Turn on thread page Beta

Syrian refugees on Scottish island complain it is not exciting enough watch

    • TSR Group Staff
    Offline

    19
    ReputationRep:
    TSR Group Staff
    (Original post by generallee)
    I am saying we should take no more Muslim refugees beyond those already here.

    None. Not one more.

    And that we should fulfil our refugee commitment by taking in Christians who are being persecuted in the Middle East.

    On compassionate grounds and because they are much more likely to be grateful. But also for selfish reasons, because even if they find the adjustment hard, they will eventually integrate. Certainly they won't behead our citizens or rape them. Or place bombs in music festivals.

    Pretty nifty, huh? What's not to like?

    And let me tell you, my views are far closer to those of the great British public than yours.
    Yeah, good luck with that. I'm sure the UN won't have anything to say about such blatant discrimination, and it definitely won't end up as a complete diplomatic meltdown.
    Offline

    14
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Dez)
    Yeah, good luck with that. I'm sure the UN won't have anything to say about such blatant discrimination, and it definitely won't end up as a complete diplomatic meltdown.
    There wouldn't be a complete diplomatic meltdown. And who cares what the UN, run by a bunch of corrupt dictators, thinks? We don't have to take any refugees from the Middle East. We are doing all of this out of the goodness of our hearts.

    What I find instructive is how you think it is "blatant discrimination" to rescue Christians who are being persecuted. Don't you care about them? Why not?

    Do you have any idea what is happening to Christians in the Middle East? What so shocked us in Normandy is sadly a familiar event in Iraq and Syria.

    I'll give you a quote, reported in today's Times, from the the Chaldean Archbishop of Baghdad, Louis Sako:

    "We feel forgotten and isolated. We sometimes wonder, if they kill us all, what would be the reaction of Christians in the West? Would they do something then?"
    • TSR Group Staff
    Offline

    19
    ReputationRep:
    TSR Group Staff
    (Original post by generallee)
    There wouldn't be a complete diplomatic meltdown. And who cares what the UN, run by a bunch of corrupt dictators, thinks? We don't have to take any refugees from the Middle East. We are doing all of this out of the goodness of our hearts.
    Goodness of our hearts? Surely you don't believe that nonsense? We take in refugees because it is expected, and to maintain good diplomatic relations, as well as be seen as the "good guys".

    (Original post by generallee)
    What I find instructive is how you think it is "blatant discrimination" to rescue Christians who are being persecuted. Don't you care about them? Why not?
    The main discrimination is flat-out banning any refugees who happen to pray to a certain god, rather than considering criteria that are more, well, real. Like whether they're going to die or not.

    (Original post by generallee)
    Do you have any idea what is happening to Christians in the Middle East? What so shocked us in Normandy is sadly a familiar event in Iraq and Syria.
    Sadly I do, but they don't hold a monopoly on horror.
    Offline

    14
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Dez)


    The main discrimination is flat-out banning any refugees who happen to pray to a certain god, rather than considering criteria that are more, well, real. Like whether they're going to die or not.
    .
    I am arguing that we take in Christians that are going to die.

    Muslim countries can take in the Muslims who are going to die. Oh, wait...

    (Original post by Dez)

    Sadly I do, but they don't hold a monopoly on horror.
    Only Muslims count it seems. I thought as much.

    Are you a Muslim yourself?
    • TSR Group Staff
    Offline

    19
    ReputationRep:
    TSR Group Staff
    (Original post by generallee)
    I am arguing that we take in Christians that are going to die.

    Muslim countries can take in the Muslims who are going to die. Oh, wait...
    Yes, you've already said that. As I've already said, it would be a diplomatic disaster. Let's not run around in circles.

    (Original post by generallee)
    Only Muslims count it seems. I thought as much.
    You're twisting my words and making things up. Again.

    (Original post by generallee)
    Are you a Muslim yourself?
    Do you also want to know what colour underwear I have while we're at it?
    Offline

    18
    ReputationRep:
    Tbh if i was fleeing a warzone , at first i'd be grateful but i think once they regain a sense of security they would like to move somewhere more lively lol
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Inexorably)
    Y'know for people that normally advocate for freedom of expression, you right-wingers are really hypocritical sometimes.

    We want freedom of expression!*

    *For white non-immigrants only, how dare anyone else ever express an opinion... inferior scum!!! -roll eyes-
    You're being something of a hysterical manchild. Part of OP's freedom of expression is the right to criticise the things other people have said, it's not as if he's said they should all be crucified for speaking out.
    Offline

    14
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Dez)


    Do you also want to know what colour underwear I have while we're at it?
    It's relevant.

    If you are a Muslim one could respect your desire to help your co-religionists (whilst fighting against it of course) which is only the same as my own view, after all.

    If you are not, and are just yet another PC, Muslim cuck, destroying the country, then one can't respect your views.

    No doubt you will get your Mod mates to delete this post. That is fine. I enjoyed writing it!
    Offline

    6
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Dez)

    Being critical is one thing, bombarding them with hate is quite another. In this very thread several posters have advocated bombing their homes. Does that seem right to you?
    So a couple of comments from trolls amongst a majority of reasonable criticisms have resulted in these people being "marginalised" and "forced to live as outcasts"?
    Offline

    16
    ReputationRep:
    Hey SCD, you haven't addressed my point yet, and explained whether you lied or got it wrong?
    • Very Important Poster
    Online

    19
    Very Important Poster
    (Original post by generallee)
    I am arguing that we take in Christians that are going to die.

