England headed for A Caliphate

[Bomb#20]

Those "similar" cases are packaged in another thread, but if this thread has any meaning and focus beyond Primal Scream Therapy, they are not relevant to how the UK is failing and its particular potential solutions, which no one has yet to describe.

Um, I kind of did.

Well, the prima facie simplest approach would be to monitor channel traffic from the air, spot a migrant boat early, have a navy vessel wait for it just shy of the median line and cross into French waters to stop it before it enters UK waters, take the migrants on board, sail them back to the nearest French port, and put them ashore. I'm not a lawyer, but my understanding of the law of the sea is that's all legal since the boats are overloaded and unseaworthy, making it legally a rescue.

I also originally thought this was simple. However, I had done some quick reading on this earlier, and the reality is that French authorities simply won't allow it. While maritime law certainly requires rescuing people from unseaworthy boats, a UK vessel cannot legally cross into French sovereign waters, sail into a French port, and unload people without France's explicit permission.

We may need an actual lawyer to settle this, but my understanding is France has no legal right to refuse to let them be unloaded unless it can find a third country to agree to take them. But maybe France would simply ignore its obligations, in which case yeah, the UK would probably find it unworkable to force the issue. That may all be unnecessary though. France is taking money from Britain to stop the boats. They're doing a half-assed job of it, and there have been widely publicized cases of French police standing by and watching boats being launched, and of the French navy escorting boats across to British waters, but they're allegedly getting better about it; and they'd probably get better faster if the UK government had the will to condition the payments on measured performance.

But ultimately, if in the end France proves completely obstinate, there's a fallback solution that doesn't rely on French cooperation: the UK can simply criminalize unauthorized entry and hold illegal aliens it catches in detention facilities until they say where they're from or it finds someone who agrees to take them. If migrants in France know that's what will happen to them if they cross the channel they'll stop coming. People respond to incentives -- that's the whole of economics.

 

[Bomb#20]

I love how it's 2026 and people still pretend they don't know what Derec is all about. That baffles me. Most people have been here for over a decade.

You appear to be referring to me. I know what Derec is all about. I also know what you're all about -- you're all about trumping up groundless accusations against infidels. And your little faith group all agreeing among yourselves that an infidel is all about X does not constitute evidence that said infidel is all about X. It's only evidence that what the infidel is all about is some Y you find so loathsome that you don't give a rat's ass about the difference between X and Y, and so loathsome that you don't give a rat's ass whether what you say about the infidel is the truth.

 

[Bomb#20]

“Islamist” is a construct, not a physical reality that differentiates the so-designated from the rest of humanity.
Bleat away, but it doesn’t change that fact.

"Fact", huh? According to Google, "An Islamist is a person who follows Islamism, a political ideology holding that Islam should guide social, legal, and political systems.". You appear to be claiming that there is no physical reality that differentiates persons who hold that Islam should guide social, legal, and political systems from persons who do not hold that Islam should guide social, legal, and political systems. How does that work? Do humans have non-physical souls that contain our opinions about separation of mosque and state, souls that interact with our crude matter to affect our speech and actions through our pineal glands?

Are you blind or just purposely ignorant?

B is neither. He is addicted to his own meticulously manufactured and maintained perceptions of other’s evils.

Can you produce any example of my perception of other's evils that I don't have observational evidence for?

 

[Elixir]

An Islamist is a person who follows Islamism, a political ideology holding that Islam should guide social, legal, and political systems

I know two people who answer to your google description, (one even named Mohammed OMFG!) yet neither of them conforms to the stereotype evoked by the word “Islamist”. Sorry, google.

Are most Trumpsuckers justifiably labeled “Christianists”? A lot of those Christianist trumpsuckers make me really nervous to be around - they’re prone to irrational violence.
The two” Islamists” (per your google definition) I know are both pacifists. Even moreso than I am.

Word games are tiresome B, and rather beneath your capability.

 

[laughing dog]

I love how it's 2026 and people still pretend they don't know what Derec is all about. That baffles me. Most people have been here for over a decade.

You appear to be referring to me. I know what Derec is all about. I also know what you're all about -- you're all about trumping up groundless accusations against infidels. And your little faith group all agreeing among yourselves that an infidel is all about X does not constitute evidence that said infidel is all about X. It's only evidence that what the infidel is all about is some Y you find so loathsome that you don't give a rat's ass about the difference between X and Y, and so loathsome that you don't give a rat's ass whether what you say about the infidel is the truth.

Ignoring the slander, that’s truly ironic on its face.

 

[Bomb#20]

I love how it's 2026 and people still pretend they don't know what Derec is all about. That baffles me. Most people have been here for over a decade.

