General Election - Page 3 - General Nonsense - TheMortonForum.com Jump to content
TheMortonForum.com

General Election


LinwoodTON

Recommended Posts

I tend to think points 1 and 2 would make us less rather than more safe.

 

 

While the imposition of an openly xenophobic and discriminatory policy towards c. 1 billion people will massively increase the political sources of alienation and Islamist radicalisation among the millions of Muslims already living within most Western societies. Looks like those tasked with 'filling in the blanks' for that back of a fag packet approach will have their work cut out for them then. 

 

"Let us in or we'll kill you." That's what it boils down to, really. Again, there is far less discrimination and alienation in the West than there is anywhere else, including in Muslim countries with more than one Muslim sect. It's just not a sound argument that the West is a bad place to live. If it was, the entire world wouldn't be trying to get in.

 

I'm not allowed to legally become a Saudi, on account of not being a Muslim and thus unlikely to be vetted successfully. Strangely enough this doesn't fill me with murderous rage.

EOho8Pw.png

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 100
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Are we forgetting that the attackers we've had here have all been UK citizens? Making it more difficult to travel to the likes of Syria for training is something that should be looked at, but closing the doors to millions of people would be ridiculous.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Are we forgetting that the attackers we've had here have all been UK citizens? Making it more difficult to travel to the likes of Syria for training is something that should be looked at, but closing the doors to millions of people would be ridiculous.

No, we haven't forgotten. We also haven't forgotten who their parents and grandparents were, hence stopping a continued flood of future generations is vital.

 

It's only in the last few years, single digits, that unlimited Muslim immigration to the West has become a moral imperative. (Nobody advocates for unlimited immigration from, say, Paraguay or the Marshall Islands or Moldova or Papua New Guinea or Angola. Just the Middle East and North Africa. Why?) We started it and we can finish it.

EOho8Pw.png

Link to comment
Share on other sites

"Let us in or we'll kill you." That's what it boils down to, really. 

 

If you're insane, sure. Those who aren't insane though would point out that setting up a hostile and discriminatory bar to entry based on religion goes against the entire basis of Western thought since the Enlightenment, which is both i) a hilariously over the top and ii) entirely cretinous reaction to a bunch of loser extremists. 

The site is supposed to be a place for the extended 'family' of Morton supporters - having an affinity with people that you don't know, because you share a love of your local football club. It's not supposed to be about point scoring and showing how 'clever' or 'funny' you are, or just being downright rude and offensive to people you don't know, because you can get away with it. Unfortunately, it seems the classic case of people who have little standing/presence in real life, use this forum as a way of making themselves feel as if they are something. It's sad, and I've said that before..

 

So, having been on Morton forums for about 15 years I guess, I've had enough... well done t*ssers, another Morton supporter driven away. You can all feel happy at how 'clever' you are

Link to comment
Share on other sites

It's only in the last few years, single digits, that unlimited Muslim immigration to the West has become a moral imperative. 

 

(Needs clarification and citation)

The site is supposed to be a place for the extended 'family' of Morton supporters - having an affinity with people that you don't know, because you share a love of your local football club. It's not supposed to be about point scoring and showing how 'clever' or 'funny' you are, or just being downright rude and offensive to people you don't know, because you can get away with it. Unfortunately, it seems the classic case of people who have little standing/presence in real life, use this forum as a way of making themselves feel as if they are something. It's sad, and I've said that before..

 

So, having been on Morton forums for about 15 years I guess, I've had enough... well done t*ssers, another Morton supporter driven away. You can all feel happy at how 'clever' you are

Link to comment
Share on other sites

If you're insane, sure. Those who aren't insane though would point out that setting up a hostile and discriminatory bar to entry based on religion goes against the entire basis of Western thought since the Enlightenment, which is both i) a hilariously over the top and ii) entirely cretinous reaction to a bunch of loser extremists. 

  

(Needs clarification and citation)

"Preserve the enlightenment by importing Islam!" is a new one on me.

