Think this topic needs its own thread, so it doesn't get all mixed in with the MAGA and random threads.
Printable View
Think this topic needs its own thread, so it doesn't get all mixed in with the MAGA and random threads.
I wish them all the best but it makes me a bit anxious because this is almost exactly how one of my great-uncles died. Found some russian equipment. Drove it home. Russians pick him up shortly after and that was that. All I know of him is a mention on a family gravestone and a tale of caution about nicking russian war stuff.Quote:
Originally Posted by Poopadoop
President of Finland holding a press conference tonight after an impromptu visit with Biden regarding "security co-operation and partnership".
In other news, NATO membership polling over 50% in Sweden.
Putin is cooking himself quite the stew.
Was Russia also pissy about Finland joining the EU?
People from all over Europe driving to Poland/Ukraine border to offer goods and assistance to refugees. Heard on the radio that UK citizens should not try to go because they will get stuck at the Dover crossing. Lolxit.
I don't recall any large commotions, though it was 27 years ago and I wasn't too interested in politics back then. I *think* that Russia didn't openly comment much anything, though they had some worries about losing trade with us.Quote:
Originally Posted by Poopadoop
I feel like Putin's daring us to take it to WWIII and the world leaders are desperately trying to avoid that.
I just question the cost of not stopping Putin, now. If the plan is to let him take Ukraine provided he doesn't use certain munitions or strike certain targets, then he'll win.
It wont be short, and it will be bloody, but he'll win.
And then his sights are on what?
Hard to imagine it's not focused on how the West (US) has crippled his people out of hate for Russian culture.
Remember when Gorbachev came to the US in the '80's and refused to believe that the perfectly normal American grocery stores weren't absolutely staged to trick him into believing we could provide such a wealth and variety of foods everywhere.
When they control the propaganda, the real news stops reaching them.
sadface
Care to elaborate? I'm not sure I've seen much of that, rather repeated attempts to welcome Russia towards western values and partnership.Quote:
Originally Posted by MadMojoMonkey
Yeltsin not Gorbachev, but yeah, I do.Quote:
Originally Posted by MadMojoMonkey
The look on his face when he saw THREE different types of vodka on sale. "Dis not real, dis cheep American propaganda trick!"Quote:
Originally Posted by CoccoBill
It's just my personal predictions and fears.Quote:
Originally Posted by CoccoBill
I fear the ramifications of the economic sanctions on Russia are going to cause a depression that will make the US's "Great Depression" of the 1920's look like a cake walk.
The first wave of sanctions was crippling, then wave after wave rolled in from more and more countries, hitting so many different sectors.
I'm no expert. Just a guy who knows that tiny changes to a nation's economy can have heavy and long-term ramifications. The scope of the changes that happened to Russia's economy is anything but tiny.
External communications companies are pulling out of Russia. Russia is already clamped down on any news reporting that is not in lock-step with their ministry of defense. Communications into Russia are evaporating, and within Russia, the state controls everything.
I cannot believe that the Russian regime will use this to paint themselves as the warlords who did this to their people.
I cannot believe they will use that for anything but fomenting a hatred of the non-Russians who treat them like they're less than people.
Thanks for the correction.Quote:
Originally Posted by CoccoBill
Ah I see, I misread what you meant, I agree completely. I don't think anyone on the planet is an expert on what these kind of sanctions do to a country's economy, there's just no precedent. All I can think of is it's gonna be devastating and as always, it's the innocent that are gonna suffer the worst. Best case scenario is either the oligarchs or the people will stand up, a palace coup or an uprising, both of which are not seeming very likely at the moment. I just don't see a road for reconciliation with Putin in charge anymore. The worst case I'd rather not think about. Reading what the Russian media and the RU administration are saying about what's going on is just totally mindblowing.Quote:
Originally Posted by MadMojoMonkey
Well, that's three of his nine lives used up.
https://twitter.com/i/events/1499714258422181898
Orthodox clerics have the best hats. This is Lord of the Rings shit.
https://twitter.com/NAChristakis/sta...91581264015361
Forecast for next week:
"Very cold temperatures will stay there for days, spread across western Russia, Ukraine, Belarus, Poland, Slovakia, Moldova, and Romania, also expanding farther west into central and southern Europe, as well as across the Balkan peninsula. The worst cold with temperatures near 15-20 degrees Celsius below freezing is, however, forecast to overspread Ukraine and western Russia from the mid-next week into the weekend."
Apparently the first 17km of the 64km convoy north of Kyiv is out of gas and with empty batteries, they initially had 3 days worth of food and supplies. It's now day 9. Supply trucks are unable to pass due to mud and are able to fill up/service 100-200m of the convoy at a time.
I'd love to see Putin's face as he watches this.
https://twitter.com/HromadskeRadio/s...50705108934658
https://twitter.com/franakviacorka/s...97649307348994
Lukashenka surely has been acting funny lately. I guess it must be tough balancing between Putin's orders and avoiding sanctions and Hague.
Can't say I'm a fan of Zelensky criticising NATO for refusing to enforce a no-fly zone. Either Zelensky is extremely naive, or he actively wants to escalate this conflict into a global one. A no-fly zone isn't definitely WWIII, but it's essentially delivering Putin an ultimatum which, if he ignores, does mean WWIII. Does Zelensky really think Putin will instantly back down if NATO flex their muscles? It would be a huge and dangerous gamble.
Or could just be he's trying to do anything to save his people.
He's fighting for the survival of his country. He probably knows they won't do it, but he has to put pressure on them. If he doesn't, who will?
Visa, Mastercard, and now PayPal seem to be pulling out of Russia, too.
@Putin
These are not sanctions. These are special financial operations to stabilize Russian economy. You're welcome.
Alleged FSB whistleblower's letter: https://pastebin.com/2agMRGmd
Background: https://twitter.com/christogrozev/st...96510054637569
Re: Zelensky's actions, if I put on my cynical hat. If Kyiv falls, it's more than likely that he gets "accidentally" killed in the process, and if not right away, Medvedev has already toyed with the idea of reinstating capital punishment in Russia. He's fighting for his life very literally.
Hate to break it to him, but a world war starting on his doorstep is not going to "save his people". NATO can only make things worse before they get better. If WWIII kicks off, Ukraine is the last place on earth I want to be.Quote:
Originally Posted by CoccoBill
Zelensky, if successful in drawing NATO into this conflict, will be doing the exact opposite of saving his people. He'll be daring Putin to hit him hard, first.
