| View previous topic :: View next topic |
| Author |
Message |
Seoulman69
Joined: 14 Dec 2009
|
 Posted: Mon May 27, 2013 8:26 pm Post subject: |
 |
|
| bigverne wrote: |
| sirius black wrote: |
| So there is a problem. What should the government do? |
Massively restrict immigration to the UK from outside the EU, which would have the effect of massively reducing muslim immigration.
Deport all foreign muslims residing in the UK involved in any Islamist organisations, as well as illegal immigrants and bogus asylum seekers.
Permamently close any mosque that hosts imams or speakers that advocate shariah or preach hatred for non-muslims.
That would be a good start. Chance of it happening - zero. |
You'd have my vote. |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
Lucas
Joined: 11 Sep 2012
|
| Posted: Mon May 27, 2013 8:39 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Quote: |
| Deport all foreign muslims residing in the UK involved in any Islamist organisations, as well as illegal immigrants and bogus asylum seekers. |
Impossible due to EU law (which trumps UK law!)  |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
sirius black
Joined: 04 Jun 2010
|
| Posted: Mon May 27, 2013 9:41 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Arent many of these folks born and bred in England? How do you get around that? |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
bigverne
Joined: 12 May 2004
|
| Posted: Mon May 27, 2013 10:05 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Quote: |
| Arent many of these folks born and bred in England? How do you get around that? |
Obviously, there's not much you can do about 2nd-generation immigrants, or white converts to Islam who missed the Islam-is-peace memo. But, you can reduce immigration from those countries likely to be a source of such people. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
sirius black
Joined: 04 Jun 2010
|
| Posted: Mon May 27, 2013 11:26 pm Post subject: |
|
|
I can see the logic in reducing immigration but I suspect that it wont solve much. There are so many that are 2nd generation or naturalized citizens.
The problem seems permanent. Also a backlash against depirtations and your other suggestions will likely be a huge increase in not only domestic terrorism but the targeting of British nationals abroad. Although I would not make that a reason not to do something. If its the right thing to do. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Titus
Joined: 19 May 2012
|
| Posted: Tue May 28, 2013 8:25 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| bigverne wrote: |
| Quote: |
| Arent many of these folks born and bred in England? How do you get around that? |
Obviously, there's not much you can do about 2nd-generation immigrants, or white converts to Islam who missed the Islam-is-peace memo. |
Why not? At this point the best thing to do in the UK is to turn the whole place over to the military. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
radcon
Joined: 23 May 2011
|
| Posted: Tue May 28, 2013 8:49 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| bigverne wrote: |
| Quote: |
| Arent many of these folks born and bred in England? How do you get around that? |
Obviously, there's not much you can do about 2nd-generation immigrants, or white converts to Islam who missed the Islam-is-peace memo. But, you can reduce immigration from those countries likely to be a source of such people. |
Ethnic cleansing? |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
recessiontime
Joined: 21 Jun 2010
Location: Got avatar privileges nyahahaha
|
| Posted: Wed May 29, 2013 6:35 am Post subject: |
|
|
| bigverne wrote: |
| sirius black wrote: |
| So there is a problem. What should the government do? |
Massively restrict immigration to the UK from outside the EU, which would have the effect of massively reducing muslim immigration.
Deport all foreign muslims residing in the UK involved in any Islamist organisations, as well as illegal immigrants and bogus asylum seekers.
Permamently close any mosque that hosts imams or speakers that advocate shariah or preach hatred for non-muslims.
That would be a good start. Chance of it happening - zero. |
Stopping Muslim immigration is the only realistic option. Deporting foreign/illegal Muslims is not too hard. Not accepting asylum seekers is totally doable (like Japan/Korea).
Closing off mosques is not happening since religion is protected. 99% of mosques preach Islam and Islam promotes violent jihad against non Muslims...yet there isn't an ounce of pressure from the government to address any of this.
If there were consecutive 9/11 events happening in a short time frame it might be possible to institute martial law like in the movie "The siege" where Muslims can be put into camps or even be exiled somewhere else. The likelihood of this is very small. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
CentralCali
Joined: 17 May 2007
|
| Posted: Wed May 29, 2013 8:49 am Post subject: |
|
|
| recessiontime wrote: |
| Stopping Muslim immigration is the only realistic option. |
So, you think belonging to a particular religion--one which you evidently don't really know what you're talking about when you discuss it--is a valid reason to deny immigration?
| Quote: |
| Deporting foreign/illegal Muslims is not too hard. |
Well, it's not too hard if you decide to ignore laws. Illegal aliens, of course, should have a higher bar to remain in the country than one admitted legally.
| Quote: |
| Not accepting asylum seekers is totally doable (like Japan/Korea). |
Totally doable if you want to ignore laws. Oh, and haven't both Korea and Japan accepted some asylum seekers? Yes, I know that the numbers are pathetically low compared to other countries.
| Quote: |
| Closing off mosques is not happening since religion is protected. |
That's right. And there's a reason for that protection.
| Quote: |
| 99% of mosques preach Islam and Islam promotes violent jihad against non Muslims...yet there isn't an ounce of pressure from the government to address any of this. |
That's because not all of Islam "promotes violent jihad against non Muslims". You simply don't know what you're talking about.
