Calais

[IDM]

I've already come up with the solution on another thread but I'll give you an abridged version here. We should do a leaflet drop over the countries that are supplying these economic migrants making it plain that we will sink any boats that try to reach Europe.  They probably will think we are not serious so we need to sink a few boats so they know we mean business.

So, you are saying we should kill some people by sinking boats, to act as a deterrent to others??

Regardless of what you THINK about your own opinions and self importance, advocating the murder of fellow human beings plain blows your argument out of the water.  Not only for this thread, but all the others you contribute to.

And you challenge others to answer your questions yet promote opinions like that - so when challenged you go all political with avoiding questions by asking questions.  Do you think we are so stupid we can't see that?

Do us all a favour Adolf, and f*** off for good like you keep promising to, and this time don't come back like a bad dose of the clap!

Thank you for your sanctimonious post. It's a good job you weren't an advisor to Churchill. He had many people killed so even more people wouldn't die. It's called being practical.

Think about the stupidity of your position. My solution would mean the loss of life of a few hundred people. Your solution to let things carry on as they are will mean the loss of life of many thousands. You are the one that is happy to see all these unnecessary deaths with your 'look at me aren't I a nice person' approach.

Think again. It is me that is the nice person not you.

IC1967 (not afraid to sink a few boats)

Churchill?

I assume you are talking about when we were at WAR??  And at a time when precision weaponry wasn't available, there would be non-combatants killed, and of course there was carpet bombing which these days is seen to be inexcusable.  These days in military conflicts we use precision weapons to take out military targets.  Most often this is hardware but will also include the people who are fighting as combatants, on the other side.  Occasionally innocent bystanders will get involved, but they are not deliberately targeted, not by us anyway.

And yes, I do know what I am talking about!

You are advocating killing many innocent folks on boats - as a deterrent - and now as a way to get at the supposed terrorists using these innocents as human shields?

You are advocating genocide, mass murder.  That, in my book, discredits ANY arguments you may put forward, even those that have merit,

You can "politick" all you want and twist the questions around, but you alone have suggested killing innocent people.

This is from the same person who suggested unprovoked violence against a woman, who was allegedly verbally abusing her child but without you having any knowledge of the circumstances - yes I remember that thread very well!

OK so you may only make these points on a forum just for something to do and to stimulate debate, but god help your family and friends if you are like this in reality.

So I repeat my previous sentiment, go away and good riddance!

End of argument.

FACT - my solution means less deaths and human misery than yours does. You need to harden up a bit and stop wanting people to like you even at the high cost of thousands of deaths and terrorist attacks.

You obviously don't know your history. Churchill sent many innocent people (soldiers and civilians) to their deaths when this was avoidable. Why did he do it? Because he was a pragmatist like what I am and knew that by taking this course of action he would save many more people than the ones he condemned to death.

I'll ask this question again. How many millions are you prepared to let in? Its not a hard question. Why is it only me that answers all questions. Why won't you economic migrant sympathisers answer the most basic question?

Get on with it and come into the real world for a change.

IC1967 (never dodges a question)

I'm not asking to be liked, nor have I given any opinion on how to deal with the situation, IF you read my posts.  The only matter I raise is YOUR advocation of murder.

Simples, nothing more, nothing less.  You make assumptions of what I might think based on what I don't say??

I did say "You can "politick" all you want and twist the questions around" and yes, you just did.

As long as you continue to advocate mass murder of innocent people, you hold no weight in any argument despite how you try and twist things.

Even if you don't get that, the other forum users will.

Now do us a favour and leave the forum, for good!

[bobjimwilly]

IC1967 is the definition of an internet troll - don't feed him!

[IC1967]

I've already come up with the solution on another thread but I'll give you an abridged version here. We should do a leaflet drop over the countries that are supplying these economic migrants making it plain that we will sink any boats that try to reach Europe.  They probably will think we are not serious so we need to sink a few boats so they know we mean business.

So, you are saying we should kill some people by sinking boats, to act as a deterrent to others??

Regardless of what you THINK about your own opinions and self importance, advocating the murder of fellow human beings plain blows your argument out of the water.  Not only for this thread, but all the others you contribute to.

And you challenge others to answer your questions yet promote opinions like that - so when challenged you go all political with avoiding questions by asking questions.  Do you think we are so stupid we can't see that?

Do us all a favour Adolf, and f*** off for good like you keep promising to, and this time don't come back like a bad dose of the clap!

Thank you for your sanctimonious post. It's a good job you weren't an advisor to Churchill. He had many people killed so even more people wouldn't die. It's called being practical.

Think about the stupidity of your position. My solution would mean the loss of life of a few hundred people. Your solution to let things carry on as they are will mean the loss of life of many thousands. You are the one that is happy to see all these unnecessary deaths with your 'look at me aren't I a nice person' approach.