You appear to be referring to me. I know what Derec is all about. I also know what you're all about -- you're all about trumping up groundless accusations against infidels. And your little faith group all agreeing among yourselves that an infidel is all about X does not constitute evidence that said infidel is all about X. It's only evidence that what the infidel is all about is some Y you find so loathsome that you don't give a rat's ass about the difference between X and Y, and so loathsome that you don't give a rat's ass whether what you say about the infidel is the truth.

Ignoring the slander, that’s truly ironic on its face.

Dude, I didn't say anything about you, so why are you triggering into "I'm rubber, you're glue." mode? If you want to play "Patooka's rubber, you're glue.", be aware this isn't his first rodeo. Before he groundlessly accused me of pretending not to know about Derec, he trumped up a lot of accusations against other posters including me, and if he chooses to dispute the charge I can prove it with a long string of quotations.

So much for "slander". As for "ironic", do you have evidence showing Derec is a Great Replacement conspiracy theorist who uses the word "Islamist" when he means "Muslim"?

 

[laughing dog]

I love how it's 2026 and people still pretend they don't know what Derec is all about. That baffles me. Most people have been here for over a decade.

You appear to be referring to me. I know what Derec is all about. I also know what you're all about -- you're all about trumping up groundless accusations against infidels. And your little faith group all agreeing among yourselves that an infidel is all about X does not constitute evidence that said infidel is all about X. It's only evidence that what the infidel is all about is some Y you find so loathsome that you don't give a rat's ass about the difference between X and Y, and so loathsome that you don't give a rat's ass whether what you say about the infidel is the truth.

Ignoring the slander, that’s truly ironic on its face.

Dude, I didn't say anything about you, so why are you triggering into "I'm rubber, you're glue." mode? If you want to play "Patooka's rubber, you're glue.", be aware this isn't his first rodeo. Before he groundlessly accused me of pretending not to know about Derec, he trumped up a lot of accusations against other posters including me, and if he chooses to dispute the charge I can prove it with a long string of quotations.

First, your persistent misuse of the "I'm rubber, you're glue" ad hominem is boring. It only works if the person you are targeting is complaining about the insult. Since I was not complaining about any insult whatsoever, your use is inappropriate. We've been over this before. So, I am wondering about your apparent inability to learn something.

Second, this is a public forum, and posters are permitted to respond to public posts. You know, how you do when you white knight for members of your little faith group. Hence your question makes it seem like you don't know how this place operates.

Third, either you know about Derecor you don't know, which in either case makes your response seem either hilariously wrong or very stupid.

So much for "slander". As for "ironic", do you have evidence showing Derec is a Great Replacement conspiracy theorist who uses the word "Islamist" when he means "Muslim"?

The irony is not in what about the content of Derec's knowledge, but your double standard regarding flinging baseless accusations.

 

[Bomb#20]

Ignoring the slander, that’s truly ironic on its face.

Dude, I didn't say anything about you, so why are you triggering into "I'm rubber, you're glue." mode? If you want to play "Patooka's rubber, you're glue.", be aware this isn't his first rodeo. Before he groundlessly accused me of pretending not to know about Derec, he trumped up a lot of accusations against other posters including me, and if he chooses to dispute the charge I can prove it with a long string of quotations.

First, your persistent misuse of the "I'm rubber, you're glue" ad hominem is boring. It only works if the person you are targeting is complaining about the insult. Since I was not complaining about any insult whatsoever, your use is inappropriate. We've been over this before. So, I am wondering about your apparent inability to learn something.

Why on earth would you think it only applies to insults? It applies to any criticism. You were certainly complaining about my criticism of the previous poster -- you called it "slander".

Second, this is a public forum, and posters are permitted to respond to public posts. You know, how you do when you white knight for members of your little faith group. Hence your question makes it seem like you don't know how this place operates.

Are you too suggesting I do it in the hope of getting sexual favors from those I defend? They aren't a faith group and you're rubber/gluing again. And of course you're permitted to respond; nobody said you weren't -- I merely noted that the style of your response strongly resembled the typical pattern of your responses to people criticizing you.

Third, either you know about Derecor you don't know, which in either case makes your response seem either hilariously wrong or very stupid.

Show your work, Yes, I know about Derec. How does that make my response either hilariously wrong or very stupid? My knowing about Derec would not imply I would know previous posters' accusation against him to be correct unless you can produce evidence that Derec is in fact a Great Replacement conspiracy theorist who uses the word "Islamist" when he means "Muslim". So if you intend to simply use that as a premise when you "show your work", all you'll actually be showing is that you too are a member of the previous poster's little faith group.

The irony is not in what about the content of Derec's knowledge, but your double standard regarding flinging baseless accusations.

What double standard? What accusation that I flung do you feel is baseless?

 

[laughing dog]

Ignoring the slander, that’s truly ironic on its face.

Dude, I didn't say anything about you, so why are you triggering into "I'm rubber, you're glue." mode? If you want to play "Patooka's rubber, you're glue.", be aware this isn't his first rodeo. Before he groundlessly accused me of pretending not to know about Derec, he trumped up a lot of accusations against other posters including me, and if he chooses to dispute the charge I can prove it with a long string of quotations.

