Migrant Crisis

[Letters]

So...what do we do about that then?

:popcorn:

[Niall_Quinn]

I think we identify the people who divide us and kill them.

[LDG]

Well, if I were destitute, or even thought I could make a better life for my family by moving legally between countries, I would do it.

We have many British nationals moving to other countries to work, so I don't see the problem. There should obviously be some kind of limit on how many people can be accommodated, and that needs to be linked to jobs, so free movement is too liberal at this point. Every country has a limit to how many people that can be supported by it's infrastructure......that said, wealth distribution doesn't exactly lend it's hand to allowing more people to benefit from our country.

Then there's people seeking asylum, and we should do whatever is in our power to accommodate them. Full stop.

[Letters]

It sounds like we aren't really doing our bit, but we do have quite a high population density and a problem with affordable housing.
I don't know if we, 'the West', can do something about the problems which is causing them all to flee, although knowing us we probably caused it in the first place.

[GP]

Can they play DM?

[Letters]

http://www.thedailymash.co.uk/news/international/everyone-sad-because-of-photo-of-thing-thats-been-happening-for-months-20150903101684

[Nozza!]

So...what do we do about that then?

:popcorn:

Oi, citizens, what do we do? Get your hands in your pocket for a start...https://crowdfunding.justgiving.com/CalAid

[PGFC]

Stop watching the news.

[milla]

Stop watching the news.

And stop watching Arsenal :D

[PGFC]

Saw the Channel 4 news at 7 last night, I don't think I've been as stunned by something seen on TV since 9/11, the sight of a dead 3 year old child face down on the sand may well haunt me forever more, but I can't help thinking it was just another, albeit brutal, ploy by the media to try manipulate public opinion, maybe we're just too soft in the UK but I'm not sure I'm ready for the sight of dead children at teatime.

[Letters]

It is a very upsetting image.

Farage et al make it difficult to have a debate about immigration but there is a debate to be had.
It seems to me it would be better to fix the leak rather than put a bucket under where it's dripping, so to speak. Easier said than done of course.

[Syn]

I've come to the conclusion that every international problem can be solved by population control. 2 children max per woman.

Or, the polite way to do it is to make children too expensive to keep. Sounds a bit Tory but there's no way we can solve these problems if number of people dying are less than the number being born.

[Syn]

That said. http://youtu.be/3HMhWB95ldQ

[alexander]

What about the other super rich Arab countries that are out there, cant they take them in? Im sure they would be much more at home there, the religion, culture, languages being much the same?
I struggle to deal with the fact that our public service sector costs are being cut and cut, yet we should take more people in? where are we supposed to house, educate, feed, give food to these people? We dont look after the people who live here already (and Im not against the cuts, most things are bloated and cost way more than they should do anyway).
I saw on the news tonight that one in ten would offer a room in their house for these refugees. Well you could go down to your local town centre tonight and bring home one of the many unfortunates that are living on the streets with nothing. Weird, I dont see many doing that. Why? because its easy to click a poll on your phone saying "yeah, I will do that" than it is to actually go out and do it.

[LDG]

Saw the Channel 4 news at 7 last night, I don't think I've been as stunned by something seen on TV since 9/11, the sight of a dead child old face down on the sand may well haunt me forever more, but I can't help thinking it was just another, albeit brutal, ploy by the media to try manipulate public opinion, maybe we're just too soft in the UK but I'm not sure I'm ready for the sight of dead children at teatime.

When I commented on this thread, I hadn't heard nor seen about this.

It just popped up on my FB page, and I must admit, I don't think I've ever seen something so sad......genuinely, I can understand why it may haunt you forever Perry...I think it will me too :(

In a way, it's good that it's out there, as it highlights the problems in this world....heck, thousands of kids die needlessly every day, so why is this different (some would say). Well, it is no different to a kid dying in war, or starvation....but we don't get shown images of dead children, and this may be the only way to bring it home....the death of a child is the worst thing you could ever see, and it hits a place in your soul that may actually stir people to do some good, if only for a day.

I'm soul destroyed having just seen it, and doing my best not to bawl my eyes out in front of my staff at work.

