|
Post by Boogaloo on Feb 13, 2011 22:55:24 GMT
I don't see why we should be concerned for their welfare when they clearly don't give two hoots about anyone else's welfare in this country. These selfish turds deserve NO SYMPATHY what so ever. Anyway it's not as though we are the ones doing the torturing. We have been quite generous to open our doors and let them in to our country, but they have turned round and thrown it back in our face. It's case of biting the hand that feeds you. Once they start to behave like humans, then and only then can we start discussing their 'human rights'. So its OK for them to be tortured as long as our hands aren't dirty, oh the hypocrisy! If the 'selfish turds' deserve torture why don't we just do it rather than sending them elsewhere. Where does it stop? terrorists, asylum seekers, regular criminals, suspects? After all, if you think someone's a child killer or a rapist, why not hook him up to a car battery and all. It's not about whether I condone it or not, it's about deserving the right to be in our country - It is not a given right to be here - You have to make an effort to fit in, and plotting to kill non-muslims doesn't fit into that category. Ultimately it comes down to who's more important to you:- a) A violent jihadist who has a deep hatred of anyone non-muslim, fails to integrate, and actively encourages fellow believers to commit mass murder. or is it b) A decent law-abiding citizen who just wants to get on with their life, and is happy to accept people for who they are regardless of race, religion, beliefs, sexuality or whatever. And as I've said before asylum seekers I don't have a problem with, as long as they are going to OBEY THE LAW. Have you actually thought that people like Abu Hamza, Omar Bakri etc are here because they have been organising extremist activity in their own country's, and here's stupid us welcoming them in to pretty much carry on where they left off spreading hatred. It's absolutely ludicrous that we are putting up with this!
|
|
|
Post by Lone Gunman on Feb 13, 2011 23:14:03 GMT
So its OK for them to be tortured as long as our hands aren't dirty, oh the hypocrisy! If the 'selfish turds' deserve torture why don't we just do it rather than sending them elsewhere. Where does it stop? terrorists, asylum seekers, regular criminals, suspects? After all, if you think someone's a child killer or a rapist, why not hook him up to a car battery and all. It's not about whether I condone it or not, it's about deserving the right to be in our country - It is not a given right to be here - You have to make an effort to fit in, and plotting to kill non-muslims doesn't fit into that category. Ultimately it comes down to who's more important to you:- a) A violent jihadist who has a deep hatred of anyone non-muslim, fails to integrate, and actively encourages fellow believers to commit mass murder. or is it b) A decent law-abiding citizen who just wants to get on with their life, and is happy to accept people for who they are regardless of race, religion, beliefs, sexuality or whatever. And as I've said before asylum seekers I don't have a problem with, as long as they are going to OBEY THE LAW. Have you actually thought that people like Abu Hamza, Omar Bakri etc are here because they have been organising extremist activity in their own country's, and here's stupid us welcoming them in to pretty much carry on where they left off spreading hatred. It's absolutely ludicrous that we are putting up with this! I'll admit it was probably ill-advised letting them in in the first place, and I agree their actions have been deplorable. The bit I don't agree with is the fact that you seem to believe that they 'deserve' to be deported to countries where they may well be tortured. I think we have a moral duty, no matter how bad the things they have done, not to allow that if we can prevent it. Out of interest are you a supporter of the use of torture?
|
|
|
Post by dannyc on Feb 13, 2011 23:33:35 GMT
I don't see why we should be concerned for their welfare when they clearly don't give two hoots about anyone else's welfare in this country. These selfish turds deserve NO SYMPATHY what so ever. Anyway it's not as though we are the ones doing the torturing. We have been quite generous to open our doors and let them in to our country, but they have turned round and thrown it back in our face. It's case of biting the hand that feeds you. Once they start to behave like humans, then and only then can we start discussing their 'human rights'. So its OK for them to be tortured as long as our hands aren't dirty, oh the hypocrisy! If the 'selfish turds' deserve torture why don't we just do it rather than sending them elsewhere. Where does it stop? terrorists, asylum seekers, regular criminals, suspects? After all, if you think someone's a child killer or a rapist, why not hook him up to a car battery and all. well afew decades ago it worked capital punishment why not now .
