https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-65874063

<quotes>

An 11-year-old girl from a British family who was shot dead while playing on a swing in her garden in France has been named as Solaine Thornton.

Her father suffered serious injuries, local media reported.

The suspect, described as a 71-year-old Dutch national, reportedly shut himself in his house following the incident but eventually surrendered to police and was arrested along with his wife.

</quotes>

I can't help but think, if France had kept all Dutch people out of their country, they could have avoided this tragedy.

On Mon, 12 Jun 2023 12:40:46 +0100, The Happy Hippy wrote:

> https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-65874063
>
> <quotes>
>
> An 11-year-old girl from a British family who was shot dead while
> playing on a swing in her garden in France has been named as Solaine
> Thornton.
>
> Her father suffered serious injuries, local media reported.
>
> The suspect, described as a 71-year-old Dutch national, reportedly shut
> himself in his house following the incident but eventually surrendered
> to police and was arrested along with his wife.
>
> </quotes>
>
> I can't help but think, if France had kept all Dutch people out of their
> country, they could have avoided this tragedy.

I've tried to ponder this to give your challenge a worthy reply.

Firstly it's a Lefty stretch to make 'control' into 'complete exclusion'.
I'm not saying that and I don't think most people are looking for that. I
think the thing most people are looking for is that taking people on
doesn't mean that they have to lose out in some way or have to live in
fear because even a small number of the people they've helped want to
dominate them or take revenge against them.

I'm sure the French wish they hadn't taken the man that shot the girl and
in some ways it's the same thing. I think the added factor with the
asylum seekers/immigrants is their sudden large numbers and the chaotic
way they're being dealt with. I'm sure everything that France wanted to
know about the Dutch man was available unlike someone who burned their
documents on the way to the border. It's also that a lot of the people
are part of a culture that has to be said isn't entirely friendly to
ours. While that hostility exists any act of violence from someone who
appears to come from a potentially hostile culture is going to be
suspected of being because of that hostility. Prejudice? Maybe it's just
going along with the evidence of past events.

TWP wrote:
> On Mon, 12 Jun 2023 12:40:46 +0100, The Happy Hippy wrote:
>
>> https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-65874063
>>
>> <quotes>
>>
>> An 11-year-old girl from a British family who was shot dead while
>> playing on a swing in her garden in France has been named as Solaine
>> Thornton.
>>
>> Her father suffered serious injuries, local media reported.
>>
>> The suspect, described as a 71-year-old Dutch national, reportedly shut
>> himself in his house following the incident but eventually surrendered
>> to police and was arrested along with his wife.
>>
>> </quotes>
>>
>> I can't help but think, if France had kept all Dutch people out of their
>> country, they could have avoided this tragedy.
>
>
> I've tried to ponder this to give your challenge a worthy reply.
>
> Firstly it's a Lefty stretch to make 'control' into 'complete exclusion'.
> I'm not saying that and I don't think most people are looking for that. I
> think the thing most people are looking for is that taking people on
> doesn't mean that they have to lose out in some way or have to live in
> fear because even a small number of the people they've helped want to
> dominate them or take revenge against them.
>
> I'm sure the French wish they hadn't taken the man that shot the girl and
> in some ways it's the same thing. I think the added factor with the
> asylum seekers/immigrants is their sudden large numbers and the chaotic
> way they're being dealt with. I'm sure everything that France wanted to
> know about the Dutch man was available unlike someone who burned their
> documents on the way to the border. It's also that a lot of the people
> are part of a culture that has to be said isn't entirely friendly to
> ours. While that hostility exists any act of violence from someone who
> appears to come from a potentially hostile culture is going to be
> suspected of being because of that hostility. Prejudice? Maybe it's just
> going along with the evidence of past events.

And laws of averages and probabilities.
Also, this was apparently done in hot anger, he didn't wake up that
morning thinking "I am going to kill a little girl" unlike the muslim
zealots who often plan for weeks and months specifically to kill and
rape infidels.

In any case, leave it to a crass wingnut like Xippy to use the death of
a little girl to push his warped open borders narrative, I'd have
expected nothing less, you can almost here him snickering as he types away.

--
Woe to those who call evil good and good evil, who put darkness for
light and light for darkness, who put bitter for sweet and sweet for bitter.

JeSSe wrote:

> In any case, leave it to a crass wingnut like Xippy to use the death of
> a little girl to push his warped open borders narrative, I'd have
> expected nothing less, you can almost here him snickering as he types away.

As to be expected from an unmarried, childless spinster I might add.

--
Woe to those who call evil good and good evil, who put darkness for
light and light for darkness, who put bitter for sweet and sweet for bitter.

