20,000 Afghan Refugees Coming To The Uk.

[altus 534]

24 minutes ago, spilldig said:

I'm glad we agree at last

Nice to see you've finally figured out how to divide 17,410,742 by 65,648,000.

[spilldig 185]

1 hour ago, altus said:

Nice to see you've finally figured out how to divide 17,410,742 by 65,648,000.

The division doesn't matter just the votes.

[altus 534]

2 minutes ago, spilldig said:

The division doesn't matter just the votes.

 

Nobody is disputing the result of the referendum. I'm pointing out that your use of "the majority of people in this country" to refer to brexiters is wrong because less that half of the people in this country voted leave. I'll leave you to continue digging that hole you're in since you're obviously beyond help.

[tzijlstra 11]

On 18/08/2021 at 17:07, ab6262 said:

are you stark ravin?? we owe them??? what after 911?? london? and many other atrocities across the world , the vast majority are Taliban sympathisers and hate the west and all we stand for until they hold their hand out.

we occupied it for a reason the same reason thats happening now.

 

Hmmm...

 

'We owe them???' - This question stems from the simplistic view that one Afghan is the same as the next. A bit like saying Keir Starmer is just like Adam Peaty because they are both British. The vast majority of Afghans had nothing to do with the one or two Al-Qaeda training camps that were allegedly based in Afghanistan. It suited the narrative of the warmongering Americans to point to 'evidence' nobody has ever seen, likely obtained in Guantanamo Bay (or similar torture camps) under illegal (Under international law) circumstances. 

 

'what after 911?? london? and many other atrocities across the world' , - The 9/11 perpetrators were Saudi/Egyptian/UAE and Lebanese. Of the 19 there were 15 Saudi nationals. Yet the Americans invaded Afghanistan and Iraq? Almost like they only wanted to pick on 'weaker' and 'non-allied or aligned' nations, don't you think? Ever wondered why Saudi wasn't targeted? The overwhelming majority of the London attacks were... British. But it would have been a bit rich to target the Brits, wouldn't it? Easier to use the narrative to continue the 'war on terror' on territories far away, as long as the arms producers can continue the wheels turning! 

 

Most atrocities around the world are committed by nationals of the nation where the atrocity takes place. They are not generally considered 'Taliban sympathisers' but do believe that Muslims were targeted by 'the West'. Just like most atrocities committed by right wing terrorists are committed under a similar veined reason. Simple fact is that terrorism is the result of a feeling of being wronged, truth and fact is irrelevant.  

 

'and hate the west and all we stand for until they hold their hand out.' Again, this stems from the simplistic view that one Afghan is the same as the next, a mindless trope. Let's look at that 'owed' factor. When NATO wrongfully invaded Afghanistan most people there were living in relative peace under their own set of rules. We do not agree with those rules as they do not align to ours. Upon invading a lot of Afghans that also did not agree with the current rules decided they would side with NATO and help them in a variety of roles, we hear of Translators a lot, but there were many thousands of functions carried out in name of NATO. Most of these roles were carried out by men, a result of Afghanistan not allowing women to be educated for decades. 

 

'we occupied it for a reason the same reason thats happening now.' - NATO occupied under false pretences, as explained in the second paragraph. NATO claimed to want to eliminate Al-Qaeda, truth is that we haven't got a clue why. Once Osama Bin Laden was killed Al-Qaeda ceased to exist, no problem though, other similar anti-Western organisations will have already spawned since. The best way to keep these at bay is through intelligence and financial repression. This was already well known before 9/11 and many insisted on using this route, but Bush buckled under the pressure of the arms-lobby and decided he wanted 'boots on the ground'. There was nothing altruistic or humane about occupying Afghanistan, if there was than why is NATO not occupying North-Korea? Cuba? Turkmenistan? Saudi? 

 

If you are going to be vehemently against Afghan immigrants to the UK, be angry with the UK for following the US like the lapdogs the government are, not the refugees. That anger is also why so many take up negative ideas towards the NATO, an estimated 300,000 to 1,000,000 Iraqi and Afghan nationals were killed during the Iraq/Afghan wars in the last two decades, that is a multiple of the total civilians died in the UK in WW2. Can you imagine the anger in the UK if, let's say the Russians, killed a million Brits? 

