Coach full of British schoolchildren 'ATTACKED by Calais refugees

[lines]

Now your just making stupid assumptions and accusations.

 

Explain where im defending murderous scum?

 

Already shown, and its you making assumptions.

 

 

Explain where I've made threats?

 

As Islamic terrorists are orchestrating attacks in many countries, its all the more reason to not let things get out of control or they will have a bigger base and be able to cause even greater trouble.

 

Right there!

 

Then you need to cease from starting wars abroad. Part of this crisis is a creation of the west (justified or not).

 

If you want to conduct international trade, then yes it is an international issue because an unstable world will mean it becomes even harder to conduct commerce. If the muslims are such a threat it wont be long before there are even bigger regions in the world that are at war and even larger movements of populations seeking to flee conflict.

 

The UK will find it a bit difficult just trading with itself.

 

There, and maybe extreme Muslims should stop trying to take over the world too, ever thought of that in your world view?

 

Shall I go on?

[999tigger]

??? What? Its hard enough to understand you at the best of times...

 

Here's some of your views, statements to try and play down the seriousness of the situation:

 

Its sort of irrelevant that it hit a bus load of kids, not that you know it wasn't intentional, let's face it there's lots of reports of Muslim terrorists targeting school buses and blowing them up. The real point is that they are attacking people full stop. Its attempted murder!

 

You call it hysteria when someone is outraged at an incident like this??? You need a reality check luv

 

Loon was a typo for Loob. He tends to make sense and is capable of rationally identifying issues and supporting claims.

 

You made accusations against me which were and are false. I draw my own conclusions from that about you.

 

 

Ok am looking at my statements and dont have a problem with any of them if taken in context, which you are not.

 

#1 I was asking about what he meant by Lawbreaking so I could better direct my response. As you ahve not provided the post number, then Ill have to check the context and where it was said.

 

#2 This was about the illegality of crossing borders, which article 31 of the 51 Convention caters for. You might wnat to go and read it.

 

#3 If you read the article then thats a more accurate description of what happened. Someone threw a rock at a coach in the early morning at a coach, which happened to be carrying kids. Until you get evidence or capture the perpetrator, then you dont know whether the schoolkids were actually being targeted. Its an unfortunate incident and shows some of the rabble that are at Calais. Its a broken window not WW3.

 

---------- Post added 14-01-2016 at 13:12 ----------

 

Already shown, and its you making assumptions.

 

Right there!

 

There, and maybe extreme Muslims should stop trying to take over the world too, ever thought of that in your world view?

 

Shall I go on?

 

#1 You failed. Pointing out when something is factually wrong, doesnt p terrorist sympathiser.

# 2 Alluding to the fact that if you let local conflicts escalate, then they spread and become even bigger probles is not a threat, its a fact of history.

#3 That was a point disputing the idea that it is not an international problem.

 

Unsure of what you think you were trying to prove.

[lines]

Loon was a typo for Loob. He tends to make sense and is capable of rationally identifying issues and supporting claims.

 

You made accusations against me which were and are false. I draw my own conclusions from that about you.

 

 

Ok am looking at my statements and dont have a problem with any of them if taken in context, which you are not.

 

#1 I was asking about what he meant by Lawbreaking so I could better direct my response. As you ahve not provided the post number, then Ill have to check the context and where it was said.

 

#2 This was about the illegality of crossing borders, which article 31 of the 51 Convention caters for. You might wnat to go and read it.

 

#3 If you read the article then thats a more accurate description of what happened. Someone threw a rock at a coach in the early morning at a coach, which happened to be carrying kids. Until you get evidence or capture the perpetrator, then you dont know whether the schoolkids were actually being targeted. Its an unfortunate incident and shows some of the rabble that are at Calais. Its a broken window not WW3.

 

#1 still defending (the quote was a continuation of the previous, you would't have had to look far!)

 

 

#2 I did last night, but your defending of and insistence of them being refugees rather than immigrants is what I'm pointing out. Even by your own quotes and my reference to the actual convention, they are supposed to make reasonable attempts to claim asylum in the first safe country they arrive in (which was probably Turkey in the case of Syrians), also if they stay in any particular country for too long (5 months I believe) then they lose refugee status and if moving on are then classed as migrants.

 

 

#3You're still trying to play down the seriousness of the incident. If an EDL supporter threw a rock at woman wearing a burka and tried the defence of "it could have been anybody, it just so happened...", I'd laugh at them too.