What's the purpose of this pressure? To make them look weak? To show Russia that NATO doesn't want a war with Russia? He's emboldening Putin.Quote:
Originally Posted by Poopadoop
Armchair analysis:
Continuing on the current path is not gonna get Putin the results he wants, he's not able to get Ukraine to surrender, any puppet administration he'd try to install would be immediately overthrown, he doesn't have the troops to occupy the country (an estimated 500k would be needed). He's left with two options, de-escalate or escalate.
De-escalation would require a peace offer, and Ukraine's government would likely stay intact. I don't see this as a likely option, Putin would lose face and even endanger his own power.
Escalation could be either ramping up bombing of civilian targets, more nuclear threats or expanding the war to other regions. At the moment it looks fairly likely he doesn't have the capability to escalate bombing without direct unguided munitions, which would leave their airforce more vulnerable to Ukraine air defenses. There's reports of this already from the past couple of days and seems like RU has lost a number of aircraft. They also don't have the troops to expand the war to other regions.
Hope I'm wrong but a tactical nuke is looking more and more likely, and his recent ridiculous claims that Ukraine is building a dirty bomb would also indicate that this is the direction we're going.
I don't know what the hell Putin is playing at. If stopping border nations from joining NATO is his primary objective, then he's doing a very good job of doing the exact opposite. Finland and Sweden are talking about joining NATO, so what does he do? Send warplanes into Swedish airspace. He's basically telling them that being neutral is no protection from Russia.
Furthermore, he's doing an excellent job of convincing people in the west who are critical of NATO that actually there is a need for such an alliance.
I'm not sure about tactical nukes. This will surely bring NATO into the conflict. Is Putin really going to escalate the conflict that much? He surely has conventional weapons at his disposal that can cause untold damage to Ukraine.
btw, why are claims of Ukraine building a dirty bomb "ridiculous"? I would agree it's unlikely, but I'm in no place to dismiss the idea outright. Ukraine are at war with a much more powerful enemy. They should be considering every possible option they have. Not that a dirty bomb should ever be an option on the table, but when tactical nukes are seemingly on the table, all bets are off.
If Ukraine are seriously worried about a nuclear escalation then it's reasonable to assume they would take extreme measures to defend themselves. Just one dirty bomb is a deterrent to Putin, and probably enough to stop him using nukes. So there's motivation for Ukraine to acquire one.
I'd consider claims of this caliber given without offering any evidence as ridiculous. Still, it doesn't matter if they are or not if Putin uses them as an excuse. Would they use a nuke? 2 weeks ago most people on the planet probably would have said hell no, now I'm not so sure.
I didn't think he'd fully invade Ukraine, since there's no hope of Ukraine ever electing a pro-Russia government, so he can only rule Ukraine by means of extreme oppression. This can't work long term. But he has invaded Ukraine.
With that said, invading Ukraine was not seriously risking war with NATO. Throwing nukes about is a different matter. NATO have made it clear that they don't want war with Russia, and so long as Estonia remains free, Russia are also making it clear they don't want war with NATO.
Anyway, if anyone wanted evidence of the problems Ukraine has with celebrating Nazis...
https://twitter.com/NewsHour/status/1499525817776365574
This is the Mayor of Konotop, sitting in front of a blurred painting (not blurred enough, obviously) of Stepan Bandera, a Ukrainian Nazi collaborator.
Here's an article on the guy...
https://m.jpost.com/diaspora/ukraini...yor-437975/amp
Ukraine using a dirty bomb makes no sense at all. They have the world on their side, started a nuclear exchange would completely negate that, and make them just a big a pariah as Russia. They'd be better off joining Russia, and we know that's never going to happen.
Russia nuking, or staging a nuke, on their own troops as an excuse to nuke Ukraine makes a lot more sense. Still not sure what the endgame would be. If the endgame is to have NATO join the war and get his ass kicked even harder then that's the quickest way for Putin to do it aside from attacking a NATO country directly.
I don't think Putin has to either escalate or de-escalate, or if it's the former that it necessarily means using nukes. As it is, I think the war is just going to drag out for a few more weeks if not months before anything like that happens.
The mayor of Konotop is a Ukrainian nationalist and member of the Svoboda party. He is far right-wing and probably anti-semitic. Calling him a neo-Nazi is taking it a bit far though imo, unless you're willing to call far-right UK politicians like Farage neo-Nazis too.
Party Svoboda holds 6 out of 450 seats in Ukraine parliament. That's about 1.5%. Not exactly a strong voice in the country.
As for Bandera, he was an anti-semitic and anti-Polish Ukrainian nationalist. He declared an independent Ukraine and tried to align it with Germany in 1941. He got thrown in jail. There were more than a few countries who bordered or were part of USSR that aligned with Germany in WWII: Finland, Hungary, Rumania, Bulgaria and Ukraine (tried to align). Finland and Rumania had already been attacked by Russia, and Ukraine suffered under Russian domination in the USSR.
No-one now says that any of those other countries were run by Nazis or were full of Nazi sympathizers in WWII. Putin now says Ukraine is. Hmmm, wonder what purpose that serves him...
With the supply issues, low troop morale, continuing protests in Russia and the crippling sanctions I don't think he can keep this up for weeks, let alone months. He's gotta be able to show results and turn this into a win in his people's eyes, preferably asap.Quote:
Originally Posted by Poopadoop
Well, if he can ban all foreign news and just have RT left he can spin things any way he wants, right?Quote:
Originally Posted by CoccoBill
Well it's worked so far, let's see for how long. A large portion of the population knows exactly what's going on but have just been too scared to do anything. Despite mass arrests it seems the anti-war protests aren't going away.Quote:
Originally Posted by Poopadoop
"The estimated number of anti-war protestors arrested by day is:
24 February: 1,965[22]
25 February: 643[23]
26 February: 533[24]
27 February: 2,857[25]
28 February: 516[126]
1 March: 329[127]
2 March: 852[128]
3 March: 498[129]
4 March: 80[130]
5 March: 84[131]
6 March: 2,316[132]"
We're talking about them acquiring one, not using one. This isn't pedantry, it's an important distinction. The point of nuclear weapons is pure deterrent, not shock and awe.Quote:
Originally Posted by poop
I'm glad you acknowledge the potential for false flags here. Just don't assume that potential only exists on one side.Quote:
Russia nuking, or staging a nuke, on their own troops as an excuse to nuke Ukraine makes a lot more sense.
Yes, Russia could stage a nuclear attack on Russia to justify a nuclear attack on Ukraine. Likewise, Ukraine could stage a nuclear attack on itself to force NATO's involvement. This is why I immediately had doubts about the assault on the nuclear power plant.