|
|
|
Post by Boogaloo on Feb 14, 2011 10:04:39 GMT
It's not about whether I condone it or not, it's about deserving the right to be in our country - It is not a given right to be here - You have to make an effort to fit in, and plotting to kill non-muslims doesn't fit into that category. Ultimately it comes down to who's more important to you:- a) A violent jihadist who has a deep hatred of anyone non-muslim, fails to integrate, and actively encourages fellow believers to commit mass murder. or is it b) A decent law-abiding citizen who just wants to get on with their life, and is happy to accept people for who they are regardless of race, religion, beliefs, sexuality or whatever. And as I've said before asylum seekers I don't have a problem with, as long as they are going to OBEY THE LAW. Have you actually thought that people like Abu Hamza, Omar Bakri etc are here because they have been organising extremist activity in their own country's, and here's stupid us welcoming them in to pretty much carry on where they left off spreading hatred. It's absolutely ludicrous that we are putting up with this! I'll admit it was probably ill-advised letting them in in the first place, and I agree their actions have been deplorable. The bit I don't agree with is the fact that you seem to believe that they 'deserve' to be deported to countries where they may well be tortured. I think we have a moral duty, no matter how bad the things they have done, not to allow that if we can prevent it. Out of interest are you a supporter of the use of torture? No, of course I'm not a supporter of torture, which is why I believe we (and by that I mean Europe) should help where possible if asylum seekers have the threat of torture/death. However with Hamza and Bakri, they have abused our hospitally and generosity in taking them in. I disagree that we have 'a moral duty, no matter how bad the things they have done' - They have a moral duty to fit in - It shouldn't all be one way traffic. Plus even if they do get killed, I'm sure Hamza and Bakri wouldn't mind afterall it would make them 'martyrs' and they would book their place 'im paradise with 1000 virgins' and all that other nonsense that they seem to believe in alongside Mohammed Sidique Khan and Mohammad Atta.
|
|
|
Post by moobs on Feb 14, 2011 10:34:13 GMT
It's not about whether I condone it or not, it's about deserving the right to be in our country - It is not a given right to be here - You have to make an effort to fit in, and plotting to kill non-muslims doesn't fit into that category. Ultimately it comes down to who's more important to you:- a) A violent jihadist who has a deep hatred of anyone non-muslim, fails to integrate, and actively encourages fellow believers to commit mass murder. or is it b) A decent law-abiding citizen who just wants to get on with their life, and is happy to accept people for who they are regardless of race, religion, beliefs, sexuality or whatever. And as I've said before asylum seekers I don't have a problem with, as long as they are going to OBEY THE LAW. Have you actually thought that people like Abu Hamza, Omar Bakri etc are here because they have been organising extremist activity in their own country's, and here's stupid us welcoming them in to pretty much carry on where they left off spreading hatred. It's absolutely ludicrous that we are putting up with this! I'll admit it was probably ill-advised letting them in in the first place, and I agree their actions have been deplorable. The bit I don't agree with is the fact that you seem to believe that they 'deserve' to be deported to countries where they may well be tortured. I think we have a moral duty, no matter how bad the things they have done, not to allow that if we can prevent it. Out of interest are you a supporter of the use of torture? But at the end of the day the object of deportation is to repatriate people who do not have the right to stay in the UK back to their homeland. Nobody is advocating torture. You could send a person to a so called 'unsafe' country and they could be perfectly okay, you could send a person to a perfectly safe country and they may still be tortured or killed. Is it really our place to pre empt what might happen to people? It's like saying you shouldn't put them on the plane in case the plane crashes then it will be our fault. You can't really pre empt anything that may or may not happen to somebody
|
|
|
Post by yellowhoods on Feb 14, 2011 10:49:53 GMT
I feel sorry for Muslims around the world. They always seem to get a bad press and are usually cast as villains. I think it would help our understanding of their rich culture and religion if we offered refuge to more of them.
And let's not qhettoise them either. Let's mix them up with the white population in places like Kidlington.