 

It's really not an overreaction if you start from first principles. Principle: the purpose of government is to provide for the life, liberty, property, and collective good of its citizens and legal residents. Principle: a government must have coercive control over its territory. Right? It seems pretty straightforward to me.

 

Which links to the next point. It was never a principle of the Enlightenment (as though this matters - I personally don't care but I gather that it's important to you that we're faithful to it) that there was a burning red to admit anyone who showed up at the border with a suitcase and a sad expression. What kind of clarification do you need? We didn't even entertain this as a possibility a few years ago, now it's quite difficult to navigate polite society if you think a country is allowed to have borders.

EOho8Pw.png

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  

"Preserve the enlightenment by importing Islam!" is a new one on me.

 

It's really not an overreaction if you start from first principles. Principle: the purpose of government is to provide for the life, liberty, property, and collective good of its citizens and legal residents. Principle: a government must have coercive control over its territory. Right? It seems pretty straightforward to me.

 

It was also a principle of the Enlightenment that states should not base their policy towards others on sweeping measures such as religious belief, a medieval practice that ought to be swept out of politics. 

 

It was never a principle of the Enlightenment (as though this matters - I personally don't care but I gather that it's important to you that we're faithful to it) that there was a burning red to admit anyone who showed up at the border with a suitcase and a sad expression.

 

 

I didn't claim that it was - that's another straw man you've built there. 

 

 

What kind of clarification do you need? We didn't even entertain this as a possibility a few years ago, now it's quite difficult to navigate polite society if you think a country is allowed to have borders.

 

 

I need clarification that: 

 

unlimited Muslim immigration to the West has become a moral imperative. 

 

 

is actually a credible description of state policy/public views in western Europe, rather than a completely groundless assertion. I suspect that this won't really be forthcoming though. 

The site is supposed to be a place for the extended 'family' of Morton supporters - having an affinity with people that you don't know, because you share a love of your local football club. It's not supposed to be about point scoring and showing how 'clever' or 'funny' you are, or just being downright rude and offensive to people you don't know, because you can get away with it. Unfortunately, it seems the classic case of people who have little standing/presence in real life, use this forum as a way of making themselves feel as if they are something. It's sad, and I've said that before..

 

So, having been on Morton forums for about 15 years I guess, I've had enough... well done t*ssers, another Morton supporter driven away. You can all feel happy at how 'clever' you are

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Little quiz:

 

Which Islamophobic countries today suspended diplomatic ties with, and expelled the citizens of, Qatar? Why did they do it?

 

I did find that quite amusing. The idea of being ostracised by the House of Saud (and our other great gulf state allies) for funding terrorism is almost hilarious. Pity they didn't hire Comical Ali to announce it.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

It was also a principle of the Enlightenment that states should not base their policy towards others on sweeping measures such as religious belief, a medieval practice that ought to be swept out of politics.

"Avoid medieval practices by importing Islam!"

 

I didn't claim that it was - that's another straw man you've built there.

Then why are your Enlightenment values supposed to matter, exactly? "muh enlightenment" is a dumb totem you wave around to make your own opinions sound more respectable, a bit like in the US when everything a conservative says is prefaced with "If Dr. King were alive today then I think his views would coincide exactly with my own."

 

Why am I supposed to worry about the Enlightenment, except inasmuch as it helps you achieve your policy goals?

 

I need clarification that: 

 

 

 

 

is actually a credible description of state policy/public views in western Europe, rather than a completely groundless assertion. I suspect that this won't really be forthcoming though.

 

I'm glad you specified Western Europe because it's Western Europe in general and Germany in particular that is holding the continent to ransom. If Hungary and others don't take "their share" of Islam they are going to be punished. This isn't some fringe conspiracy theory - this is something the Commission is working on:

 

http://www.bbc.com/news/world-europe-36202490

 

Complete with very sad picture of very sad refugee and very sad refugee child.

EOho8Pw.png

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I did find that quite amusing. The idea of being ostracised by the House of Saud (and our other great gulf state allies) for funding terrorism is almost hilarious. Pity they didn't hire Comical Ali to announce it.

