EU forces compulsory quotas on opposed countries

This page is no longer updated, and is the old forum. For new topics visit the New HOL forum.

EU forces compulsory quotas on opposed countries

Previous Topic | Next Topic

Page 17 of 17 << First < 13 14 15 16 17

Cucking Funt Clapham on the Back 29 Sep 15 1.00pm
Quote jamiemartin721 at 29 Sep 2015 12.55pm Quote chris123 at 29 Sep 2015 12.15pm Quote jamiemartin721 at 29 Sep 2015 12.04pm Quote Jimenez at 27 Sep 2015 12.01am Quote oldcodger at 26 Sep 2015 11.58pm Quote Jimenez at 26 Sep 2015 11.48pm Quote oldcodger at 26 Sep 2015 11.46pm Quote Jimenez at 26 Sep 2015 11.43pm Any way back on track lads. What we should be doing is holding them all in transit and dispersing them back to Muslim countries such as Qatar, UAE, Kuwait etc. Especially those with strong fundamentalist leanings. Why would you want to send them to countries with strong fundamentalist leanings? Meaning refugees. But again, why would you want to send them to countries with strong fundamentalist leanings? Because they would fit in better there say, than in Basingstoke!! Clearly you've never been to Basingstoke, no one fits in there... But seriously, given the secular nature of Syria and the fact that many of the refugees won't be Muslim, sending them to countries with poor record of human rights and stong Islamic fundermentalism, probably isn't a good idea. Not to mention, that maybe sending them to countries with a history of creating radicals and tolerating them (provided they export their horror) is self defeating. Somehow, sending people to countries with a reputation for exporting terrorism and fundermentalists might be somewhat self defeating long term. Its not like any Saudi's were in on the 9/11 thing, or have been flogging weapons to IS (via funding to Sunni insurgents in Iraq). The Gulf states should between them be able to take every single Syrian. The default of coming to Europe has just been too easy and the Gulf's attitude to providing safe haven for incomers will not change, while Germany/Europe's willingness to step in continues. I see, so the solution to refugees should be that we can expect other countries to take people in, but we ourselves won't actually do so. Curiously, not many seem to be flowing to the UAE or Saudi Arabia. Possibly because many of them are fleeing extremist Muslims nutbars? Wouldn't it make more sense for them to go somewhere more culturally compatible? Haven't we seen enough seismic cultural change in this country already? Wife beating may be socially acceptable in Sheffield, but it is a different matter in Cheltenham
Alert a moderator to this post

Cucking Funt

Clapham on the Back 29 Sep 15 1.00pm

Quote jamiemartin721 at 29 Sep 2015 12.55pm

Quote chris123 at 29 Sep 2015 12.15pm

Quote jamiemartin721 at 29 Sep 2015 12.04pm

Quote Jimenez at 27 Sep 2015 12.01am

Quote oldcodger at 26 Sep 2015 11.58pm

Quote Jimenez at 26 Sep 2015 11.48pm

Quote oldcodger at 26 Sep 2015 11.46pm

Quote Jimenez at 26 Sep 2015 11.43pm

Any way back on track lads. What we should be doing is holding them all in transit and dispersing them back to Muslim countries such as Qatar, UAE, Kuwait etc. Especially those with strong fundamentalist leanings.

Why would you want to send them to countries with strong fundamentalist leanings?

Meaning refugees.

But again, why would you want to send them to countries with strong fundamentalist leanings?

Because they would fit in better there say, than in Basingstoke!!

Clearly you've never been to Basingstoke, no one fits in there... But seriously, given the secular nature of Syria and the fact that many of the refugees won't be Muslim, sending them to countries with poor record of human rights and stong Islamic fundermentalism, probably isn't a good idea.

Not to mention, that maybe sending them to countries with a history of creating radicals and tolerating them (provided they export their horror) is self defeating.

Somehow, sending people to countries with a reputation for exporting terrorism and fundermentalists might be somewhat self defeating long term.

Its not like any Saudi's were in on the 9/11 thing, or have been flogging weapons to IS (via funding to Sunni insurgents in Iraq).

The Gulf states should between them be able to take every single Syrian. The default of coming to Europe has just been too easy and the Gulf's attitude to providing safe haven for incomers will not change, while Germany/Europe's willingness to step in continues.

I see, so the solution to refugees should be that we can expect other countries to take people in, but we ourselves won't actually do so.

Curiously, not many seem to be flowing to the UAE or Saudi Arabia. Possibly because many of them are fleeing extremist Muslims nutbars?

Wouldn't it make more sense for them to go somewhere more culturally compatible? Haven't we seen enough seismic cultural change in this country already?

Wife beating may be socially acceptable in Sheffield, but it is a different matter in Cheltenham

Alert a moderator to this post

chris123 hove actually 29 Sep 15 1.03pm
Quote jamiemartin721 at 29 Sep 2015 12.55pm Quote chris123 at 29 Sep 2015 12.15pm Quote jamiemartin721 at 29 Sep 2015 12.04pm Quote Jimenez at 27 Sep 2015 12.01am Quote oldcodger at 26 Sep 2015 11.58pm Quote Jimenez at 26 Sep 2015 11.48pm Quote oldcodger at 26 Sep 2015 11.46pm Quote Jimenez at 26 Sep 2015 11.43pm Any way back on track lads. What we should be doing is holding them all in transit and dispersing them back to Muslim countries such as Qatar, UAE, Kuwait etc. Especially those with strong fundamentalist leanings. Why would you want to send them to countries with strong fundamentalist leanings? Meaning refugees. But again, why would you want to send them to countries with strong fundamentalist leanings? Because they would fit in better there say, than in Basingstoke!! Clearly you've never been to Basingstoke, no one fits in there... But seriously, given the secular nature of Syria and the fact that many of the refugees won't be Muslim, sending them to countries with poor record of human rights and stong Islamic fundermentalism, probably isn't a good idea. Not to mention, that maybe sending them to countries with a history of creating radicals and tolerating them (provided they export their horror) is self defeating. Somehow, sending people to countries with a reputation for exporting terrorism and fundermentalists might be somewhat self defeating long term. Its not like any Saudi's were in on the 9/11 thing, or have been flogging weapons to IS (via funding to Sunni insurgents in Iraq). The Gulf states should between them be able to take every single Syrian. The default of coming to Europe has just been too easy and the Gulf's attitude to providing safe haven for incomers will not change, while Germany/Europe's willingness to step in continues. I see, so the solution to refugees should be that we can expect other countries to take people in, but we ourselves won't actually do so. Curiously, not many seem to be flowing to the UAE or Saudi Arabia. Possibly because many of them are fleeing extremist Muslims nutbars? There is shared religion, culture and language - so emphatically yes.
Alert a moderator to this post

chris123

hove actually 29 Sep 15 1.03pm