 

Look a bit past your own rhetoric and apply some critical thinking about cause and effect. 

 

 

[ab6262 202]

18 minutes ago, tzijlstra said:

Hmmm...

 

'We owe them???' - This question stems from the simplistic view that one Afghan is the same as the next. A bit like saying Keir Starmer is just like Adam Peaty because they are both British. The vast majority of Afghans had nothing to do with the one or two Al-Qaeda training camps that were allegedly based in Afghanistan. It suited the narrative of the warmongering Americans to point to 'evidence' nobody has ever seen, likely obtained in Guantanamo Bay (or similar torture camps) under illegal (Under international law) circumstances. 

 

'what after 911?? london? and many other atrocities across the world' , - The 9/11 perpetrators were Saudi/Egyptian/UAE and Lebanese. Of the 19 there were 15 Saudi nationals. Yet the Americans invaded Afghanistan and Iraq? Almost like they only wanted to pick on 'weaker' and 'non-allied or aligned' nations, don't you think? Ever wondered why Saudi wasn't targeted? The overwhelming majority of the London attacks were... British. But it would have been a bit rich to target the Brits, wouldn't it? Easier to use the narrative to continue the 'war on terror' on territories far away, as long as the arms producers can continue the wheels turning! 

 

Most atrocities around the world are committed by nationals of the nation where the atrocity takes place. They are not generally considered 'Taliban sympathisers' but do believe that Muslims were targeted by 'the West'. Just like most atrocities committed by right wing terrorists are committed under a similar veined reason. Simple fact is that terrorism is the result of a feeling of being wronged, truth and fact is irrelevant.  

 

'and hate the west and all we stand for until they hold their hand out.' Again, this stems from the simplistic view that one Afghan is the same as the next, a mindless trope. Let's look at that 'owed' factor. When NATO wrongfully invaded Afghanistan most people there were living in relative peace under their own set of rules. We do not agree with those rules as they do not align to ours. Upon invading a lot of Afghans that also did not agree with the current rules decided they would side with NATO and help them in a variety of roles, we hear of Translators a lot, but there were many thousands of functions carried out in name of NATO. Most of these roles were carried out by men, a result of Afghanistan not allowing women to be educated for decades. 

 

'we occupied it for a reason the same reason thats happening now.' - NATO occupied under false pretences, as explained in the second paragraph. NATO claimed to want to eliminate Al-Qaeda, truth is that we haven't got a clue why. Once Osama Bin Laden was killed Al-Qaeda ceased to exist, no problem though, other similar anti-Western organisations will have already spawned since. The best way to keep these at bay is through intelligence and financial repression. This was already well known before 9/11 and many insisted on using this route, but Bush buckled under the pressure of the arms-lobby and decided he wanted 'boots on the ground'. There was nothing altruistic or humane about occupying Afghanistan, if there was than why is NATO not occupying North-Korea? Cuba? Turkmenistan? Saudi? 

 

If you are going to be vehemently against Afghan immigrants to the UK, be angry with the UK for following the US like the lapdogs the government are, not the refugees. That anger is also why so many take up negative ideas towards the NATO, an estimated 300,000 to 1,000,000 Iraqi and Afghan nationals were killed during the Iraq/Afghan wars in the last two decades, that is a multiple of the total civilians died in the UK in WW2. Can you imagine the anger in the UK if, let's say the Russians, killed a million Brits? 

 

Look a bit past your own rhetoric and apply some critical thinking about cause and effect. 

 

 

if you say so, you have way too much time on your hands!

[cuttsie 1,089]

1 hour ago, tzijlstra said:

Hmmm...

 

'We owe them???' - This question stems from the simplistic view that one Afghan is the same as the next. A bit like saying Keir Starmer is just like Adam Peaty because they are both British. The vast majority of Afghans had nothing to do with the one or two Al-Qaeda training camps that were allegedly based in Afghanistan. It suited the narrative of the warmongering Americans to point to 'evidence' nobody has ever seen, likely obtained in Guantanamo Bay (or similar torture camps) under illegal (Under international law) circumstances. 