 

---------- Post added 14-01-2016 at 14:17 ----------

 

#1 You failed. Pointing out when something is factually wrong, doesnt p terrorist sympathiser.

# 2 Alluding to the fact that if you let local conflicts escalate, then they spread and become even bigger probles is not a threat, its a fact of history.

#3 That was a point disputing the idea that it is not an international problem.

 

Unsure of what you think you were trying to prove.

 

#1 It does if you proffer it as a defence for them, so you failed

 

#2 Its nothing to do the situation, you're blaming us for their problems and warning (threatening) of things only getting worse. And if you didn't know, they are losing ground, everywhere! The more rapes, bricks thrown, children murdered, etc only turns more people away from them,hence the "not in my name" campaign!

 

#3 You seem to brand it about a lot that "they will" gain more ground, you're deluded!

[999tigger]

#1 still defending (the quote was a continuation of the previous, you would't have had to look far!)

 

 

#2 I did last night, but your defending of and insistence of them being refugees rather than immigrants is what I'm pointing out. Even by your own quotes and my reference to the actual convention, they are supposed to make reasonable attempts to claim asylum in the first safe country they arrive in (which was probably Turkey in the case of Syrians), also if they stay in any particular country for too long (5 months I believe) then they lose refugee status and if moving on are then classed as migrants.

 

 

#3You're still trying to play down the seriousness of the incident. If an EDL supporter threw a rock at woman wearing a burka and tried the defence of "it could have been anybody, it just so happened...", I'd laugh at them too.

 

---------- Post added 14-01-2016 at 14:17 ----------

 

 

#1 It does if you proffer it as a defence for them, so you failed

 

#2 Its nothing to do the situation, you're blaming us for their problems and warning (threatening) of things only getting worse. And if you didn't know, they are losing ground, everywhere! The more rapes, bricks thrown, children murdered, etc only turns more people away from them,hence the "not in my name" campaign!

 

#3 You seem to brand it about a lot that "they will" gain more ground, you're deluded!

 

1. Actually the quote was from Truman at post #5 so yes I had to go back nearly 90 posts. I asked what he meant by lawbreaking, he clarified and I answered. The context was about illegal entrance.

 

2. You really need to look into the rights of an asylum seeker and the 51 Convention. Ive explained it many times on here. An asylum seeker can make a claim where they wish. There are other administrative rules in the EU dealing with which countries should hear, but that system has almost collapsed. I took the trouble to explain and link you up. Its not my fault if you wont read them.

 

3. The difference is you know that woman is identifed as a woman in a burka. Your example is a poor one. If a rock was thrown at a coach that happened to be have burka wearing women on board, then I wouldnt read any more into it without some evidence that the fact they were there was a key decision to attack it. Other vehicles returning to the UK are also stoned and those dont have kids on. Its a general problem there is because there are large numbers of frustrated mighrants trying to get to the UK.

 

Playing down the seriousness of it? I read the article and it amounts to someone throwing a rock at a coach and breaking a window.

 

2.1

 

No you are an idiot if you think pointing out when something is incorret amounts to anything more. You might enjoy being ignorant, but I prefer to know what the correct situation is.

 

2.2 As usual you might want to do yourself a favour by looking at the topic of dicussion in context. The nothing to do with us attitude is not something the UK has been able to stick to throughout history because the country sees its interests as often requiring it to get involved in conflicts abroad.

 

2.2.1 Am I making threats? nope thats just you making up falsehoods as usual.

2.2.2 Its nothing to do with the situation> Its directly to do with the point being discussed at the time about whether the problem was an international one or not.

2.2.3 As i've pointed out the rest of the world agrees that unless you try and address the situation then things will get worse and that has regional and then international repucussions. We dont live in isolation and things that happen on the other side of the world do affect us. its very much an international problem.

 

2.3 Well the rest of the world is throwing billions of $$ and thousands of troops to try and resolve the situation to prevent it getting worse. Without those efforts then they clearly would have gained more ground. So an attutde that its not an international problem would clearly lead to the conflict spreading and escalating, which in turn means more refugees and migrations of other people.

 

 

Actually no need to respond Lines, am bired of this and its wasted too much time.