I don't want them in my road - it's taken ages to get house prices up again - but a nice little two-up two-down in rural Oxfordshire would suit most of them, I'm sure.
|
|
|
Post by Lone Gunman on Feb 14, 2011 15:00:15 GMT
I'll admit it was probably ill-advised letting them in in the first place, and I agree their actions have been deplorable. The bit I don't agree with is the fact that you seem to believe that they 'deserve' to be deported to countries where they may well be tortured. I think we have a moral duty, no matter how bad the things they have done, not to allow that if we can prevent it. Out of interest are you a supporter of the use of torture? No, of course I'm not a supporter of torture, which is why I believe we (and by that I mean Europe) should help where possible if asylum seekers have the threat of torture/death. However with Hamza and Bakri, they have abused our hospitally and generosity in taking them in. I disagree that we have 'a moral duty, no matter how bad the things they have done' - They have a moral duty to fit in - It shouldn't all be one way traffic. Plus even if they do get killed, I'm sure Hamza and Bakri wouldn't mind afterall it would make them 'martyrs' and they would book their place 'im paradise with 1000 virgins' and all that other nonsense that they seem to believe in alongside Mohammed Sidique Khan and Mohammad Atta. You are supporting torture though, think about it. You're saying you don't want them tortured here, but if they abuse their right to stay in this country then you're happy to send them to another country where they will be tortured. If you truly are not an advocate of torture how can it be right to deport someone, even if they've done terrible things, to a country where they will get tortured?
|
|
|
Post by dannyc on Feb 14, 2011 15:24:13 GMT
No, of course I'm not a supporter of torture, which is why I believe we (and by that I mean Europe) should help where possible if asylum seekers have the threat of torture/death. However with Hamza and Bakri, they have abused our hospitally and generosity in taking them in. I disagree that we have 'a moral duty, no matter how bad the things they have done' - They have a moral duty to fit in - It shouldn't all be one way traffic. Plus even if they do get killed, I'm sure Hamza and Bakri wouldn't mind afterall it would make them 'martyrs' and they would book their place 'im paradise with 1000 virgins' and all that other nonsense that they seem to believe in alongside Mohammed Sidique Khan and Mohammad Atta. You are supporting torture though, think about it. You're saying you don't want them tortured here, but if they abuse their right to stay in this country then you're happy to send them to another country where they will be tortured. If you truly are not an advocate of torture how can it be right to deport someone, even if they've done terrible things, to a country where they will get tortured? so you think people who do terrible things should still deserve the same rights as the hard working innocent public .
|
|
|
Post by Lone Gunman on Feb 14, 2011 15:32:03 GMT
You are supporting torture though, think about it. You're saying you don't want them tortured here, but if they abuse their right to stay in this country then you're happy to send them to another country where they will be tortured. If you truly are not an advocate of torture how can it be right to deport someone, even if they've done terrible things, to a country where they will get tortured? so you think people who do terrible things should still deserve the same rights as the hard working innocent public . I think they deserve the right not to be tortured, which is, let me remind you against the universal decalaration of human rights, which both Britain and the US have signed.
|
|
|
Post by Boogaloo on Feb 14, 2011 15:47:35 GMT
No, of course I'm not a supporter of torture, which is why I believe we (and by that I mean Europe) should help where possible if asylum seekers have the threat of torture/death. However with Hamza and Bakri, they have abused our hospitally and generosity in taking them in. I disagree that we have 'a moral duty, no matter how bad the things they have done' - They have a moral duty to fit in - It shouldn't all be one way traffic. Plus even if they do get killed, I'm sure Hamza and Bakri wouldn't mind afterall it would make them 'martyrs' and they would book their place 'im paradise with 1000 virgins' and all that other nonsense that they seem to believe in alongside Mohammed Sidique Khan and Mohammad Atta. You are supporting torture though, think about it. You're saying you don't want them tortured here, but if they abuse their right to stay in this country then you're happy to send them to another country where they will be tortured. If you truly are not an advocate of torture how can it be right to deport someone, even if they've done terrible things, to a country where they will get tortured? Not at all. We're not torturing them, so our consciences should be clear. We have handed them a lifeline, a chance to escape from a violent, oppressive regime, a chance to make a better life for themselves, a chance of peace. But they don't want peace. If they abuse our hospitaliy, then anything that happens from there after is entirely their own fault. They are drinking in the last-chance saloon. We aren't a charity - We can't just start admitting thousands of Al Qaeda and Al Shabaab Islamic Extremists into this country, otherwise there will be carnage on the streets.