 

'what after 911?? london? and many other atrocities across the world' , - The 9/11 perpetrators were Saudi/Egyptian/UAE and Lebanese. Of the 19 there were 15 Saudi nationals. Yet the Americans invaded Afghanistan and Iraq? Almost like they only wanted to pick on 'weaker' and 'non-allied or aligned' nations, don't you think? Ever wondered why Saudi wasn't targeted? The overwhelming majority of the London attacks were... British. But it would have been a bit rich to target the Brits, wouldn't it? Easier to use the narrative to continue the 'war on terror' on territories far away, as long as the arms producers can continue the wheels turning! 

 

Most atrocities around the world are committed by nationals of the nation where the atrocity takes place. They are not generally considered 'Taliban sympathisers' but do believe that Muslims were targeted by 'the West'. Just like most atrocities committed by right wing terrorists are committed under a similar veined reason. Simple fact is that terrorism is the result of a feeling of being wronged, truth and fact is irrelevant.  

 

'and hate the west and all we stand for until they hold their hand out.' Again, this stems from the simplistic view that one Afghan is the same as the next, a mindless trope. Let's look at that 'owed' factor. When NATO wrongfully invaded Afghanistan most people there were living in relative peace under their own set of rules. We do not agree with those rules as they do not align to ours. Upon invading a lot of Afghans that also did not agree with the current rules decided they would side with NATO and help them in a variety of roles, we hear of Translators a lot, but there were many thousands of functions carried out in name of NATO. Most of these roles were carried out by men, a result of Afghanistan not allowing women to be educated for decades. 

 

'we occupied it for a reason the same reason thats happening now.' - NATO occupied under false pretences, as explained in the second paragraph. NATO claimed to want to eliminate Al-Qaeda, truth is that we haven't got a clue why. Once Osama Bin Laden was killed Al-Qaeda ceased to exist, no problem though, other similar anti-Western organisations will have already spawned since. The best way to keep these at bay is through intelligence and financial repression. This was already well known before 9/11 and many insisted on using this route, but Bush buckled under the pressure of the arms-lobby and decided he wanted 'boots on the ground'. There was nothing altruistic or humane about occupying Afghanistan, if there was than why is NATO not occupying North-Korea? Cuba? Turkmenistan? Saudi? 

 

If you are going to be vehemently against Afghan immigrants to the UK, be angry with the UK for following the US like the lapdogs the government are, not the refugees. That anger is also why so many take up negative ideas towards the NATO, an estimated 300,000 to 1,000,000 Iraqi and Afghan nationals were killed during the Iraq/Afghan wars in the last two decades, that is a multiple of the total civilians died in the UK in WW2. Can you imagine the anger in the UK if, let's say the Russians, killed a million Brits? 

 

Look a bit past your own rhetoric and apply some critical thinking about cause and effect. 

 

 

Perhaps some of our friends across the channel should do their fare share and take in more refugees.

[butlers 259]

Our friends over the channel all take vastly more refugees than we do,in cases multiple times.

 

[L00b 441]

32 minutes ago, cuttsie said:

Perhaps some of our friends across the channel should do their fare share and take in more refugees.

Do you think?

 

Pakistan 1.4m

Iran 780k

Germany 148k

Austria 40k

France 30k

Sweden 30k

Australia 11k

UK 9k

India 8k US 2k

 

‘friends across the channel’ and ‘fair share’, eh? 😏

 

 

Edited August 25, 2021 by L00b

[tzijlstra 11]

1 hour ago, ab6262 said:

if you say so, you have way too much time on your hands!

You clearly have too little.

39 minutes ago, butlers said:

Our friends over the channel all take vastly more refugees than we do,in cases multiple times.

 

Not to mention the displaced already in neighbouring countries. One thing the UK should be doing is negotiating with Pakistan to set up refugee capacity there. 

[HumbleNarrator 286]

1 hour ago, cuttsie said:

Perhaps some of our friends across the channel should do their fare share and take in more refugees.

Within Sheffield certain areas that are home to most of the "refugees-are-welcome" brigade should take their fare share of refugees instead of them being dumped on all the usual places.

 

ARE YOU LISTENING DORE AND TOTLEY, BEAUCHIEF,  MILLHOUSES ,ETC??  lets build some refugee centres in your areas for a change eh?

 

The real reason Hallam Tower was demolished was so that it couldn't be used as a refugee holding place. 