Let me know when Farage proudly conducts an interview in front of a Nazi. I mean really, you're comparing Farage to a guy whose registration plate in 14/88. I shouldn't need to tell you think is fucking stupid. You should know it is.Quote:
The mayor of Konotop is a Ukrainian nationalist and member of the Svoboda party. He is far right-wing and probably anti-semitic. Calling him a neo-Nazi is taking it a bit far though imo, unless you're willing to call far-right UK politicians like Farage neo-Nazis too.
Farage is not a neo-Nazi. Calling him a neo-Nazi is an insult to everyone who has suffered at the hands of Nazis. It's using the word Nazi as a political slur. I'm not calling the Mayor of Konotop a Nazi because I don't like his politics. I'm calling him a Nazi because he's an actual fucking Nazi.
Fair enough. He's a mayor in the news right now, so he's in the spotlight. But it's worth pointing out that he got voted into office as mayor. How does that happen in a country that doesn't still have a problem with its Nazi history?Quote:
Party Svoboda holds 6 out of 450 seats in Ukraine parliament. That's about 1.5%. Not exactly a strong voice in the country.
When I mentioned Finland's awkward Nazi history, cocco immediately described it as a source of national shame, and rightfully so. Finland does not celebrate its Nazi sympathisers today in 2022. Ukraine does. There's the difference.Quote:
No-one now says that any of those other countries were run by Nazis or were full of Nazi sympathizers in WWII.
Of course I'm not oblivious to the fact USA gave jobs to top Nazi scientists instead of charging them with war crimes. But I don't see mayors and politicians openly celebrating Nazis.
Also, it's worth noting that in Finland's case, they turned to Germany because the west wasn't helping them. They turned to the Allies first. We didn't want to go to war with the Soviets, leaving Finland isolated. I don't think Finland had sympathy for Nazi ideology. Finland simply subscribed to the mantra "my enemy's enemy is my friend".
Ukraine did have sympathy for Nazi ideology, and there are people in prominent positions, voted in democratically, that still have sympathy for Nazi ideology.
I wouldn't be surprised if Hungary have similar problems, but I have no idea if this is the case.
Anything's possible, sure. But it's hard to believe Ukraine would nuke itself to try to get NATO to come into the war. It just doesn't seem like a wise option, in fact it seems like a pretty ridiculous idea. But hey, why let an idea being ridiculous keep us from entertaining it? Maybe the Queen is this moment signing a pact with her Lizard overlords to deliver all our virgins to them.Quote:
Originally Posted by OngBonga
I just explained to you that Bandera was a Ukranian nationalist, and not a Nazi.Quote:
Originally Posted by OngBonga
So it's ok to be the leader of a party that has neo-Nazi members as long as you're not one yourself? Seems you're cutting a fine line here.Quote:
Originally Posted by OngBonga
The faux outrage coming from a guy who keeps trying to find excuses for Putin for the war Putin started is a bit lol frankly.Quote:
Originally Posted by OngBonga
How many UKIP MEPs did we have when we were in the EU? Do you consider UKIP a UK Nationalist (well, English nationalist really) party, with white-supremacy leanings, if not outright white-supremacy? I do. How did several of them get elected to responsible positions to represent a country that fought the Nazis? We must have a problem with neo-Nazism here too. Putin should do us a favour and invade us next, we're clearly a threat to him and to ourselves.Quote:
Originally Posted by OngBonga
It didn't have Nazi sympathesizers then, or at least that wasn't their motivation for joining Germany in WWII. I've explained that to you at least twice now. If you don't want to believe it, then all I can say is read a book.Quote:
Originally Posted by OngBonga
Is it embarrassing to have been on Hitler's side in WWII? I'm sure it is. Does it mean Finland was a Nazi country in WWII? Was their motivation anything other than getting back the land that Stalin had taken from them a year earlier? Did they enact Nazi occupation policies, or any Nazi policies at all? Did they mistreat Russian prisoners? No, no, no, no, and no.
Bandera was a Ukranian nationalist who tried to declare an independent Ukraine and ally it with Germany in WWII. He was definitely right-wing, but he was not a member of the Nazi party.Quote:
Originally Posted by OngBonga
One neo-nazi Mayor of a town of 85000 people in a country of 44 million doesn't imo say anything about widespread nazi-sympathizing. Yeah there's probably thousands willing to vote for them or turn a blind eye to it, but that's likely true for quite a few countries.
You say this right after suggesting Russia might nuke itself. This is what baffles me with you poop. You're not applying your logic equally.Quote:
Originally Posted by poop
Was he involved in the killing of Poles, or the Ukrainian Holocaust? Answer that, then tell me again he wasn't a Nazi.Quote:
I just explained to you that Bandera was a Ukranian nationalist, and not a Nazi.
No, I didn't say that. So now show me a member of a party that Farage was leader of at the time, where a member was exposed as sympathetic to Nazi ideology, and Farage did not expel that member. Show me that Farage is accountable for Nazis in his party and did nothing.Quote:
So it's ok to be the leader of a party that has neo-Nazi members as long as you're not one yourself? Seems you're cutting a fine line here.
You're not paying attention. You relentless assume you know my position, and when I make comments that challenge that idea you have, you seemingly ignore them.Quote:
The faux outrage coming from a guy who keeps trying to find excuses for Putin for the war Putin started is a bit lol frankly.
I am not making excuses for Putin. I already said that I do not believe for one minute that Putin's motivation for invading Ukraine is denazification. I believe this war is geopolitical, not ideological.
No. This "white supremacy" thing is bollocks. Very few people people subscribe to such ideology, either in politics or in society. Such parties are minor parties, like the BNP and National Front.Quote:
How many UKIP MEPs did we have when we were in the EU? Do you consider UKIP a UK Nationalist (well, English nationalist really) party, with white-supremacy leanings, if not outright white-supremacy?
Did UKIP have some wankers for MPs? Sure. Nazis and white supremacists? Not that I'm aware of, and if they were exposed as such, surely they were kicked out of the party.
Show me someone who got elected despite overtly sympathising with Nazi ideology.Quote:
How did several of them get elected to responsible positions to represent a country that fought the Nazis? We must have a problem with neo-Nazism here too.
Well they certainly have Nazi sympathisers now. And I'm not talking about posh twats who don't like immigrants. I mean skinheads who don't like Jews.Quote:
It didn't have Nazi sympathesizers then, or at least that wasn't their motivation for joining Germany in WWII. I've explained that to you at least twice now. If you don't want to believe it, then all I can say is read a book.
He was responsible for the deaths of lots of Poles and Jews. He was a Nazi, even if not a member of the Nazi Party.Quote:
Bandera was a Ukranian nationalist who tried to declare an independent Ukraine and ally it with Germany in WWII. He was definitely right-wing, but he was not a member of the Nazi party.