We're* all fine with terror as long as it's terror that achieves our aims, though. The Saudis are mad that Qatar has been working with Iran, that's all.

 

Semi-related but 2,000 ISIS were blown to bits in Aleppo last week by Assad's army, but we don't seem to be that bothered about ISIS anymore. In fact I imagine that we'll start seeing quite a few ISIS-affiliated military referred to as 'moderates' before long.

 

*that is, governments

EOho8Pw.png

Link to comment
Share on other sites

"Avoid medieval practices by importing Islam!"

 

 

Then why are your Enlightenment values supposed to matter, exactly? "muh enlightenment" is a dumb totem you wave around to make your own opinions sound more respectable, a bit like in the US when everything a conservative says is prefaced with "If Dr. King were alive today then I think his views would coincide exactly with my own."

 

Why am I supposed to worry about the Enlightenment, except inasmuch as it helps you achieve your policy goals?

 

 

I'm glad you specified Western Europe because it's Western Europe in general and Germany in particular that is holding the continent to ransom. If Hungary and others don't take "their share" of Islam they are going to be punished. This isn't some fringe conspiracy theory - this is something the Commission is working on:

 

http://www.bbc.com/news/world-europe-36202490

 

Complete with very sad picture of very sad refugee and very sad refugee child.

 

Except that absolutely nothing in that link demonstrates that 'unlimited Muslim migration' (or any other kind of migration into the EU) forms the current practice or future goal of the European Commission, or any state government in Europe, including Germany. So the idea that it has formed a 'moral imperative' to any institution in the region remains completely groundless. 

The site is supposed to be a place for the extended 'family' of Morton supporters - having an affinity with people that you don't know, because you share a love of your local football club. It's not supposed to be about point scoring and showing how 'clever' or 'funny' you are, or just being downright rude and offensive to people you don't know, because you can get away with it. Unfortunately, it seems the classic case of people who have little standing/presence in real life, use this forum as a way of making themselves feel as if they are something. It's sad, and I've said that before..

 

So, having been on Morton forums for about 15 years I guess, I've had enough... well done t*ssers, another Morton supporter driven away. You can all feel happy at how 'clever' you are

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Except that absolutely nothing in that link demonstrates that 'unlimited Muslim migration' (or any other kind of migration into the EU) forms the current practice or future goal of the European Commission, or any state government in Europe, including Germany. So the idea that it has formed a 'moral imperative' to any institution in the region remains completely groundless.

 

You can be obtuse if you like but people who don't read the newspaper upside down remember those heady days of 2015 when both Merkel and minister of migration (why does this office exist?) said there should be no hard cap:

 

http://www.npr.org/2015/09/02/436966644/most-migrants-hope-to-settle-in-germany-after-long-journey-to-europe

 

And we also know that these "Syrians" are virtually all military-aged young men of Muslim countries from Muslim backgrounds. In fact you and I discussed this at the time. Unfortunately the thread in question seems to have been purged but I referenced it in the second and third page of this one:

 

http://www.greenockmorton.org/forum/index.php?showtopic=42740&page=1

 

You differed slightly from the European orthodoxy in that you said "Syrians" must not be subject to border controls because they are literate, know how to use smart phones, and can fund our pensions. But any talk of limits or the same border controls that apply to any Paraguayan or Namibian were strictly verboten. This was hardly a fringe view at the time.

EOho8Pw.png

Link to comment
Share on other sites

You can be obtuse if you like but people who don't read the newspaper upside down remember those heady days of 2015 when both Merkel and minister of migration (why does this office exist?) said there should be no hard cap:

 

http://www.npr.org/2015/09/02/436966644/most-migrants-hope-to-settle-in-germany-after-long-journey-to-europe

 

 

Incorrect. He was referring to the flow of refugees in 2015 (now greatly reduced, because, err, it wasn't the policy of European states to continue the flow indefinitely) not 'Muslim migration':

 

And in fact, the man who heads the Federal Office for Migration and Refugees, Manfred Schmidt - he told Spiegel magazine that there should be no limits on refugees who are fleeing persecution and war