[Herbert_Chapman's_Zombie]

Really? Maybe I have deep rooted sociopathic tendencies but all I thought when I read the paper over lunch was "for fuck sake I'm trying to eat". Maybe if I had kids myself I would be less emotionally distant.
I personally think it's a bit rich for the newspapers who have spent the majority of the summer trying to dehumanise these people suddenly to try and appeal to our compassion now.

[LDG]

Really? Maybe I have deep rooted sociopathic tendencies but all I thought when I read the paper over lunch was "for fuck sake I'm trying to eat". Maybe if I had kids myself I would be less emotionally distant.
I personally think it's a bit rich for the newspapers who have spent the majority of the summer trying to dehumanise these people suddenly to try and appeal to our compassion now.

Nothing to do with Newspapers, even if they did print it. Journalism and reason for printing it should be left aside. What we have is an image which may just make people think.....that's a good thing, if any good can come out of such a tragic event.

I have a kiddie, so yeah, perhaps it hits harder, but it's a kid for fucks sake. As innocent a human being as you can get. Utterly horrific, and like Perry says, that image will haunt me for the rest of my life.

[Herbert_Chapman's_Zombie]

My point is maybe people should have been thinking before without visceral images, these things for me form part of the bandwagon society we've become.

Had I been on that beach and found that child I think I'd be haunted by it, but frankly an image in a newspaper doesn't resonate with me because it does feel remote and other worldly. I feel totally desensitised to it frankly, I have seen videos of women stoned to death in Syria whilst their father watches with tacit approval and although I know that this kind of barbarism must not stand and should be defeated, emotionally I don't feel anything other than disgust at the goryness of it, equally when watching people rounded up in the street and being machine gunned by Assads thugs.

If I'm honest brutally honest I'm far more likely to feel emotionally affected by the death of an animal.

[Niall_Quinn]

Really? Maybe I have deep rooted sociopathic tendencies but all I thought when I read the paper over lunch was "for fuck sake I'm trying to eat". Maybe if I had kids myself I would be less emotionally distant.
I personally think it's a bit rich for the newspapers who have spent the majority of the summer trying to dehumanise these people suddenly to try and appeal to our compassion now.

If you had kids you'd be able to properly gauge your contempt for the media. I'm pretty sure you're underestimating it.

Whether comfortable people want it or not, we're at war. It's a slow war inexorably building. I don't know what will happen as a result, I just know it is happening. I'm not looking forward to what comes next, I realise the need for change but unfortunately the sick fucks who have engineered our environment don't have access to the same concepts that human beings consider, and vice versa. There is no compatibility whatsoever. There are millions of us, just a handful of them, so the the result is assured. Just don't know what form the aftermath will take, something ridiculously stupid as usual I suspect.

[LDG]

My point is maybe people should have been thinking before without visceral images, these things for me form part of the bandwagon society we've become.

Had I been on that beach and found that child I think I'd be haunted by it, but frankly an image in a newspaper doesn't resonate with me because it does feel remote and other worldly. I feel totally desensitised to it frankly, I have seen videos of women stoned to death in Syria whilst their father watches with tacit approval and although I know that this kind of barbarism must not stand and should be defeated, emotionally I don't feel anything other than disgust at the goryness of it, equally when watching people rounded up in the street and being machine gunned by Assads thugs.

If I'm honest brutally honest I'm far more likely to feel emotionally affected by the death of an animal.

Oh there's no doubt that we should all be thinking about our fellow man, without the need for such a wake up call, but a wake up call is what is needed nonetheless, and whether it comes from the scummy cunts in the media or not, any promotion of simple humanity is welcomed in my eyes.

[Herbert_Chapman's_Zombie]

I think where I largely differ with you NQ is where you believe to quote you "sick fucks have engineered our environment"

I don't believe these individuals are sick, I believe they are human beings....we live in societies of our own construct....and whether we want to believe it or not there is nothing extraordinary about the atrocities we inflict on ourselves it's part of human nature.

I believe in the "banality of evil", the perpetrators of the most evil acts in our history aren't extraordinarily inhuman they are just fallible weak greedy corruptible like we are all, capable of incalculable evil in the right circumstances.

We could reap revenge on those who have kept us enslaved but until we as a race develop beyond our current limitations we are bound to find someone else to enslave us.

