"Currants Bw..."

[Niall_Quinn]

Not really a libertarian point of view

What would be the threshold for doing this? Renounce Islam or fuck off

For someone who has been making slippery slope arguments all afternoon that’s pretty sinister

Would that be extended to everyone who doesn’t conform absolutely with your monoculture.

So now we get to be libertarians? How convenient.

I'm forced to argue in a non-libertarian environment and the, when I make the argument, it's not libertarian enough. Now that's hilarious.

As a libertarian I want NO BORDERS, NO NATIONS, NO AUTHORITY, just LIBERTY and the consequences of liberty.

But, as we have argued so many times before, we're nowhere near that and most of the people are terrified of having responsibility for their own lives. So we argue in the CONTEXT of what we have. And to try to paint these 49 year old "children" coming over and demanding their Muslim rights as "refugees" is a despicable lie. There are specific rules governing refugee status, and none of these people meet the criteria. In fact it should almost be impossible for the UK to ever receive refugees based on the legal criteria.

The economic migrants in Calais are, by legal default, not refugees. Do you get that much at least?

And yes, I'm mixing is two responses here so don't take it personally because it could be meant for the other retard.

[Niall_Quinn]

If you didn't destroy their homes and make them refugees maybe they wouldn't come?

Absolute bullshit. A throwaway lefty talking point designed to cover all evils.

You need to read up on Turkey, Poland, Hungary etc to begin to get a grasp of what the word "refugee" actually means.

[HCZ]

So now we get to be libertarians? How convenient.

I'm forced to argue in a non-libertarian environment and the, when I make the argument, it's not libertarian enough. Now that's hilarious.

As a libertarian I want NO BORDERS, NO NATIONS, NO AUTHORITY, just LIBERTY and the consequences of liberty.

But, as we have argued so many times before, we're nowhere near that and most of the people are terrified of having responsibility for their own lives. So we argue in the CONTEXT of what we have. And to try to paint these 49 year old "children" coming over and demanding their Muslim rights as "refugees" is a despicable lie. There are specific rules governing refugee status, and none of these people meet the criteria. In fact it should almost be impossible for the UK to ever receive refugees based on the legal criteria.

The economic migrants in Calais are, by legal default, not refugees. Do you get that much at least?

And yes, I'm mixing is two responses here so don't take it personally because it could be meant for the other retard.

Have you ever taken anything I’ve said personally?

[Niall_Quinn]

I’m not claiming to have been to Damascus or Aleppo or Ghouta

Unless you are, your claim to superior knowledge is what? George Galloway?, John Pilger or some unsourced alt right article claiming the white helmets going around slitting peoples throats.

Are you stating that every single refugee from that country is an IS agent?. If so they’ve been pretty fucking slow about completing their mission.

Stun me with your acumen about how woke you are

No. Not George Galloway. Beneath you that one.

Syrian activists on the ground who know full well what's going on. Syria is being partitioned, as per the usual plan. The US, currently in the midst of a domestic coup attempt, is desperately propping up Al Qaeda (who barely get a mention these days despite being significant players in Syria), ISIS and the Kurds (who are being pressed by the Turks). The goal of the off-book CIA is to stop the Russians stabilising Assad's control of the entire nation.

Do you know American forces have actually killed Russian forces on the ground? And the Russians have let it slide because they know what the aims of the CIA are and they refuse to play to that.

A simple logical checklist will tell you why Assad would never, ever deploy chemical weapons. First, he doesn't need to. If the Americans stopped attacking his forces he'd have ISIS and Al'Qaeda mopped up by now and would be able to turn on the despicable Kurds (who Syria welcomed with open arms in times past and have been rewarded for their hospitality by a knife in the back). Secondly, it would legitimise the US actions in Syria. Thirdly, he'd lose Russian support which is absolutely vital to his survival. But even an idiot could work this out so I don't know why I'm telling you.

[Niall_Quinn]

Have you ever taken anything I’ve said personally?

No. Never.

And I assume the reciprocal is true.

[HCZ]

No. Not George Galloway. Beneath you that one.