|
|
|
Post by dannyc on Feb 14, 2011 16:04:33 GMT
You are supporting torture though, think about it. You're saying you don't want them tortured here, but if they abuse their right to stay in this country then you're happy to send them to another country where they will be tortured. If you truly are not an advocate of torture how can it be right to deport someone, even if they've done terrible things, to a country where they will get tortured? Not at all. We're not torturing them, so our consciences should be clear. We have handed them a lifeline, a chance to escape from a violent, oppressive regime, a chance to make a better life for themselves, a chance of peace. But they don't want peace. If they abuse our hospitaliy, then anything that happens from there after is entirely their own fault. They are drinking in the last-chance saloon. We aren't a charity - We can't just start admitting thousands of Al Qaeda and Al Shabaab Islamic Extremists into this country, otherwise there will be carnage on the streets. i agree for once
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 14, 2011 16:19:04 GMT
Agree with boogaloo
Offering asylum to those who need it is our moral duty and we should take our fair share, but anyone who abuses the second chance that asylum offers them should be sent back regardless of what happens to them IMO. Its not our problem. Harsh but thats life.
Our soft approach makes us a target for extremists.
|
|
|
Post by Lone Gunman on Feb 14, 2011 17:38:44 GMT
You are supporting torture though, think about it. You're saying you don't want them tortured here, but if they abuse their right to stay in this country then you're happy to send them to another country where they will be tortured. If you truly are not an advocate of torture how can it be right to deport someone, even if they've done terrible things, to a country where they will get tortured? Not at all. We're not torturing them, so our consciences should be clear. We have handed them a lifeline, a chance to escape from a violent, oppressive regime, a chance to make a better life for themselves, a chance of peace. But they don't want peace. If they abuse our hospitaliy, then anything that happens from there after is entirely their own fault. They are drinking in the last-chance saloon. We aren't a charity - We can't just start admitting thousands of Al Qaeda and Al Shabaab Islamic Extremists into this country, otherwise there will be carnage on the streets. But that's the hypocrisy i've been objecting to all along. How can anyone's conscience be perfectly clear when someone has been tortured just because 'we didn't do it.' Its a complete abdication of responsibility. I mean are you an advocate of torture or not? A simple yes or no would suffice, as up to now you have indicated you are not, but you have no problem with handing people over so it can happen to them in other countries, thus seemingly being happy to be indirectly responsible for it. As for the rest, I agree we aren't a charity and we shouldn't admit these extremists. There should be a certain type of person who is automatically barred from even getting over the border let alone seeking asylum. I have never denied this. The trouble is, having made the mistake and let them in what do we do with them? I personally do not think it is right, and i would not have a clear conscience, letting even the most dispicable individual go anywhere knowing they would be tortured no matter how badly they have 'outstayed their welcome.'
