hypochondriac

So what you are saying then is that we have to get rid of the main perpetrators until the only ones left are the more moderate ones who we can then talk to in order to negotiate something. Good we agree.

The perpetrators of the second world war were all killed! It was only after that that the non fanatical murderous ones were talked to. There is no getting round the table with isis. They have no interest in any sort of negotiation.

Precisely. Any animosity is due to brainwashing and indoctrination and can't be blamed on the crusades in the slightest.

Don't be so ridiculous. Long memories??? It's 800 years ago ffs...

Because in the same way that the gotcha headline didn't create any terrorists, this one has also failed to create Islamic ones.

That's just rubbish. The front of the zero has virtually zero impact on people becoming terrorists. You're trying to make an issue that isn't there.

As someone said earlier, I don't think you should start censoring things because of the chance of a terrorist attack. There is freedom of speech to be considered here. You could of course argue for it to be removed because it's a rubbish headline or a bit insensitive but not imo because you may p*ss off some extremists. From the sun's point of view it's a great headline anyway because it gets them talked about.

If someone is turned into an isis fighter on the back of a sun headline then you have to question if they weren't really already in that mindset in the first place. Everyone knows what the sun is like, it's not like it has huge amounts of credibility to begin with.

This basically. It's an idiotic headline designed to attract attention and sell papers from an idiotic paper that has previous for doing stuff like this. It's hardly a surprise and they will probably sell more papers from it.

I expect the knowledge that their loved ones joined isis and were plotting to kill people is harder to bear than some silly little headline from the Sun.

That's an idiotic conclusion.

Just so people can't misquote me and think I was opposing migrants here is what I said in this thread originally. I actually think the strategy of taking those from Syria rather than encouraging others to take the dangerous trip here is the correct one.

What on earth are you talking about not wanting refugees here? I didn't say that.

He's a legend. Used to be good friends with him and his partner Laura before he played for saints but I haven't seen them in a long time. He's also extremely intelligent which is unusual for a footballer.

Nothing at all really. I'm just as guilty as anyone else. It's human nature. If world governments had any sense they would make proper safeguards for the future but it won't win elections so it won't happen.

And in case anyone misunderstood what I said earlier, I was referring to the human race which kills the earth not migrants. Our population is too numerous and eventually somethibg will happen to address that. Let's hope it's the least painful option...

Exactly. They operate with a different set of rules. We will always lose players to them, they will always be miles bigger and be able to offer players better wages and pay more.

That's where you are wrong. There is only loads more room if everyone significantly alters their current lifestyle and rate of consumption. The primary reason for the change over the last two centuries is due to an anomalous windfall of energy and many of these changes will undoubtedly be reversed at some point in the future as resources are depleted. It is thus highly likely that society will see an even greater set of social changes than those of the last two centuries and we will probably see a more hierarchical society again with the general standard of living showing a downward curve and the wealthy gaining more power. Modern technologies (if they are adopted quickly enough) will no doubt be able to support sizable populations without fossil fuels if everyone is organised enough but they won't be able to provide everyone with our current standards of living as we do now. I read up on this a while ago and the German scientist Paul Ehrlich recently pointed out that to support todays population of seven billion sustainably would require half an additional planet and to do so with all citizens consuming at the rate of a typical American, we would need three or four abd that's before you take into account the population explosion which is still going on. To suggest otherwise is the equivalent of sticking your fingers in your ears and putting your head in the sand.

They aren't.

Will certainly become more scarce which will push prices up and probably lead to restrictions.

Box of frogs.

The fact is we already don't have enough resources for the current population to keep their lifestyles now and it's only going to get worse. The situation can't continue and I would imagine we will return to the life quality of previous centuries for many, short of some kind of incident that causes mass death as I previously mentioned.

It's what the earth need to survive, not what I'm wishing for dummy.

What the earth really needs is some sort of big illness or catastrophe to get some of the population under control. Sounds awful but we are overdue something like that and the human race is pretty much a disease for the planet.

The books really interesting actually. It predicts what is going to happen in the next century. Essentially says we will revert back to somethibg like the 19th century once the oil runs out. The wealthy will control the food and most. People won't give a toss about voting because they will be preoccupied with having enough to eat and surviving. The author questions the pledge for more housing since he says it's farmland we will need for bio fuel and sustainable energy in the next century and we will see much fewer houses not more. We should really be looking to house share now and restore farmland to make sure we are more sustainable as a country. Isn't going to happen though... Overall a very good book abd makes you realise that all this fighting over immigrants is largely pointless. We will all be pretty fooked in about 90 years time and it's kind of inevitable. We are lucky to be born now because no other generations will ever have more than we currently have.