 

 

You (and supposed martyrs for Western Christendom like, err, Viktor Orbán in Hungary) are the only ones who think that this counts as any sort of support for "unlimited Muslim migration". What the minister meant - as is quite clear from the context - is that their policy was not to close the borders and man them with machine-gun posts during the summer of 2015, as soon as an arbitrary number of refugees entered Germany. Which they didn't. Instead they have worked with other EU states and neighbouring countries to deal with the logistical problems of a refugee influx and have greatly reduced limited the continued flow of refugees. At no stage has Angela Merkel or any other significant official in EU either called for or implicitly worked towards 'unlimited Muslim migration': she certainly wouldn't be standing for re-election if that were the case. 

 

So not evidence for 'unlimited Muslim migration' being 'a moral imperative' then. In the same way that Hungary bleating about taking a few thousand refugees is not a smoking gun showing that the EU is planning to grant freedom of movement rights to one billion people of a specific religion because yeah, that's also an insane assertion.  

The site is supposed to be a place for the extended 'family' of Morton supporters - having an affinity with people that you don't know, because you share a love of your local football club. It's not supposed to be about point scoring and showing how 'clever' or 'funny' you are, or just being downright rude and offensive to people you don't know, because you can get away with it. Unfortunately, it seems the classic case of people who have little standing/presence in real life, use this forum as a way of making themselves feel as if they are something. It's sad, and I've said that before..

 

So, having been on Morton forums for about 15 years I guess, I've had enough... well done t*ssers, another Morton supporter driven away. You can all feel happy at how 'clever' you are

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Incorrect. He was referring to the flow of refugees in 2015 (now greatly reduced, because, err, it wasn't the policy of European states to continue the flow indefinitely) not 'Muslim migration':

 

 

 

You (and supposed martyrs for Western Christendom like, err, Viktor Orbán in Hungary) are the only ones who think that this counts as any sort of support for "unlimited Muslim migration". What the minister meant - as is quite clear from the context - is that their policy was not to close the borders and man them with machine-gun posts during the summer of 2015, as soon as an arbitrary number of refugees entered Germany. Which they didn't. Instead they have worked with other EU states and neighbouring countries to deal with the logistical problems of a refugee influx and have greatly reduced limited the continued flow of refugees. At no stage has Angela Merkel or any other significant official in EU either called for or implicitly worked towards 'unlimited Muslim migration': she certainly wouldn't be standing for re-election if that were the case. 

 

So not evidence for 'unlimited Muslim migration' being 'a moral imperative' then. In the same way that Hungary bleating about taking a few thousand refugees is not a smoking gun showing that the EU is planning to grant freedom of movement rights to one billion people of a specific religion because yeah, that's also an insane assertion.  

 

I pointed out at the time that around 45% of the "refugees" admitted to Europe at the time weren't from wartorn areas but rather were purely economic migrants. I don't especially blame economic migrants for taking advantage of an open door policy - which is precisely what it was. So you can dress this up as "it wasn't really unlimited migrants, it was only unlimited refugees (around 55% of which were refugees) and it wasn't open borders, it was just the borders weren't closed or manned."

 

And they haven't "worked out" anything. They have relied on gunboat diplomacy to try to bully Hungary and various miscellaneous Slavic countries into settling "refugees" when they didn't want to, and they relied on this diplomacy after it became clear that their own attempt at unlimited migration was resulting in lawlessness.

EOho8Pw.png

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I pointed out at the time that around 45% of the "refugees" admitted to Europe at the time weren't from wartorn areas but rather were purely economic migrants. I don't especially blame economic migrants for taking advantage of an open door policy - which is precisely what it was. So you can dress this up as "it wasn't really unlimited migrants, it was only unlimited refugees (around 55% of which were refugees) and it wasn't open borders, it was just the borders weren't closed or manned."

 

If by "dress up" you mean 'comment based on what is factually the case' then yes I shall. There was and is no evidence for your assertion that

 

unlimited Muslim immigration to the West has become a moral imperative.

