Shoot first

Ok then, if it had been up to the "lefties and liberals" the UK would never have joined in the illegal and completely pointless war on Iraq and 7/7 wouldn't have happened. You reap what you sow I'm afraid. But then perhaps encouraging terrorism and giving it a reason to exist is what "righties and repressors" would like?

Michael.

 

Wrong, the Iraq war is the excuse they're using for this terror attacks but as its been said before 9/11 happened way before the war, so your going to have to do better than that, they don't like our way of life so they want to take it away from us, and we're letting them.
Its very hard not to tar everyone with the same brush, but all we keep hearing is that they think they're doing this in the name of Islam and "this is a holy war", etc WTF is that about?
Its hard to hit back when we don't know who our enermy is, we need to flush them out.
Can't understand it, if they don't like our way of life, fine, don't for f***s sake come here.
Religon the cause of many wars, pointless exercise.
They are cowards can't come out and fight in clean air, don't want to negoicate, talk, prision is too good for them.

 

There's simply no point in continuing to argue with someone like you who doesn't have even the most basic grasp of the facts and appears to swallow all the ultra right-wing propaganda peddled by the tabloids .

My contribution to this thread is over and I'm off to PFM where it's at least possible to have a reasoned discussion on the issue with intelligent and informed people with a broad spectrum of views.

Michael.

 

.

 

As usual, michael, if people have a different view from you they are always wrong.

For someone who doesn't live in the UK you sure seem to know what is best for us.

The european jackboot strikes again.

Tony blair is to blame for all this terror attacks in this contry - for letting every sob story asylum seeker in here. All 'asylum seekers' should be made to stay in the country thay are from until it is found that they are a genuine case.

Until then No Entry.

 

Unfortunatly Mark, it is often not possible for them to stay in their country of origin.
That can be due to anything from ethnic cleansing to outright war.

Genuine asylum seekers will have a genuine reason and as such it is not possible to expect them to stay put.

 

Yes but the Western franchisation of the middle-east goes back a little further than that and that's one of the main motivations - greater IMO than the Iraq situation.

It's natural to want to protect yourself so to prejudge is to self-protect, but this needs to be reasonably applied where possible. Hysteria is just what feeds those who want to dominate auhtority by appearing to protect the public - the Bush/Rumsfeld admin is trying to create a permanent state of fear - it fuels their financial interests and those of certain industries and is great for quoshing dissent. I reckon they dont really want to kill Bin Laden - why kill the bogey man when he serves such a good function for them.

It sounds harsh but I have no doubt whatsoever there were many American and UK bods in the shadows of power who rubbed their hands with delight when the London bombers hit.

Easier said than done.

They cant bomb us if they arent here. Terrorism as a form of warfare is so designed because a conventional war would be lost - read the Art of War.

 

Which chapter?

 

Some apposite quotes in chapter 7.

 

None of the suicide bombers were asylum seekers; all four were UK citizens, so why single out asylum seekers for blame?

The only people 'to blame' were those who placed the bombs on the trains/bus.

 

By which time genuine asyulum seekers wouild probably be dead or in prison . Yeah, great idea. Well thought out.

 

Could you clarify a few things:
So is every asylum seeker a sob story?

If an asylum seeker is genuine then by definition staying in their country means either serious problems or death so how would that work?

How do you reliably tell real asylum seekers from sob stories?

 

So what you need a central European processing centre for asylum seekers - say in Brussels. All applicants must go there to be processed - any arriving in other countries are taken to the centre in Belgium. This would have to be a huge place where people have to stay until their cases are processed.

Once assessed, the genuine asylum seeker is placed in a suitable European country, based on each country taking its fair share. The applicants choice of country may be considered but it cannot be guaranteed.

Any failing may be allowed to appeal, but if they still fail they are returned to their country of origin.

Wouldn't be that difficult would it?

Matt.

 

I agree that it's rich for asylum seekers to aim for certain countries and a European strategy would make sense - apart from the small fact that it would never work.

There is a balance to be struck between a duty of care vs serving the interests of ones own population.

The Italians for example are, as far I understand, very unforgiving of immigrants.

Let's not forget though that there are many places on earth that are intollerable for the people living there. It's only human nature to want to survive, beyond that it's human nature to want to prosper. Migration is a very human thing to do.

 

this is the most depressing thread ever.

bodies are still warm , murderers are roaming the streets, people have only just started grieving, people are getting scared.

some of the bullsh1t i have read here concerning race,immigration,welfare,assylum makes me want to scream. this intollerance is not anything to be proud of , it makes those that write it seem , to me , like small town boys who know nothing about what they so confidently espouse. If i were to think about an england i would like to see I would like to encourage some more immigration and export all the white trash bigots , cos that's what you are, to a very cold place in the eastern europe with no benefits, a civil war going on and absolutly no hope.