From memory, not active research:
Ukraine has nuclear reactors that create weapons-grade Plutonium as a "by product" of the reaction. True.
The amount produced by these reactions is miniscule.
The UAEA has been all over that. They know exactly how much Plutonium is created per Mega Watt created. They actively regulate the production and disposal of that material.
If the conspiracy is that all of the Plutonium is diverted to a secret weapons program, then that's probably not possible. The number of people involved would be in the thousands. Too many to keep quiet, IMO. *shrug*
If the conspiracy is that only an unmeasurably small amount is being hidden from inspectors, such that trained physicists are being fooled into accepting less than they were told... then... OK. Not an easy ask, but far, far fewer conspirators needed.
But then the rate at which you're acquiring material is so absurdly miniscule that you're talking a decades long program to obtain enough material to produce a weapon.
So it's not beyond imagination that some attempt at collecting that Plutonium could happen.
It's just that any non-insane number of conspirators means the utility of the program is moot.
I mean, you could either expect me to conduct a lot of research on various Ukrainian politicians, and post my findings for your reading pleasure, or you could do it yourself if you're interested to know if Nazism is legitimately a problem in Ukrainian politics and society.Quote:
Originally Posted by CoccoBill
You're right, one guy tells only a tiny part of the story. I don't know the whole story. I'm learning more this last week about Ukrainian politics, WWII and Soviet history than I ever did at school.
I've seen plenty of images of Twitter of Ukraine flags with swastikas but I haven't bothered posting them because I lack any basic context.
People seem to be dismissing the problems Ukraine has with Nazism for no reason other than Putin is saying it. That's what it looks like to me.
You've pretty much got the info I'm aware of in the thread, vis-a-vis neo-nazism in Ukraine.
There is also an active neo-nazi militant group in Easter Ukraine, operating in a region adjacent to the Russian border.
The fuckers dip their bullets in pig fat just to spite any Muslims they happen to shoot.
So yeah. Ukraine has a problem with neo-nazism. Worse than the neo-nazism that plagues many parts of the US.
It's just that it's fringe on the national scale. There's no widespread Ukrainian support of nazism.
Et tu la banane?Quote:
Originally Posted by OngBonga
What I said was it's more likely Putin would nuke his own troops (on Ukrainian soil ldo) and blame in on Ukraine than that Ukraine would nuke itself.
They're not equivalent situations. Putin and Zelensky are not equivalent people.Quote:
Originally Posted by OngBonga
And yes, in fact I do think Putin is capable of more despicable actions than Zelensky, or most any other leader for that matter. Past behaviour is a good predictor of future behaviour. So there's that.
You seem to take the attitude that inside of every person is some little amoral psychopath just waiting for an opportuniy to come out. This is a sad view of the human race.
No you.Quote:
Originally Posted by OngBonga
So why bring up Ukranian nazis at all if it's not relevant to any argument you're making? This is a thread on the war in Ukraine. One of the reasons Putin gave for the war was to de-nazify Ukraine. You come along and say "hey look here's a nazi mayor in Ukraine." Where are we supposed to infer you're going with that?Quote:
Originally Posted by OngBonga
What do you call it when they specifically don't want brown immigrants then? Ethnic rinsing? Apart-them? If it walks like a duck and quacks like a duck, it's a duck mate.Quote:
Originally Posted by OngBonga
You're missing the point. What made UKIP an attractive party to these people in the first place? It's all fine to say "hey we don't want anyone that's open about their racism in our party," but what made that person think this was the party they should join?Quote:
Originally Posted by OngBonga
Again, so what? Lots of countries have those types of people, including the UK.Quote:
Originally Posted by OngBonga
Was he? From what I read he spent most of the war in jail. You're making him sound like he was running the gas chambers.Quote:
Originally Posted by OngBonga
Quote:
Originally Posted by MadMojoMonkey
I think we can all agree they have a problem. And I think we can all agree it's their problem, not Russia's. Certainly not to the point that it justifies an invasion.
Ok, well we're still in false flag territory. I believe any side in a war is capable of false flags events if it increases their perceived changes of success.Quote:
Originally Posted by poop
No they're not. One is a great deal more dangerous than the other. That's not necessarily because Putin is a bigger asshole. It's because he controls a more powerful military.Quote:
They're not equivalent situations. Putin and Zelensky are not equivalent people.
I don't know what any leader in the world is capable of, but the majority are capable of what I'd call a despicable act.Quote:
And yes, in fact I do think Putin is capable of more despicable actions than Zelensky, or most any other leader for that matter. Past behaviour is a good predictor of future behaviour. So there's that.
idk about Zelensky, I'm unconvinced he's even in control of Ukraine.
It's not my view of the human race. It is my view of politicians and powerful elites.Quote:
You seem to take the attitude that inside of every person is some little amoral psychopath just waiting for an opportuniy to come out. This is a sad view of the human race.
Your view of the human race is that everyone is racist. That I find sad.
It's relevant because we have to be honest about whether we should be siding with, and even arming, Nazis.Quote:
So why bring up Ukranian nazis at all if it's not relevant to any argument you're making? This is a thread on the war in Ukraine. One of the reasons Putin gave for the war was to de-nazify Ukraine. You come along and say "hey look here's a nazi mayor in Ukraine." Where are we supposed to infer you're going with that?
Quote please of someone who is a member of Farage's party saying they approve of white immigration but not "brown" immigration.Quote:
What do you call it when they specifically don't want brown immigrants then?
In the absence of any proof, you're talking utter bollocks here. This is your wild imagination.
Anti-EU sentiment made UKIP relevant, and then leaving the EU made them completely irrelevant again.Quote:
You're missing the point. What made UKIP an attractive party to these people in the first place?
btw, we are talking about Nazis, not racists. If your definition of "Nazi" is "racist" then it's you who needs to read a book.
Sure. Do we have any elected into office?Quote:
Again, so what? Lots of countries have those types of people, including the UK.
Well from what I'm reading he's a highly controversial figure in Ukraine. Many people there do consider him a fascist who sympathised with Nazi ideology. Others consider him a national hero. I'd never heard of him until today.Quote:
Was he? From what I read he spent most of the war in jail. You're making him sound like he was running the gas chambers.
The fact that some mayor has an image of him on his wall and has a car registration 14/88, I'm inclined to think he's a hero to Nazi sympathisers.
14 refers to the 14 words by David Lane - "We must secure the existence of our people and a future for white children."
88 is a reference to the 88 words in Hitler's Mein Kompf about the supremacy of the white race.
This is white supremacy in politics, not Farage waffling on about Muslims.