 

If you want to make points over a long thread, then its best if you refer to what the topic and context that was being discussed at the time instead of cherry picking bits which suit you in a different area. Its rather irksome when you start bandying about falsehoods as well.

Edited January 14, 2016 by 999tigger

[lines]

1. Actually the quote was from Truman at post #5 so yes I had to go back nearly 90 posts. I asked what he meant by lawbreaking, he clarified and I answered. The context was about illegal entrance.

 

2. You really need to look into the rights of an asylum seeker and the 51 Convention. Ive explained it many times on here. An asylum seeker can make a claim where they wish. There are other administrative rules in the EU dealing with which countries should hear, but that system has almost collapsed. I took the trouble to explain and link you up. Its not my fault if you wont read them.

 

3. The difference is you know that woman is identifed as a woman in a burka. Your example is a poor one. If a rock was thrown at a coach that happened to be have burka wearing women on board, then I wouldnt read any more into it without some evidence that the fact they were there was a key decision to attack it. Other vehicles returning to the UK are also stoned and those dont have kids on. Its a general problem there is because there are large numbers of frustrated mighrants trying to get to the UK.

 

Playing down the seriousness of it? I read the article and it amounts to someone throwing a rock at a coach and breaking a window.

 

2.1

 

No you are an idiot if you think pointing out when something is incorret amounts to anything more. You might enjoy being ignorant, but I prefer to know what the correct situation is.

 

2.2 As usual you might want to do yourself a favour by looking at the topic of dicussion in context. The nothing to do with us attitude is not something the UK has been able to stick to throughout history because the country sees its interests as often requiring it to get involved in conflicts abroad.

 

2.2.1 Am I making threats? nope thats just you making up falsehoods as usual.

2.2.2 Its nothing to do with the situation> Its directly to do with the point being discussed at the time about whether the problem was an international one or not.

2.2.3 As i've pointed out the rest of the world agrees that unless you try and address the situation then things will get worse and that has regional and then international repucussions. We dont live in isolation and things that happen on the other side of the world do affect us. its very much an international problem.

 

2.3 Well the rest of the world is throwing billions of $$ and thousands of troops to try and resolve the situation to prevent it getting worse. Without those efforts then they clearly would have gained more ground. So an attutde that its not an international problem would clearly lead to the conflict spreading and escalating, which in turn means more refugees and migrations of other people.

 

 

Actually no need to respond Lines, am bired of this and its wasted too much time.

 

If you want to make points over a long thread, then its best if you refer to what the topic and context that was being discussed at the time instead of cherry picking bits which suit you in a different area. Its rather irksome when you start bandying about falsehoods as well.

 

Yet, the majority of the posters on this thread disagree with you, and judging by your views its not me who's the idiot, you're the one with the bias for playing down serious criminal acts, but I can't help the way you were brought up.

[sgtkate]

Oh 'lines' has form on here too. Good to see it wasn't personally at me then.

[lines]

Oh 'lines' has form on here too. Good to see it wasn't personally at me then.

 

Is that you being facetious again?

[999tigger]

Oh 'lines' has form on here too. Good to see it wasn't personally at me then.

 

Nah I think I wasted more time (should make you feel beter), but have now given up. I think its just SF as compared to other forums. Graves Park looks much better.

[Zamo]

Then you need to cease from starting wars abroad. Part of this crisis is a creation of the west (justified or not).

 

If you want to conduct international trade, then yes it is an international issue because an unstable world will mean it becomes even harder to conduct commerce. If the muslims are such a threat it wont be long before there are even bigger regions in the world that are at war and even larger movements of populations seeking to flee conflict.

 

The UK will find it a bit difficult just trading with itself.

 

I agree we should stop interfering in the Muslim world and not starting wars with dictators - who we now know were keeping a lid on a far worse madness - should be lesson number one. However, you've ignored the fact that letting people in from those troubled regions is no cure to the cultural and religious issues that cause the violence and the poverty. Allowing them to come here doesn't make the world any more stable, it makes it less stable because it makes the West less stable. In fact it is going to lead to an unstoppable rise in right wing extremism and racial/cultural violence if we don't stop this now.

 

When are the liberal elite going to open their eyes and see that if they keep pushing their multi-cultural dream it is going to turn into a horrible nightmare?

[Berberis]

Then you need to cease from starting wars abroad. Part of this crisis is a creation of the west (justified or not)..

 

What wars did we start abroad that has caused the influx of people from Syria?