First, your persistent misuse of the "I'm rubber, you're glue" ad hominem is boring. It only works if the person you are targeting is complaining about the insult. Since I was not complaining about any insult whatsoever, your use is inappropriate. We've been over this before. So, I am wondering about your apparent inability to learn something.

Why on earth would you think it only applies to insults? It applies to any criticism. You were certainly complaining about my criticism of the previous poster -- you called it "slander".

Second, this is a public forum, and posters are permitted to respond to public posts. You know, how you do when you white knight for members of your little faith group. Hence your question makes it seem like you don't know how this place operates.

Are you too suggesting I do it in the hope of getting sexual favors from those I defend? They aren't a faith group and you're rubber/gluing again. And of course you're permitted to respond; nobody said you weren't -- I merely noted that the style of your response strongly resembled the typical pattern of your responses to people criticizing you.

Third, either you know about Derecor you don't know, which in either case makes your response seem either hilariously wrong or very stupid.

Show your work, Yes, I know about Derec. How does that make my response either hilariously wrong or very stupid? My knowing about Derec would not imply I would know previous posters' accusation against him to be correct unless you can produce evidence that Derec is in fact a Great Replacement conspiracy theorist who uses the word "Islamist" when he means "Muslim". So if you intend to simply use that as a premise when you "show your work", all you'll actually be showing is that you too are a member of the previous poster's little faith group.

The irony is not in what about the content of Derec's knowledge, but your double standard regarding flinging baseless accusations.

What double standard? What accusation that I flung do you feel is baseless?

Your persistent misuse of “rubber/glue” is troubling. The rest of your post represents lots of effort in missing the point. I believe if you truly knew about Derec, there’d be no need for this aside. Which suggests you’re just arguing to argue or that your incorrigibly obtuse on this subject.

I’d say more, but Eric Satie’s Ogives, Gymnopedias and Peices froidrs beckon.

 

[Emily Lake]

I’m thinking a huge influx of Muslims into Europe, and especially the UK, would be a good thing.

As a woman, I deeply and strongly disagree with your view on this.

 

[Emily Lake]

There has been sexual slavery and prostitution everywhere, including here today in the good US of A

... And you're okay with that? It's no big deal?

 

[Emily Lake]

You seem to have willfully ignored the fact that I pointed out, which is that Western “civilization,” over the centuries, has commited far more atrocities than current Islamic terrorists.

Okay, you're mixing two very different timelines, and staggeringly different cohorts.. I don't think your assertion holds if you make it apples to apples.

If you look at the atrocities committed over, say, the last 1500 years by both european and arabic civilizations, I think arabic atrocities come out the worse.

If you look at atrocities committed by current christian zealots and current islamic zealots, I think islam comes out the worse.

Your comparison only holds when you compare over a thousand years of the very large category of mixed-religion europe, to the very tiny sliver of current islamic terrorists. It's a very poor bit of logic.

 

[Emily Lake]

You know, how you do when you white knight for members of your little faith group.

The "faith group" of... (checks notes)... people who appropriately apply logic and reason.

 

[laughing dog]

You know, how you do when you white knight for members of your little faith group.

The "faith group" of... (checks notes)... people who appropriately apply logic and reason.

You mean the group that includes someone who conflates Muslim with Islamist? LMAO.

 

[Emily Lake]

You know, how you do when you white knight for members of your little faith group.

The "faith group" of... (checks notes)... people who appropriately apply logic and reason.

You mean the group that includes someone who conflates Muslim with Islamist? LMAO.

What portion of Muslims in the world right now would you estimate to be Islamists?

What portion of the Muslims who have entered Europe, Canada, the US, in the last decade would you estimate to be Islamists?

What portion of the unusually high portion of military aged single male Muslims who have entered Europe, Canada, the US, in the last decade would you estimate to be Islamists?

 

[laughing dog]

You know, how you do when you white knight for members of your little faith group.

The "faith group" of... (checks notes)... people who appropriately apply logic and reason.

You mean the group that includes someone who conflates Muslim with Islamist? LMAO.

What portion of Muslims in the world right now would you estimate to be Islamists?

What portion of the Muslims who have entered Europe, Canada, the US, in the last decade would you estimate to be Islamists?

What portion of the unusually high portion of military aged single male Muslims who have entered Europe, Canada, the US, in the last decade would you estimate to be Islamists?

These questions are examples of appropriate applications of logic and reason of examining conflation (saying the concepts are the same)of Muslim with Islamist? Give me a break.

My answer to your questions is I have no clue nor care.

 

[Bomb#20]

I’d say more, but Eric Satie’s Ogives, Gymnopedias and Peices froidrs beckon.

Enjoy!