Are refugees inherently bad people?

I think he meant crab culture.

There's lots of crabs there right?

"2) They probably wouldn't risk being killed Many people have family to protect.
3) What do guns do against bombs from the sky?"

How is that not worth acknowledging? I understand that guerilla warfare can be incredibly effective but not everyone thinks as militantly as you do, nor would they necessarily want to leave their family behind to fight. That doesn't make them bad people.

But you completely ignoring my point against bombs? How is that not worth acknowledging?

No but UKIP voters are

Secondly who the **** tries to shoot a bomb?

Posted from TSR Mobile

It makes perfect sense. If I wake up one morning and there are soldiers storming the beach (I can see it from my house, in case you need a sense of how quickly it'd affect me. And no, I'm not up a hill), my first thought isn't going to be "grab the guns babe, it's going to be another one of those days. No, **** that, Imma scarper.

Call me a coward all you'd like, but I'd sooner be an alive coward than a dead statistic.

Why would you assume that someone with medical qualifications and experience would end up serving falafel?

So I'll ask you again: would you have any qualms about killing another human being?

The obvious thing would be to run to the local command post and be redirected to a military unit. You're not making serious arguments.

Very few? 3.4 million is more than a few.

Guerilla warfare is a very strong tactic when done right.

Posted from TSR Mobile

Great, an army of Hooray Henries and potbellied farmers wielding break action shotguns loaded with birdshot. I wouldn't much fancy our chances.

You forget the bolt action rifles.

Ha so my post gets deleted while this disgusting thread continues

Nah I just decided not to go with it because putting 'bolt actions rifles' next to 'break action shotguns' made the sentence sound bad due to the repetition of the word 'action'.

Pretty sure when people refuge, it's in a situation where the army is against them as well.

If we're talking Syria as our current example, that's pretty much the case. You're not making serious arguments either way. This ain't a movie. You can't just "go to a military unit lol" and start fighting as though there was some clear cut good and bad side. In the case of Syria, the war was originally against the military in of itself, before escalating into a war agains one of the rebel groups as well. This isn't a nazi invasion scenario where you then pick up arms and fight the bad guys...you don't even know WHO you're fighting. Are you fighting Assad's brutal dictatorship?? Are you fighting ISIS's radicalism?? Where even is law and actual...you know...order. Welcome to not-Europe! :'

Your idea is far too utopian and childish. I can understand criticism of the cowardly nature of some of the refugees, or maybe the prospect of refugees bringing in problems, but to think they can just "fight" shows a clear lack of understanding of how any of this works.

You could have simply gone with "shotguns and bolt action rifles". Also they aren't break action shotguns, they are break barrel.

Are all british people racist scum?

If it is a man who flees, he should capable of fighting until his late 40s. Should countries accept people who are unwilling to fight even to defend their own community? Is letting people who many would considers cowards into the country a good policy? What kind of value will such people add to the host country? Do countries owe anything to people whom the countries of origin (and most honourable people) would regard as cowards and deserters?

Nah just you


Posted from TSR Mobile