[Heisenberg]

There's a couple of issues being conflated here. The people who've been in the news are not just migrants, they are refugees. The way it was initially reported was with an emphasis on being migrants which gave the impression of economic migrants moving pragmatically to a place they could earn more, rather than people forced to flee their homes because of political repression and conflict.

However both issues require a huge multinational effort to resolve, or even come close to it. Not just providing shelter for refugees in such a way that every nation does its part - which includes not just Europe but the rest of the West and the Gulf neighbours of Iraq and Syria, but also addressing global inequalities and destitution which is an ultimate cause of both types of migration, and those circumstances wherein the two are blurred. It is not a coincidence that patterns of settlement in the world are almost wholly in a single direction.

[Letters]

It just goes from bad to worse. Now U2 are threatening to keep playing until it all gets sorted out :ilt:

http://www.rollingstone.com/music/videos/watch-u2-play-zooropa-for-syrian-refugees-at-european-tour-launch-20150905#ixzz3ksGOEgEl

[Niall_Quinn]

http://www.nme.com/news/bono/29280
http://www.theguardian.com/music/2010/sep/03/bono-prime-minister-tony-blair
http://www.express.co.uk/celebrity-news/77498/U2-drummer-s-Bono-rant

If Bono wants to contribute something useful he should shoot himself in the head. What a fucking toad.

[Globalgunner]

literally every modern crisis can be traced back to the western industrial war conglomerate. They are behind every war that keeps their coffers full. Peace is very bad for business. We might end up wasting huge sums of money on mundane things like education, housing and health.

[Niall_Quinn]

literally every modern crisis can be traced back to the western industrial war conglomerate. They are behind every war that keeps their coffers full. Peace is very bad for business. We might end up wasting huge sums of money on mundane things like education, housing and health.

What rubbish. It's not the west's (by west you mean US, UK, Israel, right?) fault that everyone else hates them for their freedoms. Go and live in Russia if you don't like it. Over there the state spies on everything you do, everything is owned by a bunch of oligarchs while the poor starve and live on the streets, they are racist, their government starts illegal wars. Try and imagine what it must be like to live in an absolute fucking shit hole full of grovelling sheep before you spout the truth on here.

You are an anti-semite!

[Globalgunner]

I have thought about the human condition and would like to suggest an alternative form of democracy
Lets vote for our Presidents, Prime Ministers et al, but our representatives, the people who go to the places where laws are made for our supposed benefit should not be politicians.
Representation should be like jury duty. Once you have reached voting age you can be randomly selected by an open televised ballot to be an MP or councillor for 4 years. This is a 1 off appointment which you can decline if you so wish. But essentially you want ordinary people making laws not professional politicians who are always kowtowing to the party whips and party policies. Policies that are hardly ever in the interests of the general populace.

This will be cheaper and remove the electioneering BS. When you make laws that you know will affect you personally in 3 years time when you return to the general public as a teacher or health worker, It focusses your mind on what will really benefit the people. Not some vested interests.

[Letters]

That's a bloody stupid idea.

[Niall_Quinn]

That's a bloody stupid idea.

Well argued. I agree with you, you can't have ordinary people involved in democracy.

[Letters]

I'm not sure I have to argue too much against the idea of a random ballot which *anyone* is eligible for.

[Niall_Quinn]

I'm not sure I have to argue too much against the idea of a random ballot which *anyone* is eligible for.

Absolutely right. Leadership should be left to our betters, those fine upstanding folk that have served us so diligently over the centuries.

[Letters]

Yes. Just like Wenger is either a genius or a bumbling idiot , and there is no in between, no shades of grey, so leadership should either be done by "our betters" or "some random bloke".
There is no middle way.

[Herbert_Chapman's_Zombie]

I think everything should be run within the parameters of Platos The Republic

[Herbert_Chapman's_Zombie]

Absolutely right. Leadership should be left to our betters, those fine upstanding folk that have served us so diligently over the centuries.

The thing is, a well meaning dimwit is still a dimwit. And would arguably be more pliable than the PR machine manufactured lot we have at the moment.
You can't escape from incompetency and corruption, it's Inate in human beings

[PGFC]

No it's not, although you have ably demonstrated that they are learned skills.