 

Matt that is the best suggestion I have seen yet, this would be a much fairer way of dealing with the problem, the UK seem to take more than its fair share of seekers, considering our Islands small size, France and Spain have plenty more space then we do, but they don't take them, why? Probably because we're a soft touch and give hand outs, where the others don't.

But your suggestions would work I feel and would satisfy a lot of arguments, sure the seekers might have something to say about it, cos they want the cosy lifestyle of the UK, TS.

 

Na I've seen worse.

Ya that just about sums up the UK cold and in the middle of a war that we're not allowed to fight, sounds like a lost cause to me.

 

If terrorists are caught they should be modified.

First, they should have their eyes replaced with plastic eyeballs on springs that comedically bob up and down.

Their arms and legs should be carefully removed then stuck back on to their torso such that they appear to be a four legged animal.

Also, they should be given the ears of a mule, the tail of an ass and the curly cock of a pig.

Then, released into the community for ridicule and daily beatings.

To make them more uncomfortable, they should be forced to listen all the Pete Waterman classics by Kylie, Sonia and Rick Astley, all day.

The threat of having a curly cock like a pig might be deterent enough.

 

As a debate at uni we discussed asylum policy, I was on the side of some level of reform (cue the other side calling us xenophobes and racists there as well as here).

The proposal somebody came up with to decide how to fairly distribute these people within the EU was based on a variety of metrics (IIRC these included population, average population density, GDP/per capita, existing government and welfare spending, unemployment levels amongst others) which would somehow be combined to give an index which could be used to decide which country shout get which numbers of people. In a similar way as the UN HDI gives a more balanced measure of development than just (for example) looking at GNP/capita, we felt this would provide a more balanced view than would be possible by using a single metric alone.

There are certainly problems to this, the number crunching and the weighting to give certain measurements would certainly provoke argument, and there are difficult human questions to answer (regarding the separate of families) but I don't see why there shouldn't be some form of system to ensure that the asylum seekers should be spread evenly over EU so that the financial burden is shared equally (those countries who can afford to receive more asylum seekers than those who are less able to support them).

At this point I expect somebody will be frothing at the mouth for suggesting that asylum seekers are burden, whilst I'll happily agree that many immigrants make a positive contribution, if you look at people who claim asylum, you have people with no belongings, nowhere to live, and often with language problems that make work for them very difficult, turning up somewhere and needing things providing for them.

I feel we do have some duty to help those arriving from abroad who genuinely are in need, and have no problem with doing so, but to suggest that our kindness has no financial cost is short sighted surely? Why should the UK pay a higher cost to support these people than the rest of Europe? Surely it should be based upon ability to support these asylum seekers until they can find work and support themselves, rather than the current situation whereby those countries which by virtue of being more kind and open end up receiving far more than a 'fair' share of asylum seekers.

Theres probably many problems to the implementation which need to be ironed out, but such a radical reform is bound to have some complex issues.

My 2p

 

Michael, I share some of your philosophies like pacifism, but I find being tarred with the bnp brush offensive...

so what you say?

well, if we offended someones' religion, say a muslim, we would be terrified, but if we offend good old white england so what?

that's hypocritical in the extreme, and biased, and racist against white middle england.

i am not a member of the bnp, I have no dealings with them, any suggestion is libellous and the forum may be shut down with this falshood, so take care what is alleged in public.

I have said I think the country is too full, there are too many illegals, 500, 000, what is wrong with that.

if you want an invasion, fine. I don't. That's nothing to do with bnp

If you call me thinking there are too many illegals racist fine so be it, its not,

we are a small country with expensive housing and streteched facilities.

its ok living in portugal, nice there... not shitty old england.

racism is to do with thinking coloured people are less, I don't, sometimes I think they are better. I dislike english rudeness intensely.

does a bnp member enjoy minorities, I have a minoriy girlfriend, I had pakistani friends at uni. I got on with them better than the english ones. they were nice, I enjoy some ethnic eateries, our county is enriched with them and culture.

but not crass p.c and all that. banning land of hope and glory....

I am taking our glorious flag back from the bnp

If islamic terrorists want to bomb us, get rid of em, we would be executed or hands chopped off in saudi if we did the same

why when you hear something you don't like you run? no clear discussion, just accusations of daily mail.

its not a rant its a briging things into the opne, hopefully we are all adults friendly and mature and can accommdate differences in opinion

we need open honest discussion unfettered and unfearless.

only that way will progress be made,

I differ with John, but I respect him and will try to engage tactfully and hope he will do so with me to eek out our differences.