Syrian activists on the ground who know full well what's going on. Syria is being partitioned, as per the usual plan. The US, currently in the midst of a domestic coup attempt, is desperately propping up Al Qaeda (who barely get a mention these days despite being significant players in Syria), ISIS and the Kurds (who are being pressed by the Turks). The goal of the off-book CIA is to stop the Russians stabilising Assad's control of the entire nation.

Do you know American forces have actually killed Russian forces on the ground? And the Russians have let it slide because they know what the aims of the CIA are and they refuse to play to that.

A simple logical checklist will tell you why Assad would never, ever deploy chemical weapons. First, he doesn't need to. If the Americans stopped attacking his forces he'd have ISIS and Al'Qaeda mopped up by now and would be able to turn on the despicable Kurds (who Syria welcomed with open arms in times past and have been rewarded for their hospitality by a knife in the back). Secondly, it would legitimise the US actions in Syria. Thirdly, he'd lose Russian support which is absolutely vital to his survival. But even an idiot could work this out so I don't know why I'm telling you.

So the chemical attack on Khan Shaykun

A) didn’t happen

B) Was some American espionage plot?

I don’t think George Galloway is a low blow, if you believe what John Pilger has to say...Gorgeous George the genuflecter to middle eastern thugs is the next logical step.

I could ask you a series of questions on what you’ve said including do you believe that the opposition to Assad’s rule was just a western imperialist plot backed by terrorist groups as both Putin and Assad would like you to believe

Why wouldn’t Assad gas his own people, apart from the token destruction of an airfield it’s not exactly been full on repurcussions for him. Why would he do to Aleppo what the Soviet army did in the siege of Stalingrad only with civilians instead of soldiers

What interest do the Russians have in securing Assad other than securing the warm water port of Tartus as a naval base as well as the oil.

Dead Russians? Considering they have bombed Aid convoys and threatened any NATO jet found west of the Euphrates with being shot down. I can’t imagine you’d expect me to care about that.

[HCZ]

No. Never.

And I assume the reciprocal is true.

Indeed

[Niall_Quinn]

Where did I say it didn't happen. Why do you use these tricks in your argument when you could just state your case?

Didn't say it was an espionage plot either. I said the CIA is funding equipping Al Qaeda and ISIS (now common knowledge for interested parties that has even hit the mainstream) and the goal is to prevent Assad reconstituting regions of Syria.

And because everything else you say is based on your carefully constructed straw men, there's no real response available until you interject some honesty.

You don't care about Americans bombing Russians? By accident, of course. About the 20th such accident in the last year.

Look, in all honesty, you seem to have no idea whatsoever what's going on over there. You don't even know who the protagonists are.

[HCZ]

Where did I say it didn't happen. Why do you use these tricks in your argument when you could just state your case?

Didn't say it was an espionage plot either. I said the CIA is funding equipping Al Qaeda and ISIS (now common knowledge for interested parties that has even hit the mainstream) and the goal is to prevent Assad reconstituting regions of Syria.

And because everything else you say is based on your carefully constructed straw men, there's no real response available until you interject some honesty.

You don't care about Americans bombing Russians? By accident, of course. About the 20th such accident in the last year.

Look, in all honesty, you seem to have no idea whatsoever what's going on over there. You don't even know who the protagonists are.

I’m asking you what your explanation for it is. You’ve stated that Assad wouldn’t gas his own people, well what’s your counter conclusion. Did I forget the terrorists? (I didn’t)

In all honesty, talking to you on this subject is like conversing with a cockroach about the weather. Lines of communication are too far apart
The protagonists? This isn’t a Saturday morning cartoon with the Autobots and Decepticons.

But suffice to say if you think the Russians are the “protagonists”. Yeah I think that’s a world view as far apart as Johannesburg and Vladivostok

And notice I say If which is a conditional. I’m not telling you what you are saying

[Cripps]

Absolute bullshit. A throwaway lefty talking point designed to cover all evils.

You need to read up on Turkey, Poland, Hungary etc to begin to get a grasp of what the word "refugee" actually means.

Do you think people from Syria wanted to come here? To leave their homes? They had homes, businesses, communities and families back there. Once they were all destroyed they had no choice to flee.