Think again. It is me that is the nice person not you.

IC1967 (not afraid to sink a few boats)

Churchill?

I assume you are talking about when we were at WAR??  And at a time when precision weaponry wasn't available, there would be non-combatants killed, and of course there was carpet bombing which these days is seen to be inexcusable.  These days in military conflicts we use precision weapons to take out military targets.  Most often this is hardware but will also include the people who are fighting as combatants, on the other side.  Occasionally innocent bystanders will get involved, but they are not deliberately targeted, not by us anyway.

And yes, I do know what I am talking about!

You are advocating killing many innocent folks on boats - as a deterrent - and now as a way to get at the supposed terrorists using these innocents as human shields?

You are advocating genocide, mass murder.  That, in my book, discredits ANY arguments you may put forward, even those that have merit,

You can "politick" all you want and twist the questions around, but you alone have suggested killing innocent people.

This is from the same person who suggested unprovoked violence against a woman, who was allegedly verbally abusing her child but without you having any knowledge of the circumstances - yes I remember that thread very well!

OK so you may only make these points on a forum just for something to do and to stimulate debate, but god help your family and friends if you are like this in reality.

So I repeat my previous sentiment, go away and good riddance!

End of argument.

FACT - my solution means less deaths and human misery than yours does. You need to harden up a bit and stop wanting people to like you even at the high cost of thousands of deaths and terrorist attacks.

You obviously don't know your history. Churchill sent many innocent people (soldiers and civilians) to their deaths when this was avoidable. Why did he do it? Because he was a pragmatist like what I am and knew that by taking this course of action he would save many more people than the ones he condemned to death.

I'll ask this question again. How many millions are you prepared to let in? Its not a hard question. Why is it only me that answers all questions. Why won't you economic migrant sympathisers answer the most basic question?

Get on with it and come into the real world for a change.

IC1967 (never dodges a question)

I'm not asking to be liked, nor have I given any opinion on how to deal with the situation, IF you read my posts.  The only matter I raise is YOUR advocation of murder.

Simples, nothing more, nothing less.  You make assumptions of what I might think based on what I don't say??

I did say "You can "politick" all you want and twist the questions around" and yes, you just did.

As long as you continue to advocate mass murder of innocent people, you hold no weight in any argument despite how you try and twist things.

Even if you don't get that, the other forum users will.

Now do us a favour and leave the forum, for good!

Typical. Another refusal to answer the perfectly legitimate questions.

I'll try again. How many millions should we let in?

Another question. Is Churchill a war criminal for knowingly killing hundreds of thousands of innocent people?

http://www.spectator.co.uk/books/9062821/the-bombing-war-by-richard-overy-review/

IC1967 (a pragmatist) 

[grayx]

Don't panic, Mr. Camerons sending some of our sniffer dogs. Brilliant. Problem solved.

[IC1967]

Don't panic, Mr. Camerons sending some of our sniffer dogs. Brilliant. Problem solved.

The reason he can't do much more is because the likes of IDM would be up in arms.

IC1967 (not an economic migrant appeaser)

[IDM]

Don't panic, Mr. Camerons sending some of our sniffer dogs. Brilliant. Problem solved.

The reason he can't do much more is because the likes of IDM would be up in arms.

IC1967 (not an economic migrant appeaser)

Read my posts, I have said nothing about what my opinions on the resolution to these issues are so how dare you assume what my thoughts are?

All I have said, repeatedly, is against your stance, ie, and I repeat,

As long as you continue to advocate mass murder of innocent people, you hold no weight in any argument despite how you try and twist things.

I can cut and paste that as many times as you need me to.

[BillyStubbsTears]

IDM. You are flogging a dead horse. He never engages what passes for his brain when he reads someone else's posts. He never leaves his house and meets real people with nuanced thoughts. He divides the world into polar opposites and assumes that anyone who disagrees with A must believe in B.

And that's when he's actually trying and not acting like a d**khead.

[IDM]

Oh I know exactly what you mean BST, but his advocating the killing of innocent folks deserves highlighting.

[IC1967]

I repeat. How many millions would you let in?

Answer what is a very pertinent question to the debate. Pretty please. Stop prevaricating.

You can ignore the Churchill question as the answer is obvious and backs up my stance perfectly.

IC1967 (doesn't shirk any question, unlike some others I could mention)

[IC1967]

Oh I know exactly what you mean BST, but his advocating the killing of innocent folks deserves highlighting.

Doing nothing will kill a hell of a lot more and help finance ISIS and cause terrorist attacks on mainland Europe. Your stance is totally ludicrous.

IC1967

[IC1967]

IDM. You are flogging a dead horse. He never engages what passes for his brain when he reads someone else's posts. He never leaves his house and meets real people with nuanced thoughts. He divides the world into polar opposites and assumes that anyone who disagrees with A must believe in B.