|
|
|
Post by Boogaloo on Feb 14, 2011 20:29:36 GMT
Not at all. We're not torturing them, so our consciences should be clear. We have handed them a lifeline, a chance to escape from a violent, oppressive regime, a chance to make a better life for themselves, a chance of peace. But they don't want peace. If they abuse our hospitaliy, then anything that happens from there after is entirely their own fault. They are drinking in the last-chance saloon. We aren't a charity - We can't just start admitting thousands of Al Qaeda and Al Shabaab Islamic Extremists into this country, otherwise there will be carnage on the streets. But that's the hypocrisy i've been objecting to all along. How can anyone's conscience be perfectly clear when someone has been tortured just because 'we didn't do it.' Its a complete abdication of responsibility. I mean are you an advocate of torture or not? A simple yes or no would suffice, as up to now you have indicated you are not, but you have no problem with handing people over so it can happen to them in other countries, thus seemingly being happy to be indirectly responsible for it. As for the rest, I agree we aren't a charity and we shouldn't admit these extremists. There should be a certain type of person who is automatically barred from even getting over the border let alone seeking asylum. I have never denied this. The trouble is, having made the mistake and let them in what do we do with them? I personally do not think it is right, and i would not have a clear conscience, letting even the most dispicable individual go anywhere knowing they would be tortured no matter how badly they have 'outstayed their welcome.' It's not about being hypocritical - It's about looking after your own people - They are the ones we have responsibility for. They are not British citizens, they are merely guests living here because their home country is too dangerous for them to live in. As part of the asylum process, we are prepared to treat them like British citizens, but if they abuse it, then they should be sent back. If they get tortured, then that's just unfortunate. I know it's not a comfortable decision to make, but if it's one violent racist jihadist or fify innocent law-abiding civilians, then it really is a no-brainer.
|
|
|
Post by basingstokeox on Feb 14, 2011 20:56:28 GMT
Egypt on holiday this year will never be cheaper
|
|
|
Post by moobs on Feb 14, 2011 21:26:16 GMT
What about the fact we invade countries along with the AMericans and blown loads of people to fuck but, oh no, we don't like torture or people suffering persecution.
So we pontificate about their rights and feelings when they come here yet we go to their country and blow them to kingdom come.
How stupid is that?
|
|
|
Post by followtheox (the original) on Feb 14, 2011 21:28:03 GMT
What about the fact we invade countries along with the AMericans and blown loads of people to fu ck but, oh no, we don't like torture or people suffering persecution. So we pontificate about their rights and feelings when they come here yet we go to their country and blow them to kingdom come. How stupid is that? And we sell them lots of weapons.
|
|
|
Post by Lone Gunman on Feb 15, 2011 0:21:52 GMT
But that's the hypocrisy i've been objecting to all along. How can anyone's conscience be perfectly clear when someone has been tortured just because 'we didn't do it.' Its a complete abdication of responsibility. I mean are you an advocate of torture or not? A simple yes or no would suffice, as up to now you have indicated you are not, but you have no problem with handing people over so it can happen to them in other countries, thus seemingly being happy to be indirectly responsible for it. As for the rest, I agree we aren't a charity and we shouldn't admit these extremists. There should be a certain type of person who is automatically barred from even getting over the border let alone seeking asylum. I have never denied this. The trouble is, having made the mistake and let them in what do we do with them? I personally do not think it is right, and i would not have a clear conscience, letting even the most dispicable individual go anywhere knowing they would be tortured no matter how badly they have 'outstayed their welcome.' It's not about being hypocritical - It's about looking after your own people - They are the ones we have responsibility for. They are not British citizens, they are merely guests living here because their home country is too dangerous for them to live in. As part of the asylum process, we are prepared to treat them like British citizens, but if they abuse it, then they should be sent back. If they get tortured, then that's just unfortunate. I know it's not a comfortable decision to make, but if it's one violent racist jihadist or fify innocent law-abiding civilians, then it really is a no-brainer.So you're an advocate of torture then. There is absolutely f#ck all evidence to suggest that the 'torture one save many' pardox has a positive solution so you are basically saying you support tortue as long as it is not conducted in the UK. Hypocrite.
|
|
|
Post by Boogaloo on Feb 15, 2011 7:51:48 GMT
It's not about being hypocritical - It's about looking after your own people - They are the ones we have responsibility for. They are not British citizens, they are merely guests living here because their home country is too dangerous for them to live in. As part of the asylum process, we are prepared to treat them like British citizens, but if they abuse it, then they should be sent back. If they get tortured, then that's just unfortunate. I know it's not a comfortable decision to make, but if it's one violent racist jihadist or fify innocent law-abiding civilians, then it really is a no-brainer.So you're an advocate of torture then. There is absolutely f#ck all evidence to suggest that the 'torture one save many' pardox has a positive solution so you are basically saying you support tortue as long as it is not conducted in the UK. Hypocrite. You're just twisting my words now. It's exactly the same as me accusing you of supporting terrorism. All I'm saying is that if asylum seekers want us to help them, they have got to help themselves a little bit by obeying the law. It really isn't a lot to ask is it?