For the sake of clarity, I agree with this. Even if they are Nazis, that does not justify an invasion.Quote:
Originally Posted by Poopadoop
I mean... you say that, but...Quote:
Originally Posted by OngBonga
The EU has absorbed over 1.5 million refugees in the past 10 days.
Funny how not long ago they were "full" when a lot of brown refugees needed help.
Racism isn't overt anymore, ong. That doesn't mean it doesn't exist.
It doesn't mean that it's someone's imagination when death by a thousand cuts, not 1 of them overtly racism, has cut them off from resources and hospitality that are "common courtesy," or "human rights."
It's like trusting the reports of war crimes coming out of Ukraine these past days. Not 1 of them can be trusted. But at the same time, they can't all be false. Which ones are true, which are false? I can't tell. What's the ratio of true to false? I can't tell.
It's just that it only takes 1 true. You see?
It's right to be dubious. It's right to be skeptical.
Just don't ignore the forest for the trees.
A landlocked 95% white eastern european country has nazis? I can't believe what I'm hearing!Quote:
Originally Posted by OngBonga
I don't think it justifies having any reservations in sending aid to the ukrainian military either. I'm sure there are lots of horrible people living in the Ukraine, but that doesn't mean I don't support its sovereignty.Quote:
Originally Posted by OngBonga
I don't think this is an accurate reflection. I think the EU continues to absorb plenty of refugees of all races. Ukraine is an immediate crisis, so of course there's a high number of their citizens fleeing to Europe. These people are not economic migrants. They are fleeing war and are highly likely to return home when it is safe to do so, assuming their home isn't a wasteland.Quote:
Originally Posted by mojo
"War criminal" seems to be the new "Nazi". It's like the next step up in highly exaggerated rhetoric. The meaning of the words "racist" and "Nazi" have been diluted, now it's time for a new one. "War criminal".Quote:
It's like trusting the reports of war crimes coming out of Ukraine these past days. Not 1 of them can be trusted. But at the same time, they can't all be false. Which ones are true, which are false? I can't tell. What's the ratio of true to false? I can't tell.
I don't know what is and isn't a war crime. What I will say though is I don't hold the opinion that attempting to shell a legitimate target, say a TV station, missing it by 5 meters, and taking out some civilians, that this is a war crime. If the Russians have been deliberately shelling civilians fleeing cities during a ceasefire, that very probably is a war crime. But it's very difficult to confirm such incidents are true.
The question is if these horrible people are in power, or are likely to gain power when Russia withdraw.Quote:
Originally Posted by oskar
We have a history of arming shitty people. We armed the Taliban, we armed ISIS, we armed Al Qaida, none of this turned out well. When we're arming these kind of people, we have no right to morally judge them. That doesn't stop us from doing so though.
Pfffttt. Eight-year olds can't pick fruit - what does she expect?
https://twitter.com/SarahLudford/sta...82235064770563
Of course Germany took 1 meeelion Syrian refugees (or "economic migrants" or w/e) a few years ago. Obviously their society is on the brink of collapse now.Quote:
Originally Posted by OngBonga
The thing about economic migrants is if they're young and healthy enough to cross a body of water in a dinghy, they might be the kind of people who are willing to work hard and help prop up a country with an ageing demographic. The irony is, it's most likely to be the aged ones who are least interested in letting them in.
Here's an example of what modern racism looks like, ong.Quote:
Originally Posted by OngBonga
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sgHQknJnuRk
Well, the German economy is in trouble, but I'm not going to sit here and claim that it's because of one million Syrians. I will say though that Syrian citizens are a lot more educated and productive than Somalians.Quote:
Originally Posted by poop
The German economy is in deep trouble right now, not least because they rely so much on Russia for their gas. That's why Germany were dragging their feet with regards helping Ukraine.
Imagine thinking this. We're talking about people who will seek illegal ways to enter a country. We're also talking about a lot of men who have abandoned their family and their country in a war zone. I'd say they're more likely to be criminals than hard workers.Quote:
The thing about economic migrants is if they're young and healthy enough to cross a body of water in a dinghy, they might be the kind of people who are willing to work hard and help prop up a country with an ageing demographic.
Also, you're assuming here that the people coming to the UK on dinghies are aware of the danger they're putting themselves in. A great many of them are not. People traffickers are exploiting them and putting them at serious risk of harm, for profit. By letting people arrive in the country in this way, you are helping to support illegal and dangerous people trafficking. The people running these criminal ventures are mafia level criminals. They pay off corrupt politicians and judges, and influence policy. And you're outraged at the people who want immigration to be under control, rather than the people who are making this happen in the first place.
Video unavailable. Geolocked.Quote:
Originally Posted by MadMojoMonkey
huhQuote:
Originally Posted by OngBonga
Maybe try a YouTube search for
Trevor Noah racial disparity in refugee treatment
Do you even google, mate?Quote:
Originally Posted by OngBonga
Wikipedia - War Crime
It's complicated, and there are varying opinions on the matter. It is generally agreed upon that targeting civilians who are non-combatants is a no-no.
Obv. you can draw your own opinions about which definitions you accept. In the end, I suppose the only definition that matters is the one with the monopoly on violence to impose consequences to breaking their definition.
le shrug
I agree with all of this.Quote:
Originally Posted by OngBonga
Quote:
Do you even google, mate?
Yeah, the latter, not the former.Quote:
It's complicated, and there are varying opinions on the matter.
Just as a fun side comment, I literally just finished watching a video about how Google Maps is different depending on the country from which you access it from. Google doesn't care about geopolitics and instead cares about money. Pissing off China, with over a billion people, by not respecting their border claims, is unthinkable. So Google show Chinese people what the Chinese government want them to see.
Is this exclusive to Google Maps? Or is this something that Google generally is subject to? The point being, if I google "war crimes", am I getting the West's subjective interpretation? Or an objective international interpretation? I don't know the answer to that.
But yeah, for other reasons, it's complicated and not something reading the war crimes wiki is really going to clear up.
The biggest problem with war crimes is it's the victors of war who get to decide who committed war crimes, and who didn't. It's mired in geopolitics and has very little to do with fair, rigorous and non-discriminating law.
Ethnic cleansing is a war crime. The UK is guilty of this where it comes to the Chagos Islands. Have the UK been charged with war crimes relating to this? Of course not, the USA has a military base on the islands. No international court to my knowledge has acknowledged the eviction of Chagos Islanders as ethnic cleansing, and therefore it's not legally a war crime, even though morally it probably is.