And that's when he's actually trying and not acting like a d**khead.

That's rich coming from you. You denigrate anyone that doesn't agree with you. Any right minded person can see that I always answer any question thrown at me. My questions hardly ever get answered. That tells you of the vacuity of a lot of people on this forum. They're more bothered about being seen as a nice person no matter what the cost is in human life. Well not on my watch.

Difficult issues will be tackled head on and valid solutions will be found.

IC1967 (solver of foreign policy issues)

[IDM]

Oh I know exactly what you mean BST, but his advocating the killing of innocent folks deserves highlighting.

Doing nothing will kill a hell of a lot more and help finance ISIS and cause terrorist attacks on mainland Europe. Your stance is totally ludicrous.

IC1967

The only stance I have made is my opposition and offence taken by you advocating killing innocent people.  Is that ludicrous?

I won't engage in a sensible debate with you whilst you hold that view.  Simple.  You are the problem here.

[IC1967]

Oh I know exactly what you mean BST, but his advocating the killing of innocent folks deserves highlighting.

Doing nothing will kill a hell of a lot more and help finance ISIS and cause terrorist attacks on mainland Europe. Your stance is totally ludicrous.

IC1967

The only stance I have made is my opposition and offence taken by you advocating killing innocent people.  Is that ludicrous?

I won't engage in a sensible debate with you whilst you hold that view.  Simple.  You are the problem here.

Right. I'll try once more to get an answer out of you. Let me give two scenarios.

a) 3 boats are sunk killing 300 people (after they have been warned repeatedly that this would happen). The penny drops and no more economic migrants or ISIS terrorists attempt the hazardous journey across the Mediterranean.

b)The 3 boats aren't sunk and 300 people safely make it to Europe. Some of these people are terrorists and kill thousands of people in Europe. Thousands more attempt the crossing with no end in sight as to when the flood of economic migrants and terrorists will stop coming.

I'd go for scenario 'a'. Which one would you go for?

IC1967 (decisive by nature)

[IDM]

You won't get anything out of me whilst you continue to advocate the murder of innocent people.

[IC1967]

How many millions would you let in?

IC1967 (waiting for an answer)

[IDM]

How many millions would you let in?

IC1967 (waiting for an answer)

I repeat:

You won't get anything out of me whilst you continue to advocate the murder of innocent people.

[IC1967]

I hear what you say. I have decided to shelve my excellent plan for now to try and think of one that doesn't involve the killing of people.

In the meantime can you tell us what your plan is and how many millions would you let in?

IC1967 (has the patience of a saint)

[roversontheup]

If only it were that simple.

[The Red Baron]

I hear what you say. I have decided to shelve my excellent plan for now to try and think of one that doesn't involve the killing of people.

In the meantime can you tell us what your plan is and how many millions would you let in?

IC1967 (has the patience of a saint)

Why go to the extremes of sending the boats and people to the bottom of the Mediterranean? Take the people off, sink the boats, ensure the people have food, water and medical attention but then return them to the point of departure.

You don't have to kill people or treat them in a brutal way, but you get the message out that they will not get into Europe that way.

[IC1967]

I hear what you say. I have decided to shelve my excellent plan for now to try and think of one that doesn't involve the killing of people.

In the meantime can you tell us what your plan is and how many millions would you let in?

IC1967 (has the patience of a saint)

Why go to the extremes of sending the boats and people to the bottom of the Mediterranean? Take the people off, sink the boats, ensure the people have food, water and medical attention but then return them to the point of departure.

You don't have to kill people or treat them in a brutal way, but you get the message out that they will not get into Europe that way.

You've just beautifully summarised the new plan I was going to post.

Now we've sorted that one out can at least one of you economic migrant appeasers let us know how many millions you would let in. Pretty, pretty please.

IC1967 (getting fed up of waiting for an economic migrant appeaser to answer a question)

[wheatleylad]

Idler

The analogy sounds great but it doesn't stand up.

Despite the media line, these people are not coming to our country to free load. They are coming because they want opportunities. There is overwhelming evidence over many years from many countries that demonstrates that immigrants work harder than "indigenous" (whatever THAT means) people. They pay more I tax than they take out and they help drive economic growth.

A better analogy is someone turning up at your barbecue and offering to do the washing up and to clean your bog.

I get sick of this tired old line.
Labour let in over a million people over their term of office.

So when houses are being built over the green belt it is nothing to do with immigration!
When the NHS is overrun, it is nothing to do with mass immigration?
When the roads are gridlocked, it is nothing to do with mass immigration?

For Gods sake admit the real truth. It is not just about tax!!! How can one ignore the other effects such as over crowding in inner city schools?

Not to mention the fact that I am not alone in resenting my taxes being spent on foreign nationals. This country is a club, you pay in and get back. One just doesn't turn up and get.