[Globalgunner]

All of you contributing here. which of you considers himself too ill equipped mentally to be a representative of his locality, without a Political party to tell him how to vote. Letters need not reply. We all know how gullible he is

If you think you are smart enough then why not. at the last election a 20 year old student became an MP is Scotland, guess you lot are dumber than a 20 year old?

[Globalgunner]

We can trust a bunch of carpenters, mechanics and seamstresses to sit on a jury and decide the life or death fate of an individual in court, Or rule on a Billion dollar class action lawsuit. But deciding whether to go to war on some flimsy cooked up evidence, Or deciding between a new 15Billion nuclear weapon or funding for schools. You need expert politicians for that.

Representation is exactly that. Not when you elect someone to represent you, and then decides to do instead what the party wants so that he can be returned in a safe seat. Or become a minister 10 years down the line.

[Letters]

All of you contributing here. which of you considers himself too ill equipped mentally to be a representative of his locality, without a Political party to tell him how to vote. Letters need not reply. We all know how gullible he is

If you think you are smart enough then why not. at the last election a 20 year old student became an MP is Scotland, guess you lot are dumber than a 20 year old?

I'll reply if I want to, thanks.

You don't get more intelligent with age although you do get more life experience. So do I think I'm smarter than a 20 year old? Well, it depends which 20 year old. That new MP is clearly above average intelligence, some of the kids who end up on Jeremy Kyle - yeah, I think I'm a bit smarter than them. And it's not all about intelligence anyway, you get some incredibly intelligent people who have little or no common sense and would make ridiculous decision.

In brief, picking some random man or woman off the street with no filtering at all is a stupid idea, I really shouldn't need to explain why.

[Globalgunner]

I'll reply if I want to, thanks.

You don't get more intelligent with age although you do get more life experience. So do I think I'm smarter than a 20 year old? Well, it depends which 20 year old. That new MP is clearly above average intelligence, some of the kids who end up on Jeremy Kyle - yeah, I think I'm a bit smarter than them. And it's not all about intelligence anyway, you get some incredibly intelligent people who have little or no common sense and would make ridiculous decision.

In brief, picking some random man or woman off the street with no filtering at all is a stupid idea, I really shouldn't need to explain why.

You sound just like a politician. . I have decided that this is how it should be but cant be bothered to explain myself. Random person can decide wether you live or die, but cant decide whether to build an airport or order F16s, Pls come down from on high and bestow us with your majestic intelligence.

[Letters]

We don't have the death penalty.

And no, not some random person - a group of 12 random people who ARE vetted by people who know what they're doing. Just because you're called for jury duty doesn't mean you'll end up on a jury. And throughout the process you're guided by people who are trained in the law. And ultimately a judge does, in some situations, have the right to overrule a jury. Could I sit on a jury? Yes. Could I be a barrister or judge? Obviously not without a serious amount of training and the right aptitude.

[Globalgunner]

the UK having it or not is irrelevant, and speaks to your typical deflection in arguments. the US has a jury system and has the death penalty. Bottom line is juries decide on weighty matters without prior training. Even in jury selection you cannot exclude a potential juror because the lawyer thinks he is not smart enough, it is usually on account of presupposed prejudices. A judge cannot unilaterally throw away the decision of a jury without just cause.
My position is simple, if you can be trusted to vote in an election, you should be trusted to make an informed decision along with multitudes of others in a parliament.

In a bicameral assembly like in the US with Senate and House of reps, Age can be used as a delination between the two, with more senior individuals in the senate.

You have not shown how a typical MP is smarter than the average fellow. What has he done to exemplify that?. party nominated in a safe seat....You could be as gullible as a fellow who believes Wenger knows what he is doing even though he has shown for a decade that he doesn't .......and still get elected.

[Letters]

You have not shown how a typical MP is smarter than the average fellow.

I don't need to show that. All I need to show is that there are lots and lots of people who are below average (there must be, that's what average means) who would be eligible under your ridiculous system and would make terrible decisions and would clearly not be good representitives.

Which doesn't mean that the politicians we have are any good and that the system we have is any good, but replacing it with a clearly worse system makes us much sense as replacing Wenger with, say, David Moyes.