Sexual violence is an iffy subject, too. I am in no doubt there are lots of USA and UK soldiers who cracked under the pressure and committed atrocities, including sexual violence. I personally knew someone who beat a man to death with the butt of his gun, in front of his child, because the man "wouldn't shut the fuck up". This same guy was in a convoy that got hit by an IED, and he says he had to pick up body parts of his friends. This is just what he would talk about. Notice I said "knew", as in past tense. He killed himself because he couldn't live with his experiences. He was traumatised and consumed by immense guilt. He was broken. This is what happens when you send naive kids into war zones.
War crimes, as defined by Wikipedia, are happening all the time, from all sides, wherever war is happening.
I can't find what you posted but I did find this report from Pakistan that makes some very fine points...Quote:
Originally Posted by MadMojoMonkey
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KBRwmTVVKQk
She's kinda making the same point that I have made about how we seem to care more about this Ukraine war than we do about Yemen, Syria and Palestine. I have put this down to the fact we have geopolitical interests, rather than systemic racism, but when people on the BBC are talking about the refugees having "blonde hair and blue eyes", that for me is a dogwhistle. Did the BBC know this guy was going to say that? I doubt it, I just don't think there's an audience for it in the UK, who the BBC is primarily aiming their material at. But there's certainly a difference between the way this war is reported compared to the many other wars going on right now.
The narrative is that Putin is more of a danger to our own countries than the likes of Saudi Arabia, but the irony of course if that no Russian terrorists have ever flown planes into buildings on American territory.
This is gold.
https://twitter.com/MarcherMedia1/st...87213884645381
Trump warning Germany of the dangers of relying on Russian gas, concluding with the German delegation looking amused by his comments.
Orange man bad.
Frankly, she did it better than Trevor Noah, but the same point was made. Just that she's a journalist and not a comedian.Quote:
Originally Posted by OngBonga
Quote:
Originally Posted by OngBonga
It's funny because he talked nonstop garbage for six years and when he turned out to be right about one thing people are now posting it like it proves he was a genius all along.
3D chess ftw.
I suspect there will be a few pearls like this where, in hindsight, he doesn't seem quite so batshit.Quote:
Originally Posted by Poopadoop
It's not so much Trump being right that's worthy of note here. It's the German reaction to his comments. Immature, hate inspired ridicule. You expect it from the moronic general public, but delegates representing nations should understand geopolitics better. Germany should have known they were sleepwalking into a major energy and economic crisis. But they refused to listen because it was Trump warning them. Serves them right.
Anyone else find it interesting that the EU will welcome up to 4 million Ukrainians "with open arms" while saying absolutely nothing about the tens of thousands of Iraqi Kurds trapped on the border between Poland and Belarus?
Just reading a report about this in the BBC...
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-60555472
60 hours in the freezing winter? Oh no.Quote:
Many people have waited up to 60 hours to cross into Poland, in freezing weather. Those entering Romania have waited up to 20 hours.
How long have the Iraqis been trapped? All fucking winter. Not a word about them in this report.
But let's not that stop us from high fiving one another for letting in Ukrainian refugees.
Russia has issued its demands...
Recognise Crimea as Russian territory
Recognise the independence of the breakaway states
Constitutional neutrality (no NATO)
Absolutely nothing about Nazis.
Apparently, the Chief of Military in Belarus has resigned in protest, and soldiers are refusing to fight. There's hope for Belarus yet.
Quote:
Originally Posted by OngBonga
Not quite as bad as the UK gov't high-fiving itself over it's "world leading" response.
https://pbs.twimg.com/media/FNP6U9-W...g&name=900x900
How many have Ireland let in?
Ireland: 1800, so only 1750 more than us.
(╯°□°)╯︵ ┻━┻Quote:
Originally Posted by OngBonga
That's great news. Apparently no personal condemnation for the war, but he says the troops won't fight and changing the commanders won't help the situation. This whole thing seems to be a massive soviet style fuckup where everyone in line was padding the truth to please the next in command leading to a massive miscalculation.Quote:
Originally Posted by OngBonga
https://i.imgur.com/BGcZMRe.jpg
What about Iceland?
They have to layover in Stansted... so thousands of Ukrainians are getting off in the UK, take a look around, go: fuuuuuuck this shit, and catch the next flight to Dublin.Quote:
Originally Posted by Poopadoop
They're catching us up...
Quote:
Originally Posted by Twitter
This would be funnier if you said they were arriving in Birmingham.Quote:
Originally Posted by oskar
When I went to Dublin, I flew from Birmingham. Dublin is a wonderful, friendly city where you can walk around pissed and not have a care in the world. Within five minutes of arriving back at Birmingham New Street train station, there was someone waving a knife around. Welcome home.
I've finally found a source for the 50 refugees the UK has admitted. It is a pitiful number.
But with that said, it's ludicrous to compare the UK to Poland and other border nations. The UK is over 1000 miles away from Ukraine, and there's a sea separating us from mainland Europe. We are not a destination of choice because it is difficult and expensive to reach the UK compared to mainland Europe.
Ireland of course has the same issues, I can't confirm a source for the number poop quoted but it's still a pitiful number, such that if the UK was saying we allowed 1800 in, poop would still be saying it's not enough. Not sure why Ireland is doing marginally better than us, probably being an EU country makes it easier to arrive from another EU country.
The UK certainly needs to do more as this crisis deepens. We can and should help... by flying refugees in from Warsaw, Budapest, and other border capitals. We shouldn't be encouraging people to turn up at Calais where there are already severe refugee problems.
You plan to just keep going down the list of countries in the world until you find one that's small and far away enough that it's taken fewer than us?Quote:
Originally Posted by OngBonga
"What about Ecuador?" lol
No, it should be obvious that I was listing European islands. Maybe you're a bit too thick to pick up on that.Quote:
Originally Posted by Poopadoop
It would be ludricous to compare us and ask why we aren't taking as many as Poland, I agree. It's not ludicrous to ask that if a relatively poor country like Poland can handle X hundred thousand, why can we only handle 50?Quote:
Originally Posted by OngBonga
The main reason they would want to come here is family ties, or b/c English is their only second language. If they speak Ukranian or Russian though they can probably get by in Poland, the slavic languages are all fairly closely related. That said, it's hard to imagine only 50 out of a million would want to come to the UK.Quote:
Originally Posted by OngBonga
It depends on how many are trying to get here and how easy or hard we are making it. I can only assume since we've taken 50, we're not doing much to help those who do want to come. I've also heard things about U refugees with family in the UK getting the runaround over paperwork, sent back and forth from Calais to Paris, and basically giving the impression the UK is completely disorganised and/or unwilling to do anything for them (depending on how you interpret things). It's hard to imagine it all down to just incompetence though, given we've got Cruella Patel in charge of the Home Office. At least she isn't trying to drown them.Quote:
Originally Posted by OngBonga
Ireland has a population of about 5 million. Iceland well under 1 million. So yeah, the islands you're picking are smaller and smaller and further and further away. But other than that, they're islands just like us.Quote:
Originally Posted by OngBonga
Yeah, well played. So this person thinks it's a brag that we haven't taken the absolute fewest in the entire world last year, and that makes up for the fact we've only taken 50 from Ukraine so far.Quote:
Originally Posted by OngBonga
Nobody is saying this though. Nobody is saying we can only handle 50. That's simply what we've taken so far. We're talking about 200k, let's see if that actually happens.Quote:
It would be ludricous to compare us and ask why we aren't taking as many as Poland, I agree. It's not ludicrous to ask that if a relatively poor country like Poland can handle X hundred thousand, why can we only handle 50?
