The power of propaganda.

noseall said:
WalksWithTurkeys said:
Yup, some Arab countries have small populations so cannot realistically take many. Lebanon and Jordan have huge Palestinian refugee populations anyway.
Click to expand...
Sssh, don't tell anyone especially the blinkered ****** thwankers.
Click to expand...

You need to express your opinion minus the flaming/ abuse. It adds nothing whatsoever.
 
Sponsored Links
HawkEye244 said:
noseall said:
WalksWithTurkeys said:
Yup, some Arab countries have small populations so cannot realistically take many. Lebanon and Jordan have huge Palestinian refugee populations anyway.
Click to expand...
Sssh, don't tell anyone especially the blinkered ****** thwankers.
Click to expand...

You need to express your opinion minus the flaming/ abuse. It adds nothing whatsoever.
Click to expand...

Exactly. Polite discussion and disagreement is one of the strengths of this forum. Sometimes people do not agree because they are ill informed, and I can sometimes be in that group, sometimes because of a different viewpoint.
 
Gasman77 said:
In my opinion, we should be offering refuge to tens of thousands of asylum seekers, not hundreds.... If we want to be 'Great' Britain again.
Click to expand...
Logically, then, perhaps we should be offering refuge to ALL asylum seekers. How many would that be? Millions? Wouldn't that encourage economic migrants too? All they'd have to do is claim that they are from a war-torn area and fear for their lives.

So, let's assume we admit millions (I think, actually, that we already have) and continue to do so for as long as they come. What will happen when the country's population has doubled and all of the people admitted are poor, have nothing and have nothing to offer. Half of our population (or more) would be taking and not giving. Wouldn't that result in the country as a whole becoming much much poorer?

Where would the money needed to support all these asylum seekers come from then?

Actually, I see that WS put it better than I did on a different thread:

"Only trouble is, it won't be the 'rich' part of the nation that suffers from millions of extra mouths to feed. That's likely to be a huge social impact borne of an economic drain. Society and economics are intertwined with each other.

And will the legions of migrants affect this rich country's 1.5 trillion debt?"
 
Last edited:
Sponsored Links
noseall said:
vinty said:
you could also mention Saudi Arabia a country which refuses to accept any refugees.
Click to expand...
The widely held opinion that Saudi Arabia, the biggest of the Gulf nations, hasn't taken in a single refugee may well be incorrect. Nabil Othman, acting regional representative to the Gulf region at the United Nations' refugee agency, UNHCR, told Bloomberg there were 500,000 Syrians in that country. Saudi Arabia, like all of the Gulf states, is not a signatory to the UN refugee convention, so these displaced people are not officially designated as refugees

And..
Lebanon has accepted 1.3 million refugees -- more than a quarter of its
population

They most certainly are not ALL coming to the UK. Can't you lot do any research before making dumb comments and thwanking each other for it.[/QUOTE cant you do any research the syrian community has been in Saudi Arabia for a long time,the report you quote also states that it is unclear how long this community has been there,the fact that this community is allowed to work and raise famillies in the Kingdom suggests that they are probably expats and not refugees.
Click to expand...
 
Some may say this was a typical middle eastern tactic using kids, if not as walking bombs then in other ways.
The way to safety is to keep 'em out. Count the cost- If any - later.

-0-
 
JBR said:
Gasman77 said:
In my opinion, we should be offering refuge to tens of thousands of asylum seekers, not hundreds.... If we want to be 'Great' Britain again.
Click to expand...
Logically, then, perhaps we should be offering refuge to ALL asylum seekers. How many would that be? Millions? Wouldn't that encourage economic migrants too? All they'd have to do is claim that they are from a war-torn area and fear for their lives.

So, let's assume we admit millions (I think, actually, that we already have) and continue to do so for as long as they come. What will happen when the country's population has doubled and all of the people admitted are poor, have nothing and have nothing to offer. Half of our population (or more) would be taking and not giving. Wouldn't that result in the country as a whole becoming much much poorer?

Where would the money needed to support all these asylum seekers come from then?

Actually, I see that WS put it better than I did on a different thread:

"Only trouble is, it won't be the 'rich' part of the nation that suffers from millions of extra mouths to feed. That's likely to be a huge social impact borne of an economic drain. Society and economics are intertwined with each other.

And will the legions of migrants affect this rich country's 1.5 trillion debt?"
Click to expand...

Can you post a link to the information regarding Britain already accepting millions of refugees please?

An amazing imagination you have, I can understand why you are so scared.

Are you saying because we can't help all we should help none?
 
We'll be helping most of them before long. They will go to Germany to get their papers in order, then rather than learn German they'll come over here. We'll get half a million this year.
 
That's the problem, there are millions of deserving people. I th
noseall said:
HawkEye244 said:
You need to express your opinion minus the flaming/ abuse. It adds nothing whatsoever.
Click to expand...
Abuse?
I singled out no one. Guilt by association.....? Only those of you that have thanked a post knowing it to be lies.
Click to expand...

blinkered ****** thwanker. That is the expression you used. :rolleyes:
 
WalksWithTurkeys said:
blinkered ****** thwanker. That is the expression you used. :rolleyes:
Click to expand...
Correct.
And if there are no blinkered ****** thwankers, then no one has been abused, geddit.

Unless of course you know of someone who has deliberately thanked an untrue post? You would have to be a blinkered ****** to do that now wouldn't you.
 
noseall said:
WalksWithTurkeys said:
blinkered ****** thwanker. That is the expression you used. :rolleyes:
Click to expand...
Correct.
And if there are no blinkered ****** thwankers, then no one has been abused, geddit.

Unless of course you know of someone who has deliberately thanked an untrue post? You would have to be a blinkered ****** to do that now wouldn't you.
Click to expand...

Okay, you are getting offensive. Previously you have been just condescending. I will ignore you. :(
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Sponsored Links

Similar threads

G
its a paddy joke
Replies
0
Views
568
gregers
G
festive
  • Locked
Putin is right
Replies
11
Views
1K
Notch7
N
JohnD
Right-Wing press circulates fake news
2 3 4
Replies
51
Views
4K
vinty
V
A
positive propaganda
Replies
5
Views
868
anobium
A
HOGGY952
lodger
Replies
2
Views
533
securespark
securespark
Back
Top