    Muslim countries can take in the Muslims who are going to die. Oh, wait...


    Only Muslims count it seems. I thought as much.

    Are you a Muslim yourself?
    There is no distinction based on religion as to whose asylum claims will be heard.
    Muslim countries take in plenty of refugees.
    Offline

    14
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by 999tigger)
    There is no distinction based on religion as to whose asylum claims will be heard.
    Muslim countries take in plenty of refugees.
    Only the bordering states, Turkey, Jordan, who have no choice, they are just crossing the border.

    Not the rich ones. How many have Saudi Arabia taken in? The UAE?

    As for their being no distinction based on religion which asylum seekers do you think Israel favours? Muslims or Jews?

    The Jews look after their own. So should we.

    Or maybe you are a Muslim and already are?
    • Very Important Poster
    Online

    19
    Very Important Poster
    (Original post by generallee)
    Only the bordering states, Turkey, Jordan, who have no choice, they are just crossing the border.

    Not the rich ones. How many have Saudi Arabia taken in? The UAE?

    As for their being no distinction based on religion which asylum seekers do you think Israel favours? Muslims or Jews?

    The Jews look after their own. So should we.

    Or maybe you are a Muslim and already are?
    So nice to see you agree that Muslim countries do indeed take in many millions of refugees and in much greater numbers than Europe or the UK.

    Israel is a signatory of the convention just like many other countries.

    I liked your grasp at the end at me being a muslim as though they could be the only ones to challenge your views. bext you will be talking about brown people and pure bloods.
    Offline

    14
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by 999tigger)

    Israel is a signatory of the convention just like many other countries.
    I presume you know that we only have to consider asylum cases, according to the convention you cite, if they are made on our territory.

    Israel doesn't allow possible Muslim asylum seekers in (if at all possible) so then they are not bound by its terms.

    Meanwhile they encourage immigration from Jews being persecuted (mostly by Muslims, see any pattern here?) elsewhere in the world.

    http://jpupdates.com/2016/07/21/near...igration-push/

    We should do the same. Why we are voluntarily accepting twenty thousand thousand in, (almost all Muslims) in addition to the thousands who are just jumping on the back of a lorry I have no idea.

    Not enough Muslims here, I guess. The more the merrier and all that.
    (Original post by 999tigger)
    I liked your grasp at the end at me being a muslim as though they could be the only ones to challenge your views. bext you will be talking about brown people and pure bloods.
    Ah the good old race card.

    You have no answer to my arguments. You don't explain why we should favour the Muslims who are persecuting Christians in the Middle East, rather than the Christians who are being persecuted by them. You don't explain why it is anything but insane to be importing tens of thousands more Muslims (plus their kith and kin who will follow) when the whole of western Europe is at war with Islamism. Why when we are unable to successfully integrate the millions we already have we should make the problem even worse by accepting more (at our expense by the way).

    All you can do is to accuse me of racism for pointing out these uncomfortable truths that people like you can't bear to face up. (Assuming you aren't a Muslim yourself, and like I say I could respect your point of view at least, if you were).

    The total intellectual bankruptcy of liberalism, is revealed in your post.

    People aren't listening to you any more. Look around Europe. We are sick of you. We despise you. My point of view is in the ascendant, and gaining ground with each new outrage.
    Offline

    9
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by 999tigger)
    Israel is a signatory of the convention just like many other countries
    Yes. But Israel didn't sign suicide convention. :cool:
    • Very Important Poster
    Online

    19
    Very Important Poster
    (Original post by admonit)
    Yes. But Israel didn't sign suicide convention. :cool:

    It ratified the 1951 Convention on 1 Oct 1954 and acceded to the 67 protocol on 4 June 1968.1
    Offline

    9
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by 999tigger)
    It ratified the 1951 Convention on 1 Oct 1954 and acceded to the 67 protocol on 4 June 1968.1
    You didn't understand. Applying the Convention to Muslim refugees means suicide for Israel.
    • Very Important Poster
    Online

    19
    Very Important Poster
    (Original post by admonit)
    You didn't understand. Applying the Convention to Muslim refugees means suicide for Israel.
    Your post was rather weird. Israel doesnt have a problem because funnily enough muslims dont claim asylum there.
    Offline

    9
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by 999tigger)
    Your post was rather weird. Israel doesnt have a problem because funnily enough muslims dont claim asylum there.
    Tens of thousands of Muslim Africans already are in Israel seeking asylum.
    • Very Important Poster
    Online

    19
    Very Important Poster
    (Original post by admonit)
    Tens of thousands of Muslim Africans already are in Israel seeking asylum.
    Oh you mean these Africans -
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Illega...rica_to_Israel
    I wasnt aware they were all muslims.
    They should apply the treaty, they helped draft it. If they cant they should leave.
 
 
 
Poll
Do you think parents should charge rent?
Useful resources

The Student Room, Get Revising and Marked by Teachers are trading names of The Student Room Group Ltd.

Register Number: 04666380 (England and Wales), VAT No. 806 8067 22 Registered Office: International House, Queens Road, Brighton, BN1 3XE

Write a reply...
Reply
Hide
Reputation gems: You get these gems as you gain rep from other members for making good contributions and giving helpful advice.