Sure. Presumably, only 50 people have thus far proven their family ties to the UK, since this is the criteria we're currently applying. I don't think language is going to be an immediate concern though. Maybe if they need to settle then it becomes a problem, but if they're worried about language, then it simply makes more sense to remain where the bulk of the Ukrainian refugees are.Quote:
The main reason they would want to come here is family ties, or b/c English is their only second language.
I'm certainly agreeing with you that we can and should do more.Quote:
It depends on how many are trying to get here and how easy or hard we are making it.
Presumably there are no figures showing how many have tried. We're guessing here.Quote:
I can only assume since we've taken 50, we're not doing much to help those who do want to come.
Calais is a complete shitshow. It's basically a third world part of France, where the French are happy for unwanted migrants to gather so they can fuck off the England. If I were trying to get to the UK from Ukraine, I'd head to a capital city, probably Warsaw, but if I could get to Paris, that makes sense too. Going to Calais is stupid.Quote:
I've also heard things about U refugees with family in the UK getting the runaround over paperwork, sent back and forth from Calais to Paris...
I like how you think a larger population means we should allow a larger number of refugees. I'd say a larger population makes it more difficult, not less. We have a very high population density, especially compared to Ireland. We'll leave Iceland out of this because I was kinda just being silly with that, it's mostly a frozen wasteland and hardly an ideal location for refugees. But Ireland is a reasonable comparison.Quote:
Ireland has a population of about 5 million. Iceland well under 1 million. So yeah, the islands you're picking are smaller and smaller and further and further away. But other than that, they're islands just like us.
700 over a year is pitiful. If that was the UK's effort, you'd be all over it. Ireland is an EU country, surely they should be doing more in your opinion. Right?Quote:
Yeah, well played. So this person thinks it's a brag that we haven't taken the absolute fewest in the entire world last year, and that makes up for the fact we've only taken 50 from Ukraine so far.
Right?
World beating refugee management going on in Calais:
"Can't help ya here, fill in this online form and fuck off to Paris or Brussels."
https://pbs.twimg.com/media/FNQLd6UW...jpg&name=small
fwiw, I don't give a fuck how many migrants and refugees Ireland allow into their country. It's their business. I have no idea what they can economically handle. I don't really know what we can handle either, which is why I try not to be critical of the numbers thrown around, at least when it's 200k and not 50.
We should certainly be sharing the burden with Europe. But it's obvious that border nations will bear the brunt, certainly in the short term.
What I do find interesting is that you're fixated with the UK. If you did a little more digging, you might learn that Poland are letting whit refugees in by the busload, while making black people wait. It's got to the point where Nigeria are advising their citizens in Ukraine to avoid Poland and head for Hungary and Romania. That's a lot more outrageous than a distant island dragging its heels.
Not sure why this is upsetting you. Paris isn't even that far from Calais, neither is Brussels. It makes sense for the UK to want Ukrainian refugees to avoid Calais, given that there are already huge migrant problems in Calais.Quote:
Originally Posted by Poopadoop
Like I said, it really depends on how many applications they get and how helpful they are in assisting those applications. If they're getting 10k applications a year and accepting 700, then yes they're being cunts. If they're sending battleships and jetskis into the Irish sea to deter refugees, they're also cunts. If they're making it difficult for Ukrainian refugees to get a visa by making them jump through a bunch of hoops, they're also cunts. But if they have reaonable policies, and are still only getting 750 applications a year and accepting 700 that's completely different obv.Quote:
Originally Posted by OngBonga
I don't follow Irish politics so I don't know. They could be as open to refugees as anyone and just not get many applications.
It's also a bad comparison because they are a lot smaller. It's not about having empty space, as if the refugees could go and live in the woods somewhere. It's about having infrastructure, housing, roads, etc.. Otherwise the world could just ship all its refugees to Greenland and Antarctica. If you want to compare the UK to another country, pick one that's a similar size, like FRA, GER, ITA, etc. We're last on that list by a long ways, and have been for a number of years.
I live here. What country should I focus on?Quote:
Originally Posted by OngBonga
Reductio whataboutismo.Quote:
Originally Posted by OngBonga
Let's just clear one thing up.Quote:
Originally Posted by poop
What do you consider to be a greater evil? Migrants being refused entry to a country? Or people trafficking?
People crossing the channel is a huge problem. A very, very huge problem. You conveniently ignore me when I mention people trafficking. By insisting that the UK allows boatloads of people to turn up on the coast, you are de facto supporting people trafficking. That's an unavoidable fact.
So make you choice. Migrants on boats without documents means people trafficking, which means criminals exploiting migrants making a fortune.
Not really. The UK issue is a minor issue that you're politicising to throw shit at Boris and Patel. The Poland border issue is, apparently, actual racism happening in 2022. When it happens in USA, you're outraged and think this is relevant to the UK. Why is it not outrageous when Poland are racist?Quote:
Reductio whataboutismo.
Do you think these people are tourists on vacation? How do you know they even have enough money to get to Paris or Brussels?Quote:
Originally Posted by OngBonga
Basically what we're doing amounts to trying our best to keep them out of the UK and make them someone else's problem for as long as we possibly can. It's just callous.
It's 100% reductio whataboutismo.Quote:
Originally Posted by OngBonga
The topic I raised is the UK's shitty response to the refugee crisis. Your contribution has been "yeah, but whatbout [insert whatever other country you can find a reason to criticise here]?" Rinse and repeat.
It's irrelevant to the refugees themselves how they got here. Once they're here, they have to be treated as asylum seekers, not sent to some other country for "processing," or whatever they keep trying to do with them. When they're in the English channel rowing over here, they should not be met with a battleship to scare them back to France.Quote:
Originally Posted by OngBonga
The people traffickers are scumbags, and if we capture people traffickers we should prosecute them, assuming there is even a law against it. What we shouldn't do is assume every man woman and child who arrives on a dinghy is themselves a people trafficker and treat them like a criminal, as that makes no sense at all. The people who've paid the criminals for passage to the UK are not themselves criminals.