[Niall_Quinn]

Yes. Just like Wenger is either a genius or a bumbling idiot , and there is no in between, no shades of grey, so leadership should either be done by "our betters" or "some random bloke".
There is no middle way.

The people are not "some random bloke" - this is the bit that government and its collaborators have long since forgotten. Why is it okay for "some random bloke" to sit on a jury in judgement of a fellow human being? Is this somehow less important than the business of organising the peoples' resources?

[Syn]

There is a conflict between catering to the public to be elected and responsible, long-term policies. The few countries that are healthy right now have a very homogenous population to appease, so less trade offs need to be balanced in policy.

We should get rid of prime ministers and political parties to a certain extent. We should directly elect specific experts and teams that would only be in charge of one issue. A body for transport, a body for immigration, a body for education etc.

[Niall_Quinn]

The thing is, a well meaning dimwit is still a dimwit. And would arguably be more pliable than the PR machine manufactured lot we have at the moment.
You can't escape from incompetency and corruption, it's Inate in human beings

No it isn't.

Anyway, I'm not claiming to agree with Globalgunner's proposition, I just disagree vehemently with Letter's dismissive attitude. When you look at what a terrible state our parliament is in, I mean look properly rather than be led by the nose, it's self evident that almost any alternative is worthy of consideration. Only collaborators have a vested interest in maintaining the status quo and blocking their eyes and ears.

[Niall_Quinn]

I'll reply if I want to, thanks.

You don't get more intelligent with age although you do get more life experience. So do I think I'm smarter than a 20 year old? Well, it depends which 20 year old. That new MP is clearly above average intelligence, some of the kids who end up on Jeremy Kyle - yeah, I think I'm a bit smarter than them. And it's not all about intelligence anyway, you get some incredibly intelligent people who have little or no common sense and would make ridiculous decision.

In brief, picking some random man or woman off the street with no filtering at all is a stupid idea, I really shouldn't need to explain why.

Well you couldn't be bothered with a sensible reply initially, so what the sudden interest?

[Globalgunner]

In sentencing. You usually hear them say. "A jury of your peers, having found you......"
In Letters world, this would be replaced with " A jury of your betters"

[Letters]

Yeah, you're just WUMming now so I'll bid you good day :tiphat:

[Niall_Quinn]

In sentencing. You usually hear them say. "A jury of your peers, having found you......"
In Letters world, this would be replaced with " A jury of your betters"

Know your place and don't complain mate - it's the British way.

Here's what non-random and highly organised criminals do:
http://www.birminghampost.co.uk/business/finance/secure-trust-bank-boss-calls-9702825

Do you see how that works? Clever, isn't it? "Random blokes" would never be able to come up with something that clever.

[Niall_Quinn]

Yeah, you're just WUMming now so I'll bid you good day :tiphat:

Have you asked permission to have a good day?

[Syn]

In sentencing. You usually hear them say. "A jury of your peers, having found you......"
In Letters world, this would be replaced with " A jury of your betters"

Thats the way it should be. Thick people shouldn't make big decisions.

[Niall_Quinn]

Thats the way it should be. Thick people shouldn't make big decisions.

Depends what you mean by thick. If you mean individuals who have enjoyed the most privileged educations but who can't avoid repeating all the mistakes of the past because to learn would jeopardise lucrative self gains, then aren't they about as thick as it's possible to be? Foregoing a world of progress so they can live out the blink of an eye in comfort? People who are so fucking thick they retard the advancement of mankind. That's pretty fucking thick don't you think?

[Syn]

Depends what you mean by thick. If you mean individuals who have enjoyed the most privileged educations but who can't avoid repeating all the mistakes of the past because to learn would jeopardise lucrative self gains, then aren't they about as thick as it's possible to be? Foregoing a world of progress so they can live out the blink of an eye in comfort? People who are so fucking thick they retard the advancement of mankind. That's pretty fucking thick don't you think?

Selfish, but obviously not thick. Pretty thick to think they such people are thick, NQ you thicko. Bottom line: the world won't progress until it stops pandering to the electorate. The electorate are stupid and like fake twats like Boris Johnson running the capital of Europe. Long term future needs to be ahead of the short term, even thought that means things will get worse in the immediate future.