Most of the people shown in the Mediterranean are from sub Saharan Africa, not Iraq or Syria. They are plainly trying to get to the land of free money after crossing half of Europe.

Why cant you just admit it?

This refusal to face reality and admit mistakes is what lost Labour the election.

Guess what I used to vote Labour before Tony Blair took us into illegal wars and flooded us with foreigners who are trying to change the very nature of this country.

As for the line about why "these people" don't stop at the first country they come to, I truly despair. Millions, MILLIONS of them do. Do you think the UK is the only country that immigrants go to? We don't have a pin prick of a problem compared to other places. Lebanon is housing one Syrian refugee for every 3 Lebanese people. There are 2lion Syrian refugees in southern Turkey. There are thousands arriving in Greece and Spain and Italy. M
By contrast, on the news last night, they were shocked, SHOCKED that as many as FIFTY illegal immigrants per day might be getting through the tunnel. At that shocking, appalling rate, our population would increase by 1% by 2050.

Get some perspective and think what other countries are dealing with. And think about OUR long term responsibility for much of the refugee/immigrant problem. What you are seeing is the final unravelling of the British and French Empires of the previous 2 centuries. The settlement that have so many of YOU the unearned comfortable lifestyles that you enjoy.  What you sow, you reap.

[Persephonie]

I don't understand why they all want to come to the UK. Surely they have passed through more than one safe country before they get to the UK. Is living in Greece, Italy and France etc that bad that they risk life and limb trying to get here?

Why are there so many people in the UK keen on letting them in?

[bobjimwilly]

I don't understand why they all want to come to the UK. Surely they have passed through more than one safe country before they get to the UK. Is living in Greece, Italy and France etc that bad that they risk life and limb trying to get here?

For many English is their 2nd language and they don't speak Italian, German or French.

[afro goal machine]

I don't understand why they all want to come to the UK. Surely they have passed through more than one safe country before they get to the UK. Is living in Greece, Italy and France etc that bad that they risk life and limb trying to get here?

For many English is their 2nd language and they don't speak Italian, German or French.

haha Persephonie ????

Some pillocking going on there

[RoversAreRed]

I don't understand why they all want to come to the UK. Surely they have passed through more than one safe country before they get to the UK. Is living in Greece, Italy and France etc that bad that they risk life and limb trying to get here?

Why are there so many people in the UK keen on letting them in?

English is their 2nd language.

Millions do stop elsewhere before here. Out of the major European nations we take the least number in.

[Persephonie]

I've given the matter serious thought. Having English as your second language is not a good enough reason for risking life and limb trying to get here. If it were me I'd much rather learn the language of the first safe country I got to. Much safer for me and causes less disruption to everyone concerned.

I hear what IC says and he makes some valid points and I can understand his logic. However I get the feeling he is a bit of a little Englander so I don't agree with him.

I will answer his question head on. We should let as many of them in as want to come.  Once the country gets 'full' migrants won't want to come anymore.

Anyone that is prepared to risk life and limb to come here obviously has a lot about them. They would be an asset to our economy and would eventually increase the prosperity of the whole nation.

In common with a lot of Western economies we have an ageing population. We need more young people to generate wealth to pay for our old people. These fit migrants are just the sort of people we need.

[Iberian Red]

My heart goes out to the poor feckers that make it to Dover!

[BillyStubbsTears]

A bit of perspective.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-33972632

Not that it will get past the impervious cranium of d**khead's latest incarnation.

[idler]

I don't understand why they all want to come to the UK. Surely they have passed through more than one safe country before they get to the UK. Is living in Greece, Italy and France etc that bad that they risk life and limb trying to get here?

Why are there so many people in the UK keen on letting them in?

English is their 2nd language.

Millions do stop elsewhere before here. Out of the major European nations we take the least number in.

We are also probably the smallest in area.

[BobG]

Not really relevant Idelr. Singapore proves, every single day, that this country is in no way within a billion percent of being over populated.

For those that don't know, Germany continues to take hundreds of times more immigrants than we do. So is Italy. So is Greece. Every single other European country takes more than us. The problem is not 'there are too many of them'. The problem is we are doing nothing, nada, zero, to solve its causes. And those causes, don't forget, pretty much started with the West. Cameron is a total wnaker on this. He is using sticking plasters to assuage the right wing mobs that he thinks will unseat him if he actually dare do something constructive. He is one of the direct causes of this being one of THE biggest problems of the next 50 years. The north - south divide is getting bigger and bigger and bigger. Human beings want to better themselves. Migration on a massive scale is here to stay. The only solution that the right wing can envisage is more and more barbed wire. Wjhen that fails, as it will, the next step will be guns. The Yanks are seeing that already - on their version of the north-south divide.

BobG