a reply to: yuppa

So you are stating categorically that if it were legal to do so, you would have no issue in doing so

perhaps just say that then

Its the law stopping you not your own morale compass of what is right and wrong, gotcha

the law dictates my moral compass as far as society. what part of making a point by being outragous do you and the rest miss? its called selective reading/bias and everyone of you who have read my post are constantly missing it do to confirmation bias.

a reply to: yuppa

People generally are presumed to be innocent until proven guilty.

a reply to: andy06shake

Yes. Over here it is innocent until proven guilty.

Not the other way round. Thankfully.

why do they all want to get to blighty? almost without exception they're headed for the uk.

originally posted by: andy06shake
a reply to: yuppa

People generally are presumed to be innocent until proven guilty.

Oh no... they are refugees,from something. majority are criminals in their home countries most likely. In the US system they are innocent till proven guilty,but in other countries...not so much.

a reply to: yuppa

Thing there is yuppa the USA is not the only nation to enjoy a semblance of freedom or democracy.

Nor in she the only place where people are judged to be innocent until proven guilty.

Now some of these nations that refugees are fleeing from might not exactly share nor hold with the same system of law.

The Universal Declaration of Human Rights, article 11, states: "Everyone charged with a penal offence has the right to be presumed innocent until proven guilty according to law in a public trial at which he has had all the guarantees necessary for his defence."

www.un.org...

originally posted by: yuppa

originally posted by: andy06shake
a reply to: yuppa

People generally are presumed to be innocent until proven guilty.

Oh no... they are refugees,from something. majority are criminals in their home countries most likely. In the US system they are innocent till proven guilty,but in other countries...not so much.

Not in the UK though.

a reply to: andy06shake

did the US sign onto that declaration and then ratify it in the US law?

Since we are not subject to the ICC courts kind of hard to enforce that one.

a reply to: yuppa

The USA has fallen behind in protecting universal human rights recognized by the UDHR.

But this thread is about migrants crossing the English Channel nothing to do with America or its laws.

originally posted by: andy06shake
a reply to: yuppa

The USA has fallen behind in protecting universal human rights recognized by the UDHR.

But this thread is about migrants crossing the English Channel nothing to do with America or its laws.

Well they should be deported or turned around if yall do not want them. let nature sort them out.

a reply to: yuppa

That's the plan i imagine once they establish nobody has hypothermia or crush injuries from the trip and if they don't meet the criteria to seek asylum.

But the process takes a modicum of time.

As has been explained to you now numerous times.

They cant simply just be turned around and marched back into the English Channel.

As to nature sorting them out, what happened to your God?

Or is it just his name you invoke when you wish to shoot people and commit atrocity and murder?

a reply to: andy06shake

They cant simply just be turned around and marched back into the English Channel.

March them all the way to Scotland.
Lol.

a reply to: Itisnowagain

If some of them do attain asylum or are allowed to remain that will indeed be an option.

Scotland welcomes refugees Itisnowagain.

We have a long history of welcoming refugees and asylum seekers and we recognise its a human right to be able to seek asylum in another country.

Its not like we don't have the space.

Now where council houses or affordable accommodation are concerned, we are in the same to similar boat as our English cousins, meaning we appear to be up crap creek without a paddle.

So anybody that does remain are going to be in the same to similar position as the other 320,000 poor homeless sods in temporary accommodation or the streets where it certainly wont be all sunshine and rainbows.

Where is it you hail from again?

You might be getting some new next door neighbours yourself.