[Herbert_Chapman's_Zombie]

All of you contributing here. which of you considers himself too ill equipped mentally to be a representative of his locality, without a Political party to tell him how to vote. Letters need not reply. We all know how gullible he is

If you think you are smart enough then why not. at the last election a 20 year old student became an MP is Scotland, guess you lot are dumber than a 20 year old?

Oh you mean the dyke that sounds like a chain smoking Glaswegian docker and has the same amount of political nous and common sense that most champagne socialist student radicals have at her age?

[Herbert_Chapman's_Zombie]

We can trust a bunch of carpenters, mechanics and seamstresses to sit on a jury and decide the life or death fate of an individual in court, Or rule on a Billion dollar class action lawsuit. But deciding whether to go to war on some flimsy cooked up evidence, Or deciding between a new 15Billion nuclear weapon or funding for schools. You need expert politicians for that.

Representation is exactly that. Not when you elect someone to represent you, and then decides to do instead what the party wants so that he can be returned in a safe seat. Or become a minister 10 years down the line.

As it happens I don't believe in trial by Jury either, having done jury duty convinced me of that people decide based on their own perceptions and prejudices rather than the facts of the case.

[Letters]

http://www.panarabiaenquirer.com/wordpress/syria-only-weeks-away-from-bono-charity-single-warns-un/

:(

[Globalgunner]

Oh you mean the dyke that sounds like a chain smoking Glaswegian docker and has the same amount of political nous and common sense that most champagne socialist student radicals have at her age?

Letters says she must be smart, having become an MP. That`s all it takes. She will be making policy decisions in a few years that affect all of us.

[Letters]

Yeah, you're just WUMming now so I'll bid you good day :tiphat:

:gp:

[PGFC]

Letters says she must be smart, having become an MP. That`s all it takes. She will be making policy decisions in a few years that affect all of us.

You don't necessarily have to be smart to be a politician, you just have to be charismatic, it's all about getting people to do want you want them to and making them think it was all their own idea to, it's why politicians and crooks are often lumped together, they commonly have the most charisma.

[Herbert_Chapman's_Zombie]

Letters says she must be smart, having become an MP. That`s all it takes. She will be making policy decisions in a few years that affect all of us.

Will she?......is she going to defect to the conservatives

I tend to think we get the politicians we deserve, and the Labour Party obviously deserves a man who calls anti Semites and holocaust deniers friends, a man who tactically gave Iraqi insurgents the green light to attack coalition troops, who wants to give the Falklands back to Argentina etc.

[Niall_Quinn]

Will she?......is she going to defect to the conservatives

I tend to think we get the politicians we deserve, and the Labour Party obviously deserves a man who calls anti Semites and holocaust deniers friends, a man who tactically gave Iraqi insurgents the green light to attack coalition troops, who wants to give the Falklands back to Argentina etc.

Please - don't talk shit and don't be doing the media's job for them.

Corbyn has never supported terrorism or even violence on the picket line, unlike Cameron who counts terrorists as his closest friends. Well he would, he being a terrorist by the classic definition himself.

People who hate those interloping cunts posing as Jews while supporting the Palestinians cannot possibly be anti-Semitic. Palestinians, as well as Jews of Middle Eastern descent are the Semitic people who used to live side by side without any problems whatsoever. The foul and barbaric sub-humans that swept down from Asia and the transplanted Zionists (who sat out the wars safely and threw money at both sides while turning a blind eye to the plight of the Jews in Germany) and the Apartheid settlers are not Semites, never have been and never will be. They are dual-nationalists and gypsies of no fixed abode, shunned by everyone they ever came into contact with and for very good reason. Anyone who supports these bastards is the anti-Semite and the racist by default.

I'm talking a Hezbollah flag to Cameron's next speech. That will mean he wants to see British troops getting killed. I wonder if the BBC will cover it? Corbyn must have a hell of a lot of support at the grass roots if he has the establishment this terrified. As hilarious as the Panorama hit piece was, they only roll this kind of shit out for a clear and present danger. And if they are in any danger whatsoever then that's extremely good and very unexpected news. You don't believe all that shit about unelectable and the supposed disaster of a worker's party being led by somebody who supports workers, do you? If he was unelectable then respectable and mainstream war criminals like Blunkett, Blair and Co wouldn't be shitting their pants on live TV.