|
|
|
Post by Lone Gunman on Feb 15, 2011 10:38:51 GMT
So you're an advocate of torture then. There is absolutely f#ck all evidence to suggest that the 'torture one save many' pardox has a positive solution so you are basically saying you support tortue as long as it is not conducted in the UK. Hypocrite. You're just twisting my words now. It's exactly the same as me accusing you of supporting terrorism. All I'm saying is that if asylum seekers want us to help them, they have got to help themselves a little bit by obeying the law. It really isn't a lot to ask is it? I'm not twisting your words at all. You said if its 1 jihadi or 50 civillians its 'a no brainer'. I agree with the whole asylum-seekers-should-give-some bit and always have done, and people like Hamza and Bakri shouldn't have been let into Britain in the first pace but since they were allowed in what do we do?
|
|
|
Post by Boogaloo on Feb 15, 2011 10:55:17 GMT
You're just twisting my words now. It's exactly the same as me accusing you of supporting terrorism. All I'm saying is that if asylum seekers want us to help them, they have got to help themselves a little bit by obeying the law. It really isn't a lot to ask is it? I'm not twisting your words at all. You said if its 1 jihadi or 50 civillians its 'a no brainer'. I agree with the whole asylum-seekers-should-give-some bit and always have done, and people like Hamza and Bakri shouldn't have been let into Britain in the first pace but since they were allowed in what do we do? You mentioned that Hamza and Bakri shouldn't have been allowed in in the first place. By your logic refusal to let them in could be considered 'advocating torture', as we are not honouring their right to seek asylum. To me deporting them for terrorist activity is exactly the same as refusing to let some Al Qaeda militant. And is perfectly acceptable. I usually agree with most things you have to post on here, but this is the sort of left-wing goody-too-shoes stance that makes the UK an easy target for terrorism. I'm sorry to say it, but National security and the welfare of law-abiding citizens over-rides the need to offer refuge to jihadists who want to commit or instigate mass murder.
|
|
|
Post by dichio on Feb 15, 2011 12:16:51 GMT
Exactly my concern. You can just imagine all the "do-gooders" wellcoming all with open arms. Incidentally, it was reported on the news last night that Saudi could be one of the next. Just imagine a load of oil millionaire assylum seekers wandering around Harods. As long as the rest of the EU chip in as well. It's all very well Brussels lecturing us on their 'human rights' etc. yet when you walk around Brussels there's hardly a muslim in sight. What's wrong with the rest of Europe taking in asylum seekers? Why does it always have to be us? What's good for the goose.... Sorry but your talking crap, Brussels has a massive North African population ( close to 20% of the total pop of 1M apparently ), Schaerbeek and the area around the midi station especially.
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 15, 2011 12:31:07 GMT
Agree. I'm with you on most of this boogaloo, but the idea that we take more than our share is a myth spread by the likes of the Sun and Daily Mail
|
|
|
Post by Lone Gunman on Feb 15, 2011 12:50:56 GMT
I'm not twisting your words at all. You said if its 1 jihadi or 50 civillians its 'a no brainer'. I agree with the whole asylum-seekers-should-give-some bit and always have done, and people like Hamza and Bakri shouldn't have been let into Britain in the first pace but since they were allowed in what do we do? You mentioned that Hamza and Bakri shouldn't have been allowed in in the first place. By your logic refusal to let them in could be considered 'advocating torture', as we are not honouring their right to seek asylum. To me deporting them for terrorist activity is exactly the same as refusing to let some Al Qaeda militant. And is perfectly acceptable. I usually agree with most things you have to post on here, but this is the sort of left-wing goody-too-shoes stance that makes the UK an easy target for terrorism. I'm sorry to say it, but National security and the welfare of law-abiding citizens over-rides the need to offer refuge to jihadists who want to commit or instigate mass murder. I would say that not letting them in isn't the same as deporting them to a country where they will be tortured because if you don't let them into Britain they can go elsewhere. If you are deporting them to the US or Egypt or wherever where they then are tortured they have no choice in the matter, and it is just as much your fault as it is those doing the torturing. I also disagree with the fact that it is a 'goody-two-shoes' left wing stance. It is simply about taking a moral stance on something which is a complete violation of human rights and refusing to be a part of it. Even an indirect part. I agree with amarillo though, the extent to which Britain is a soft touch is exaggerated by the right wing papers to support an immigration cap.