| Quote: |
| If there were consecutive 9/11 events happening in a short time frame it might be possible to institute martial law like in the movie "The siege" where Muslims can be put into camps or even be exiled somewhere else. The likelihood of this is very small. |
And now we're full on into a ridiculous, nay, an asinine Hollywood blather view of reality. And it's one part of the reason religion is protected. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
recessiontime
Joined: 21 Jun 2010
Location: Got avatar privileges nyahahaha
|
| Posted: Wed May 29, 2013 11:31 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| CentralCali wrote: |
| you think belonging to a particular religion is a valid reason to deny immigration? |
That's exactly what I wrote. Why would I want 3rd world migrants clinging to Islam coming to my country given their underachieving track record?
| CentralCali wrote: |
Well, it's not too hard if you decide to ignore laws. Illegal aliens, of course, should have a higher bar to remain in the country than one admitted legally. |
Once admitted, it's a whole different problem. That's why many Western countries have recently raised the bar for immigration.
| CentralCali wrote: |
Totally doable if you want to ignore laws. Oh, and haven't both Korea and Japan accepted some asylum seekers? Yes, I know that the numbers are pathetically low compared to other countries. |
Pathetically low? More like awesome.
| CentralCali wrote: |
That's right. And there's a reason for that protection. |
A terrible misguided reason seeing that religion can't seem to keep out of politics and honor their part of the deal.
| CentralCali wrote: |
That's because not of Islam "promotes violent jihad against non Muslims". You simply don't know what you're talking about. |
http://www.huffingtonpost.ca/mobileweb/tarek-fatah/uk-beheading-jihad-terror_b_3325363.html?utm_hp_ref=tw
Great article that exposes Islam for what it is, written by a Muslim that knows what he's talking about. You've obviously never read the Qu'ran yet claim to know better than me?
Last edited by recessiontime on Thu May 30, 2013 6:48 am; edited 2 times in total |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
ttompatz
Joined: 05 Sep 2005
Location: Kwangju, South Korea
|
| Posted: Thu May 30, 2013 12:19 am Post subject: |
|
|
Just out of curiosity...
how is killing a soldier during a time of armed conflict (the UK is still officially at war) an act of terrorism?
IF they were not UK citizens they should be now be considered POWs and since it appears that they are UK citizens it should be treated as an act of treason.
. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
rollo
Joined: 10 May 2006
Location: China
|
| Posted: Thu May 30, 2013 6:24 am Post subject: |
|
|
International law on what constitutes a soldier. neither of these men's native country is at war with the U.K. If they are U.K. citizens then the U.K would have to be at war with itsef.
The U.S. did declare some Al-Queda, and Taliban soldiers POW's and as international law calls for set up a specal prison just for them. Called Guantanamo. The argument is that since they did not officially belong to a nationl army they can not be soldiers.
So if some nut kills a baptist in the U.s. and you are a baptist you have the right to kill any citizen of the U.S. claiming belief in a religion or membership in that religion does not entitle you to extra terriorial actions. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
young_clinton
Joined: 09 Sep 2009
|
| Posted: Thu May 30, 2013 9:28 am Post subject: |
|
|
| recessiontime wrote: |
Why would I want 3rd world migrants clinging to Islam coming to my country given their underachieving track record?
|
Underachieving track record Yes. Just because they believe in Islam No.
How many of the Physicists in the US are Pakistanis? |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
young_clinton
Joined: 09 Sep 2009
|
| Posted: Thu May 30, 2013 9:34 am Post subject: |
|
|
| radcon wrote: |
| bigverne wrote: |
| Quote: |
| Arent many of these folks born and bred in England? How do you get around that? |
Obviously, there's not much you can do about 2nd-generation immigrants, or white converts to Islam who missed the Islam-is-peace memo. But, you can reduce immigration from those countries likely to be a source of such people. |
Ethnic cleansing? |
Hopefully that's a facetious comment. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
ttompatz
Joined: 05 Sep 2005
Location: Kwangju, South Korea
|
| Posted: Thu May 30, 2013 3:43 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| rollo wrote: |
| International law on what constitutes a soldier. neither of these men's native country is at war with the U.K. If they are U.K. citizens then the U.K would have to be at war with itsef. |
So the Chinese soldiers who fought alongside the North Koreans during the Korean war were not soldiers since China was not officially at war with the US and UN allies?
The Vichy French must have been soldiers when they fought alongside the Germans (even if they were an occupational government (sort of like the US in Iraq and Afghanistan) but the The Maquis would have not have been soldiers?
What then would you call the mercenary armies of the French?
The UK is officially in a declared war so killing of a soldier would be an act covered under wartime conventions (act of war (foreign national) or treason (UK national)).
The US is a poor example since they have (by determination of their own Supreme Court) be in violation of international law in the treatment of "detainees" who are in fact POWs and have now officially (if not actually) been accorded treatment as such under Article 3 of the Geneva Conventions.
The US supreme court ruled in Hamdan v. Rumsfeld on 29th June 2006, that detainees were entitled to the minimal protections listed under Common Article 3 of the Geneva Conventions. Following this, on 07th July 2006, the Department of Defense issued a memo stating that prisoners would in the future be entitled to protection under Common Article 3.
. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
FAQ
Search
Memberlist
Usergroups
Register
Profile
Log in to check your private messages
Log in