[trastrick 866]

1 hour ago, tzijlstra said:

Hmmm...

 

'We owe them???' - This question stems from the simplistic view that one Afghan is the same as the next. A bit like saying Keir Starmer is just like Adam Peaty because they are both British. The vast majority of Afghans had nothing to do with the one or two Al-Qaeda training camps that were allegedly based in Afghanistan. It suited the narrative of the warmongering Americans to point to 'evidence' nobody has ever seen, likely obtained in Guantanamo Bay (or similar torture camps) under illegal (Under international law) circumstances. 

 

'what after 911?? london? and many other atrocities across the world' , - The 9/11 perpetrators were Saudi/Egyptian/UAE and Lebanese. Of the 19 there were 15 Saudi nationals. Yet the Americans invaded Afghanistan and Iraq? Almost like they only wanted to pick on 'weaker' and 'non-allied or aligned' nations, don't you think? Ever wondered why Saudi wasn't targeted? The overwhelming majority of the London attacks were... British. But it would have been a bit rich to target the Brits, wouldn't it? Easier to use the narrative to continue the 'war on terror' on territories far away, as long as the arms producers can continue the wheels turning! 

 

Most atrocities around the world are committed by nationals of the nation where the atrocity takes place. They are not generally considered 'Taliban sympathisers' but do believe that Muslims were targeted by 'the West'. Just like most atrocities committed by right wing terrorists are committed under a similar veined reason. Simple fact is that terrorism is the result of a feeling of being wronged, truth and fact is irrelevant.  

 

'and hate the west and all we stand for until they hold their hand out.' Again, this stems from the simplistic view that one Afghan is the same as the next, a mindless trope. Let's look at that 'owed' factor. When NATO wrongfully invaded Afghanistan most people there were living in relative peace under their own set of rules. We do not agree with those rules as they do not align to ours. Upon invading a lot of Afghans that also did not agree with the current rules decided they would side with NATO and help them in a variety of roles, we hear of Translators a lot, but there were many thousands of functions carried out in name of NATO. Most of these roles were carried out by men, a result of Afghanistan not allowing women to be educated for decades. 

 

'we occupied it for a reason the same reason thats happening now.' - NATO occupied under false pretences, as explained in the second paragraph. NATO claimed to want to eliminate Al-Qaeda, truth is that we haven't got a clue why. Once Osama Bin Laden was killed Al-Qaeda ceased to exist, no problem though, other similar anti-Western organisations will have already spawned since. The best way to keep these at bay is through intelligence and financial repression. This was already well known before 9/11 and many insisted on using this route, but Bush buckled under the pressure of the arms-lobby and decided he wanted 'boots on the ground'. There was nothing altruistic or humane about occupying Afghanistan, if there was than why is NATO not occupying North-Korea? Cuba? Turkmenistan? Saudi? 

 

If you are going to be vehemently against Afghan immigrants to the UK, be angry with the UK for following the US like the lapdogs the government are, not the refugees. That anger is also why so many take up negative ideas towards the NATO, an estimated 300,000 to 1,000,000 Iraqi and Afghan nationals were killed during the Iraq/Afghan wars in the last two decades, that is a multiple of the total civilians died in the UK in WW2. Can you imagine the anger in the UK if, let's say the Russians, killed a million Brits? 

 

Look a bit past your own rhetoric and apply some critical thinking about cause and effect. 

 

 

Ah, cause and effect!

 

Looking at the big picture,” recent estimates for global poverty are that 9.2% of the world, or 689 million people, live in extreme poverty on less than $1.90 or less a day, according to the World Bank”.

 

UNICEF reports there are 3,500,000 children dying every year from malnutrition and hunger.

 

For those of us that were lucky enough to be born in a free prosperous country, there is always a human urge to try to help others less fortunate.

 

The problem is, you can’t bring everybody poor person into your country, any more than you can bring all the less fortunate people in your neighborhood into your home. There’s just too many.

 

So you have to decide how to help on the basis of need. The hungry, the persecuted, the poor.

 

The simplistic solution is keep bringing them in until you can’t afford to care for them, This is the emotional argument. The problems with this approach are seen every day in your news headlines. Spiraling National Debt, lack of cultural assimilation, ghettoization, and much more.