On Wed, 14 Jun 2023 22:27:02 -0400
JeSSe <zo@so.org> wrote:

> In any case, leave it to a crass wingnut like Xippy to use the death
> of a little girl to push his warped open borders narrative

That's just your hypocritical propaganda. You are quick to use the deaths of children and others to push your anti-immigrant agenda. I have lost count of how many times have conjured up the image of "pretty blue-eyed white girl" to push your agenda.

Ad I wasn't pushing an open borders narrative - In fact you could argue it was exactly the contrary. I was merely highlighting the stupidity of banning some ethic groups while unconditionally allowing in others who are a greater danger.

Which is what Trump did when he banned Chinese travellers from entering America while allowing covid infections to flood in from Europe and elsewhere.

If Trump hadn't enacted racist policy, had instead acted to keep America safe, he wouldn't have so much blood on his hands, 1.1 million Americas might not have lost their lives.

On Wed, 14 Jun 2023 23:24:07 GMT
TWP <ngspammersad@yahoo.com> wrote:

> On Mon, 12 Jun 2023 12:40:46 +0100, The Happy Hippy wrote:
>
> > https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-65874063
> >
> > <quotes>
> >
> > An 11-year-old girl from a British family who was shot dead while
> > playing on a swing in her garden in France has been named as Solaine
> > Thornton.
> >
> > Her father suffered serious injuries, local media reported.
> >
> > The suspect, described as a 71-year-old Dutch national, reportedly
> > shut himself in his house following the incident but eventually
> > surrendered to police and was arrested along with his wife.
> >
> > </quotes>
> >
> > I can't help but think, if France had kept all Dutch people out of
> > their country, they could have avoided this tragedy.
>
>
> I've tried to ponder this to give your challenge a worthy reply.
>
> Firstly it's a Lefty stretch to make 'control' into 'complete
> exclusion'. I'm not saying that and I don't think most people are
> looking for that. I think the thing most people are looking for is
> that taking people on doesn't mean that they have to lose out in some
> way or have to live in fear because even a small number of the people
> they've helped want to dominate them or take revenge against them.
>
> I'm sure the French wish they hadn't taken the man that shot the girl
> and in some ways it's the same thing. I think the added factor with
> the asylum seekers/immigrants is their sudden large numbers and the
> chaotic way they're being dealt with. I'm sure everything that
> France wanted to know about the Dutch man was available unlike
> someone who burned their documents on the way to the border. It's
> also that a lot of the people are part of a culture that has to be
> said isn't entirely friendly to ours. While that hostility exists
> any act of violence from someone who appears to come from a
> potentially hostile culture is going to be suspected of being because
> of that hostility. Prejudice? Maybe it's just going along with the
> evidence of past events.

It is prejudice because there isn't the evidence to support banning some groups and not others.

The so-called evidence, if not simply invented, is exaggerated and distorted. Racists chose to believe it because it suits their agenda to do so but it doesn't make it evidence.

We have white racists so prejudiced towards immigrants that they will take a hammer to their own face just to blame Asian immigrants for doing that and far worse. White racists of course choose to believe the lies white racists tell, call it truth, claim those lies as evidence.

We both know it's "we don't want their kind here", and it's nothing new. Every generation chooses an ethnicity to hate and demonise. Every generation has found its excuse to justify doing so.

Let's not forget, while the Daily Mail was cheer-leading for Hitler and the Third Reich, Britain was rejecting Jewish refugees, women and children, refusing asylum, drivig them back to Germany, to the gas chambers.

On Wed, 14 Jun 2023 23:24:07 GMT
TWP <ngspammersad@yahoo.com> wrote:

> I've tried to ponder this to give your challenge a worthy reply.

Thanks for putting in the effort.

> Firstly it's a Lefty stretch to make 'control' into 'complete
> exclusion'.

I can't describe it as anything else when the government refuses to provide any legal means to enter the country or claim asylum and rejects other attempts to do so.

You aren't getting in, by legal or other means, is complete exclusion by any definition.

> I'm not saying that and I don't think most people are
> looking for that.

I am not convinced because those who say they aren't trying to exclude everyone have criteria for being allowed in which can't be met which means everyone is actually excluded.

And they know this, know it's just a pretence. And, when people would meet their criteria, that changes to ensure they remain excluded.

> I think the thing most people are looking for is
> that taking people on doesn't mean that they have to lose out in some
> way or have to live in fear because even a small number of the people
> they've helped want to dominate them or take revenge against them.

And that's fair enough. The people of Okinawa didn't want American rapists and murderers in their country and I can understand their wishing they'd kept them out, wishing they had been able to.

I think your criteria for who people want to keep out is biased towards keeping out people of certain ethnicity, hence racist in nature. I could accept it if it were to be applied to all but that's not what is being called for.

That "lose out in some way" is just a catch-all for when all other exclusions have failed as there can always be some loss to be found from taking anyone in.

I understand the fear of being held accountable for our actions but I don't believe that is justification for collectively punishing the innocent for our actions.

That's just another catch-all for completely excluding certain groups.