The number of people who are crossing the channel in dinghies is a problem, I agree. But the solution is not to send out a battleship to steer them back to France. The solution is to enable them safe passage. It costs a lot less to send a ferry from Calais to Dover than to send a battleship out to patrol the Channel, so there can no whinging about costs.
They presumably had enough money to get to Calais. And if they get stuck there, then France needs to transport them to Calais.Quote:
Originally Posted by Poopadoop
If a bunch of people were stuck in Dover trying to get to France, and France was saying "go to London", and they were saying "we don't have the money to get to London", then you would, rightfully, argue that the UK has a responsibility to help get these people to London.
The UK are totally within their rights to insist on centralising the refugee issue. Otherwise people could just turn up anywhere along the French coast and demand the UK come get them. You're expectation of what the UK should do about people in Calais is unreasonable. It's France's problem, not the UK's.
This might be true. But let's say we weren't doing this. We're still being reasonable by saying "don't go to Calais".Quote:
Basically what we're doing amounts to trying our best to keep them out of the UK and make them someone else's problem for as long as we possibly can. It's just callous.
Ok, let's talk about minor domestic issues instead of major international issues.Quote:
The topic I raised is the UK's shitty response to the refugee crisis. Your contribution has been "yeah, but whatbout [insert whatever other country you can find a reason to criticise here]?" Rinse and repeat.
This is a minor domestic issue because I do not believe there is a single person trapped in Ukraine because the UK is being difficult. The people we are talking about are safe in Europe.
You start this post with a comment about "refugees". Let's just clarify something here... those fleeing Ukraine are refugees. Those fleeing France on boats are migrants. There is a difference, and it's an important difference.Quote:
Originally Posted by Poopadoop
We're not just trying to deter people traffickers and migrants, we're trying to deter France from doing nothing. France have an obligation to secure their borders, including coastlines. France should be doing more to stop these boats leaving their territory. But they don't want these migrants, so they allow it to happen. What should the UK do? Just say "ok, you've got us, they're in British waters" and let this play out indefinitely? Ludicrous.Quote:
When they're in the English channel rowing over here, they should not be met with a battleship to scare them back to France.
France are to blame for this crisis. We're trying to secure our borders. France are not. France are encouraging people traffickers. If France did more, this would be resolved.
Of course there's a law against it.Quote:
The people traffickers are scumbags, and if we capture people traffickers we should prosecute them, assuming there is even a law against it.
Well yeah, the people traffickers themselves aren't getting onto these dodgy boats. And while a migrant isn't automatically a criminal for attempting to enter a country by illegal means, they aren't law abiding either. Maybe that's not their fault, maybe they were led to believe this is how you migrate to the UK by people traffickers. Maybe they didn't even know they were getting on a boat until they were ushered onto one. Who knows?Quote:
What we shouldn't do is assume every man woman and child who arrives on a dinghy is themselves a people trafficker and treat them like a criminal...
Turning away boats at sea is a terrible thing to do. But allowing them to arrive is worse, because it encourages the people traffickers to keep doing it, to keep putting these people at serious risk of drowning.
There is no good way for the UK to deal with this problem.
No. The solution is to pressure France to secure their maritime borders.Quote:
The solution is to enable them safe passage.
This isn't about cost. There's a lot more to it than that. This is a battle of political will between France and the UK, with France allowing these people to be put at risk, and the UK refusing to allow France to palm off their migrants onto us.Quote:
It costs a lot less to send a ferry from Calais to Dover than to send a battleship out to patrol the Channel, so there can no whinging about costs.
We should set up processing centers on the coast of France, Belgium, Neth. and Germany. One per country. Put it on the internet where each one is. Anyone who turns up with a Ukranian passport gets a visa to the UK for some time (say 3 years).
What we're doing instead is saying we have a processing center in Calais (Priti Patel's words), then when refugees show up there, telling them "Psych! Go to Paris or Brussels. Then you can apply for a visa and after we think about it for a while, we might let you into the UK. We can't say for sure just now, because we haven't really figured out the rules ourselves yet. It's only been 10 days ya'know."
Or send them to the capitals and fly them in. Capital cities are usually much easier to get to from all parts of a country, and have more resources than coastal locations.Quote:
Originally Posted by poop
Well if we're saying this and then sending them to Paris, this is obviously problematic unless we're helping these people get to Paris.Quote:
What we're doing instead is saying we have a processing center in Calais (Priti Patel's words)
Let's get real. The people who float across the channel on a dinghy are asylum seekers. Migrants are people who apply for a visa from their home country, get it, then come over. As if people are going to risk their lives on a dinghy just to get here and be told "you're not seeking asylum and you have no visa, so sorry we have no obligation to let you stay here, you have to go back."Quote:
Originally Posted by OngBonga
Quote:
Originally Posted by OngBonga
There's no international law that says a country can't let people leave their country and go out to sea. Nor does any country have an obligation to help another country's immigration system. France can choose to help us if we cooperate with them but since we have such a poor attitude towards France and the EU in general, I think we've pretty much shot ourselves in the foot on that one.
How can we get them to do cooperate? By being cunts over fishing?Quote:
Originally Posted by OngBonga
Seems like it'd be hard to prosecute. First you have to find the person, then get them in your juridiction to arrest and charge. Do you know how many dinghy traffickers have been convicted?Quote:
Originally Posted by OngBonga
We could help the people who want to get here to get here without having to cross in a dinghy. That's one way.Quote:
Originally Posted by OngBonga
Let's assume the French are dicks or whatever and they dont' want to help us. What do we do then? Send a battleship?Quote:
Originally Posted by OngBonga
The French can't tell asylum seekers they can't go on to the UK.Quote:
Originally Posted by OngBonga
Let's say a refugee comes from Syria. He travels first to Turkey, the border guard says "Who are you and where are you going?" The refugee says "I'm fleeing the war Syria and I have family in the UK I want to go there." The Turk guard says ok and let's him in. The same thing happens at the borders of Greece, Italy, Switzerland, and then France. The refugee finally gets to Calais and finds out there's no help to get to the UK. He still wants to meet up his family in the UK so he ends up taking a dinghy.
And you think France should do what, arrest him? Sink the dinghy? What? Do you think France should spend all their resources patrolling their entire coastline looking for refugee dinghies full of people who want to get to the UK and herding them back to Calais to go sit in a tent again, and wait and hope the UK will get their finger out and do something to help them get across?