By the same logic, we probably shouldn't have bombed Libya then.

Didn't Colonel Qaddafi say something about Europe "turning black from unwanted immigration" if it got rid of him?

...we must expand...get more pupils...so that the knowledge will spread...

[Link]

British policy was quietly spelled out in a recent House of Lords written answer by the new Foreign Office minister, Lady Anelay: “We do not support planned search and rescue operations in the Mediterranean,” she said, adding that the government believed there was “an unintended ‘pull factor’, encouraging more migrants to attempt the dangerous sea crossing and thereby leading to more tragic and unnecessary deaths”.

Today both Cameron and Clegg came out and admitted they made a mistake. As ever, these 'quietly spelled out' legislations only come to public knowledge when human tragedy occurs.

If punk ever happened I'd be preaching the law, instead of listenin to Lydon lecture BBC4

Slightly differing times and they were wasting a third of them on livestock before the famine.

The blight was Europe wide but they just ate far more of themm than anyone else, up until then.

Optimistic as ever

It's not a bollocks argument, Stu. One of the reasons the West supported the 'strong men' in North Africa for so long was because they did us a favour in controlling immigration.

Ironically, the do-gooding people who are now hand-wringing about drowning immigrants are the same ones who were egging on the "rebels" during the Arab spring.

If they REALLY cared, they'd be out there trying to rescue people themselves.

If, like me, they find it mildly disconcerting when they hear about it on the news, but then quickly put it to the backs of their mind before they carry on worrying about their own tedious little lives, then they'd do better not to go blowing too hard on the old self-righteousness trumpet.

Edited by Johnny Eagles (22 Apr 2015 2.35pm)

...we must expand...get more pupils...so that the knowledge will spread...

One of the things people rarely understand about tyranny, is that they are generally fairly popular with at least a fair sized percentage of their nation (and do their best to maintain that balance). The problem is, that 60% is generally holding the other 40% in check.

Islamists have massively benefitted from the Arab springs because they happened to be organized and structured long before a 'popular front' emerged, and thus were in position to monopolise on that.

A similar phenomena was seen in resistance to Nazi occupation in Europe with communists forming the effective partisan movements and resistance very rapidly, whilst it would take SOE three or four years to get the 'Resistance' elsewhere up to an effective military capability.

Typically Islamist groups have the all important pre-existing support networks, finance, experience, communications and supply networks in place to attract supporters (ie you can join the faction with the guns, money and medicine or the one which has a lot of 'spirit').

Hence Islamist groups tend to florish in these conditions, like with IS, simply because it can equip its members and over time, people tend to gravitate towards that over ideological beliefs (and of course once your in, you're not likely getting out either).

"One Nation Under God, has turned into One Nation Under the Influence of One Drug"
[Link]

Is that not support as in backing rather than funding? In case this is being touted as another example of the result of cuts.

Edited by johnfirewall (22 Apr 2015 3.27pm)