 

 

 

And they haven't "worked out" anything. They have relied on gunboat diplomacy to try to bully Hungary and various miscellaneous Slavic countries into settling "refugees" when they didn't want to

 

 

Well they have actually 'worked out' quite a lot. The flow of refugees and migrants to Europe dropped significantly in 2016 compared to the previous year and is unlikely to cause major issues this time round. There are good reasons to be sceptical that deals that rely on the cooperation of Turkey will hold indefinitely, but the immediate crisis situation has largely been dealt with and European leaders predictably bought themselves some time to develop a coherent strategy regarding its southern and eastern periphery. 'No Muzzies allowed' is probably not going to make the cut, because most of the leaders and officials involved aren't buying into that weirdo, Breitbart world view.

 

their own attempt at unlimited migration 

 

 

Assertion noted and dismissed due to the failure to demonstrate it above. 

The site is supposed to be a place for the extended 'family' of Morton supporters - having an affinity with people that you don't know, because you share a love of your local football club. It's not supposed to be about point scoring and showing how 'clever' or 'funny' you are, or just being downright rude and offensive to people you don't know, because you can get away with it. Unfortunately, it seems the classic case of people who have little standing/presence in real life, use this forum as a way of making themselves feel as if they are something. It's sad, and I've said that before..

 

So, having been on Morton forums for about 15 years I guess, I've had enough... well done t*ssers, another Morton supporter driven away. You can all feel happy at how 'clever' you are

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I agree about Turkey at least. That is a timebomb and today's Qatar reports have just held down the minute button for a while.

 

But you really can't memory hole what happened in 2015. "Admit them all now and maybe* ask questions later" was the order of the day. What else do you call it when we stop manning the borders? What's to stop it happening again the next time there's a photo of a dead kid on the news? We suspended the rule of law and pretended to be surprised at the outcome.

 

*we have a pretty terrible track record with this

EOho8Pw.png

Link to comment
Share on other sites

'Admit all refugees who come in the middle of a regional humanitarian crisis in 2015' - and then take key measures to make the same scenario much less likely to happen in the future - is not evidence for 'unlimited Muslim' migration forming part of European policy, an objective of their policy, a widespread public sentiment nor being regarded as a 'moral imperative'. That is what you claimed and it was nonsense.
 

We suspended the rule of law and pretended to be surprised at the outcome.


The 'outcome' being what exactly? There is no evidence linking the flow of refugees in 2015 to either of the recent attacks in the UK. 

The site is supposed to be a place for the extended 'family' of Morton supporters - having an affinity with people that you don't know, because you share a love of your local football club. It's not supposed to be about point scoring and showing how 'clever' or 'funny' you are, or just being downright rude and offensive to people you don't know, because you can get away with it. Unfortunately, it seems the classic case of people who have little standing/presence in real life, use this forum as a way of making themselves feel as if they are something. It's sad, and I've said that before..

 

So, having been on Morton forums for about 15 years I guess, I've had enough... well done t*ssers, another Morton supporter driven away. You can all feel happy at how 'clever' you are

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Relying on Erdogan to do our job for us is, by your own admission, not really a key measure. In fact we've the opposite. We fomented regime change in Libya despite knowing that Gadaffi was the only wall separating Port Harcourt from Paris. We picked sides in Syria and turned public opinion in favor of intervention and then sat on our hands, preferring instead (as you yourself advocated in here) to harvest the young men of the region in service of our GDP. And by not enforcing laws we created an incentive that still exists. That incentive doesn't just exist for the migrants and refugees, but for the numerous NGOs and charities and indeed people traffickers who all leech off the ecosystem of migration.

 

It's similar to Reagan's amnesty in the 80s. You can't suspend the rule of law and call it one-and-done. It incentivizes behavior.

 

The outcome is going to be continued back-and-forth of life migrants between Islamist hotspots and the West, and the second and third generations will be more violent than their parents and grandparents. One of the named London attackers was the children of asylum seekers and so was the Manchester attacker. Still, our GDP and pensions will look good.

EOho8Pw.png

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.




×
×
  • Create New...