|
|
|
Post by Boogaloo on Feb 15, 2011 13:17:47 GMT
Agree. I'm with you on most of this boogaloo, but the idea that we take more than our share is a myth spread by the likes of the Sun and Daily Mail That's a fair point Amarillo. I've done a bit of research on it, and you're right. We're in third place behind France and Germany, which sounds perfectly fair to me. I'll take that comment back. www.eubusiness.com/news-eu/immigration-asylum.4fy/As long as the rest of the EU chip in as well. It's all very well Brussels lecturing us on their 'human rights' etc. yet when you walk around Brussels there's hardly a muslim in sight. What's wrong with the rest of Europe taking in asylum seekers? Why does it always have to be us? What's good for the goose.... Sorry but your talking crap, Brussels has a massive North African population ( close to 20% of the total pop of 1M apparently ), Schaerbeek and the area around the midi station especially. I must admit I was only there for a short weekend, and it was about ten years ago, so times may have changed, or maybe they were staying in as the weather was quite crap!
|
|
|
Post by Boogaloo on Feb 15, 2011 13:44:55 GMT
You mentioned that Hamza and Bakri shouldn't have been allowed in in the first place. By your logic refusal to let them in could be considered 'advocating torture', as we are not honouring their right to seek asylum. To me deporting them for terrorist activity is exactly the same as refusing to let some Al Qaeda militant. And is perfectly acceptable. I usually agree with most things you have to post on here, but this is the sort of left-wing goody-too-shoes stance that makes the UK an easy target for terrorism. I'm sorry to say it, but National security and the welfare of law-abiding citizens over-rides the need to offer refuge to jihadists who want to commit or instigate mass murder. I would say that not letting them in isn't the same as deporting them to a country where they will be tortured because if you don't let them into Britain they can go elsewhere. If you are deporting them to the US or Egypt or wherever where they then are tortured they have no choice in the matter, and it is just as much your fault as it is those doing the torturing. I also disagree with the fact that it is a 'goody-two-shoes' left wing stance. It is simply about taking a moral stance on something which is a complete violation of himan rights and refusing to be a part of it. Even an indirect part. I agree with amarillo though, the extent to which Britain is a soft touch is exaggerated by the right wing papers to support an immigration cap. But we are taking a moral stance by offering them asylum in the first place. I'm not talking about sending people back to dangerous areas who park on double yellows, urinate in the street, or the more serious crimes like burglary or assault for that matter. I'm talking about violent extremists who if they had their way, would are happy to kill tens, hundreds, even thousands of innocent civillians. As for 'soft touch', it was actually 'easy target for terrorism' which I said, which we basically are if we continue to allow Abu Hamza to roam the streets preaching hate. If the European Courts of Human rights get their way with blocking the US' request to extradite him, then unfortuantely that could be happening pretty soon.
|
|
|
Post by Lone Gunman on Feb 15, 2011 14:19:21 GMT
I would say that not letting them in isn't the same as deporting them to a country where they will be tortured because if you don't let them into Britain they can go elsewhere. If you are deporting them to the US or Egypt or wherever where they then are tortured they have no choice in the matter, and it is just as much your fault as it is those doing the torturing. I also disagree with the fact that it is a 'goody-two-shoes' left wing stance. It is simply about taking a moral stance on something which is a complete violation of himan rights and refusing to be a part of it. Even an indirect part. I agree with amarillo though, the extent to which Britain is a soft touch is exaggerated by the right wing papers to support an immigration cap. But we are taking a moral stance by offering them asylum in the first place. I'm not talking about sending people back to dangerous areas who park on double yellows, urinate in the street, or the more serious crimes like burglary or assault for that matter. I'm talking about violent extremists who if they had their way, would are happy to kill tens, hundreds, even thousands of innocent civillians. As for 'soft touch', it was actually 'easy target for terrorism' which I said, which we basically are if we continue to allow Abu Hamza to roam the streets preaching hate. If the European Courts of Human rights get their way with blocking the US' request to extradite him, then unfortuantely that could be happening pretty soon. But he's not going to be walking the streets is he because the minute he opens his trap and, as you put it, starts preaching hate he'll be picked up and banged up again. Even he is not that stupid. If this country is such an easy target for terrorism why is it that there has been only one major successful terrorist attack by jihadis in Britain in the last ten years?