[Herbert_Chapman's_Zombie]

Please - don't talk shit and don't be doing the media's job for them.

Corbyn has never supported terrorism or even violence on the picket line, unlike Cameron who counts terrorists as his closest friends. Well he would, he being a terrorist by the classic definition himself.

People who hate those interloping cunts posing as Jews while supporting the Palestinians cannot possibly be anti-Semitic. Palestinians, as well as Jews of Middle Eastern descent are the Semitic people who used to live side by side without any problems whatsoever. The foul and barbaric sub-humans that swept down from Asia and the transplanted Zionists (who sat out the wars safely and threw money at both sides while turning a blind eye to the plight of the Jews in Germany) and the Apartheid settlers are not Semites, never have been and never will be. They are dual-nationalists and gypsies of no fixed abode, shunned by everyone they ever came into contact with and for very good reason. Anyone who supports these bastards is the anti-Semite and the racist by default.

I'm talking a Hezbollah flag to Cameron's next speech. That will mean he wants to see British troops getting killed. I wonder if the BBC will cover it? Corbyn must have a hell of a lot of support at the grass roots if he has the establishment this terrified. As hilarious as the Panorama hit piece was, they only roll this kind of shit out for a clear and present danger. And if they are in any danger whatsoever then that's extremely good and very unexpected news. You don't believe all that shit about unelectable and the supposed disaster of a worker's party being led by somebody who supports workers, do you? If he was unelectable then respectable and mainstream war criminals like Blunkett, Blair and Co wouldn't be shitting their pants on live TV.

By anti Semite I mean those who characterise all Jewish people in the crude and dehumanising way those media outlets of Arab States do.
I'm not the one who has chosen to make Jewish and Israel interchangeable terms.

Also remember NQ it is the Old Testament that these interlopers and nomads as you call them use as their justification.

[Niall_Quinn]

By anti Semite I mean those who characterise all Jewish people in the crude and dehumanising way those media outlets of Arab States do.
I'm not the one who has chosen to make Jewish and Israel interchangeable terms.

Also remember NQ it is the Old Testament that these interlopers and nomads as you call them use as their justification.

The Semitic Jews have every right to refer to the Old Testament in reference to their history, but the interlopers from Asia who played no part in the Old Testament have no such rights. They were busy eating their own kids while the imaginary events of the Old Testament were playing out. Neither do the bastard Zionists who have more affinity with an alien regime than they do their own nation, they were picking fleas and breeding them for profit in some cave on the European mainland when Moses was doing his thing. Israel of today has no similarity to Israel of old, other than the fact the Semitic people are still being oppressed, real Jews and Palestinians alike. Neither did I make Israel interchangeable with Jew - it was the Zionist pigs and their European lackeys who managed that.

It's easy to look through the filter of the mainstream media (aka the Zionist media) and imagine a struggle between Israel and the Palestinians exists. But strip away that filter and the truth emerges, there's no struggle just a slow motion genocide. This is why Israel is hated and hateful. And with comprehensive justification. Why wouldn't the modern day Nazis and everything they stand for be vilified? And for this simple observation Corbyn is tarnished by puppets who lap the heels of the Zionists. There needs to be a new word invented for this depth of hypocrisy and irony.

[WMUG]

To get back on track: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KVV6_1Sef9M

[PGFC]

To get back on track

Are you new here?

[Letters]

To get back on track: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KVV6_1Sef9M

Wow. Very good.

[Niall_Quinn]

Wow. Very good.

Yes, it was very clever. 9 minutes and 100mph without providing a single instance that might help in understanding the crisis - that's impressive. To answer the question you are going to ask - no, there's absolutely no point. People these days either have a clue or they don't - even when the clues are plastered to their eyeballs. There's no bridging the gap. We just have to hope the ratio is not tipped too far towards the ignorant and the complacent.

[Niall_Quinn]

To get back on track: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KVV6_1Sef9M

We were on track - you just took us off into a comfortable fantasy land.