 

Other’s favour the other simple concept, keeping them at home, going in there and teaching them to fish, rather than giving them a day’s supply of fish. Use the resources to educate and teach them how a country becomes prosperous. This includes changing their corrupt, oppressive and incompetent governments. The problems with this approach are also seen every day in your news headlines, with the failed experiment in Afghanistan and other places.

 

Unfortunately “the poor will always be with us”, whether in discrete pockets, or across the World’s entire populations, depending on whether you open up the store to a few customers, or open the doors to your whole store, and let them take what they want.

 

It’s a problem of human nature, and not easily to be solved.

 

I happen to believe the best solution is the “set a good example” scenario where you leave them in place, and let them come out of the dark ages on their own.

 

The contrasts, between North Korea and South Korea, Cuba and the Bahamas, the old East Germany and West Germany, China and Taiwan or Hong Kong, Costa Rica and Venezuela, couldn’t be clearer, namely the government they choose.

 

I have some experience with where I live in the Dominican Republic. It has the most prosperous economy in the Caribbean, yet half our Island is shared by Haiti, a basket case, by any metric. The hardest working people I’ve ever met are Haitians. The only difference is their government.

 

No matter how powerful the rulers, a government can fall virtually overnight (see the U.S.S.R) if they do not have the majority of the people behind them.

 

But the revolution has to come from inside, not externally imposed.

 

If you insist on helping an old lady cross the street, when she’s not ready to go, you risk her hitting you with her umbrella and both getting hit by a bus.

 

People get the government they deserve, and they have no automatic “human right” to the prosperity and freedom other nations have sacrificed great blood and treasure to obtain, and maintain.

[ab6262 202]

11 minutes ago, trastrick said:

Ah, cause and effect!

 

Looking at the big picture,” recent estimates for global poverty are that 9.2% of the world, or 689 million people, live in extreme poverty on less than $1.90 or less a day, according to the World Bank”.

 

UNICEF reports there are 3,500,000 children dying every year from malnutrition and hunger.

 

For those of us that were lucky enough to be born in a free prosperous country, there is always a human urge to try to help others less fortunate.

 

The problem is, you can’t bring everybody poor person into your country, any more than you can bring all the less fortunate people in your neighborhood into your home. There’s just too many.

 

So you have to decide how to help on the basis of need. The hungry, the persecuted, the poor.

 

The simplistic solution is keep bringing them in until you can’t afford to care for them, This is the emotional argument. The problems with this approach are seen every day in your news headlines. Spiraling National Debt, lack of cultural assimilation, ghettoization, and much more.

 

Other’s favour the other simple concept, keeping them at home, going in there and teaching them to fish, rather than giving them a day’s supply of fish. Use the resources to educate and teach them how a country becomes prosperous. This includes changing their corrupt, oppressive and incompetent governments. The problems with this approach are also seen every day in your news headlines, with the failed experiment in Afghanistan and other places.

 

Unfortunately “the poor will always be with us”, whether in discrete pockets, or across the World’s entire populations, depending on whether you open up the store to a few customers, or open the doors to your whole store, and let them take what they want.

 

It’s a problem of human nature, and not easily to be solved.

 

I happen to believe the best solution is the “set a good example” scenario where you leave them in place, and let them come out of the dark ages on their own.

 

The contrasts, between North Korea and South Korea, Cuba and the Bahamas, the old East Germany and West Germany, China and Taiwan or Hong Kong, Costa Rica and Venezuela, couldn’t be clearer, namely the government they choose.

 

I have some experience with where I live in the Dominican Republic. It has the most prosperous economy in the Caribbean, yet half our Island is shared by Haiti, a basket case, by any metric. The hardest working people I’ve ever met are Haitians. The only difference is their government.

 

No matter how powerful the rulers, a government can fall virtually overnight (see the U.S.S.R) if they do not have the majority of the people behind them.

 

But the revolution has to come from inside, not externally imposed.

 

If you insist on helping an old lady cross the street, when she’s not ready to go, you risk her hitting you with her umbrella and both getting hit by a bus.

 

People get the government they deserve, and they have no automatic “human right” to the prosperity and freedom other nations have sacrificed great blood and treasure to obtain, and maintain.

excellent post but many here wont get the sense.