|
|
|
Post by Boogaloo on Feb 15, 2011 14:29:01 GMT
But we are taking a moral stance by offering them asylum in the first place. I'm not talking about sending people back to dangerous areas who park on double yellows, urinate in the street, or the more serious crimes like burglary or assault for that matter. I'm talking about violent extremists who if they had their way, would are happy to kill tens, hundreds, even thousands of innocent civillians. As for 'soft touch', it was actually 'easy target for terrorism' which I said, which we basically are if we continue to allow Abu Hamza to roam the streets preaching hate. If the European Courts of Human rights get their way with blocking the US' request to extradite him, then unfortuantely that could be happening pretty soon. But he's not going to be walking the streets is he because the minute he opens his trap and, as you put it, starts preaching hate he'll be picked up and banged up again. Even he is not that stupid. If this country is such an easy target for terrorism why is it that there has been only one major successful terrorist attack by jihadis in Britain in the last ten years?The answer is either luck, or the brilliant work of our undercover police force that deal with deal with extremism. Of the failed attacks we have:- Richard Reid the Shoebomber July 21st failed attacks Glasgow Airport Plot to Bomb several transatlantic flights which would have killed 1500 people 2008 Exeter bombing Plus others who have been arrested and jailed for possessing terrorist literature, bomb-making equipment and so on.
|
|
|
Post by Lone Gunman on Feb 15, 2011 14:40:49 GMT
But he's not going to be walking the streets is he because the minute he opens his trap and, as you put it, starts preaching hate he'll be picked up and banged up again. Even he is not that stupid. If this country is such an easy target for terrorism why is it that there has been only one major successful terrorist attack by jihadis in Britain in the last ten years?The answer is either luck, or the brilliant work of our undercover police force that deal with deal with extremism. Of the failed attacks we have:- Richard Reid the Shoebomber July 21st failed attacks Glasgow Airport Plot to Bomb several transatlantic flights which would have killed 1500 people 2008 Exeter bombing Plus others who have been arrested and jailed for possessing terrorist literature, bomb-making equipment and so on. I don't think that is necessarily unusual though. I'm sure there are many other countries which can boast a similar record. I think you're giving in to media hype if you truly believe that we are getting away with more than we should as regards terrorism, and you are living in cloud cuckoo land if you think the UK should somehow not be the target of such attacks.
|
|
|
Post by Boogaloo on Feb 15, 2011 15:02:39 GMT
The answer is either luck, or the brilliant work of our undercover police force that deal with deal with extremism. Of the failed attacks we have:- Richard Reid the Shoebomber July 21st failed attacks Glasgow Airport Plot to Bomb several transatlantic flights which would have killed 1500 people 2008 Exeter bombing Plus others who have been arrested and jailed for possessing terrorist literature, bomb-making equipment and so on. I don't think that is necessarily unusual though. I'm sure there are many other countries which can boast a similar record. I think you're giving in to media hype if you truly believe that we are getting away with more than we should as regards terrorism, and you are living in cloud cuckoo land if you think the UK should somehow not be the target of such attacks. You asked "Why is it that there has been only one major successful terrorist attack by jihadis in Britain in the last ten years?" and I answered your question. There would have been more had it not been for police intervention or failure by the extremists to complete their missions. I don't see how you can deny that. Had the bombs gone off at the right time, then the effects would have been catastrophic, and in some cases far worse than July 7th. The fact they failed doesn't make it any less serious an offence.
|
|