It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

NEWS: Uk Government moving to ban extremists.

page: 2
7
<< 1   >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jul, 15 2005 @ 09:56 AM
link   
Typical action-reaction-solution :

ACTION : create a terror attack on your own nation

REACTION : blame 'extremists'

SOLUTION : limit freedom of speech


The London bombings were nothing but a sceme by the Brittish government itself to reduce the civil rights of its citizens. The Americans more or less did the same on 9/11, only they had an agenda that went much further.




posted on Jul, 15 2005 @ 10:26 AM
link   

Originally posted by Odium
And this law is a piece of trash, that'll no doubt get destorted to mean "Political Radicals" until the Law Lords ruin the Governments fun like last time.

Thats so true. But its so scary that I hopefully look to life-long peers and upper crusters to save Britain from its democratically elected politicians.

Thank God for the House of Lords!



posted on Jul, 15 2005 @ 10:33 AM
link   
subz, I am myself more glad for the Law Lords.

They tend to do what is best for our Nation and our Liberty, they're all "Old School" Lawyers, who were mostly alive throughout WW2 and know how the U.K. should be and hate what it has become.



posted on Jul, 15 2005 @ 11:27 AM
link   
Its about time the UK passed such a law. If this trend had continued I doubt the US and other countries would have allowed Britishers Visa less travel to their countries!
Atleast now maybe the British will consider who comes in and who doesnt, most of the people the UK lets in are Refugees from one dangerous region or the other, most with questionable histories making UK the Refugge camp of Europe.
This is a frighetening trend as thses are the ppl who are the deviants and need to be verified, most dotn see UK as their country and most British dont see them as Britishers, so naturally thsi would continue.
The US has very strict immigration laws and the NIS is hellbent on security and verification, I think the UK sould make the same, profiling is not bad as long as it isnt disciminating, the FBI profiles a lot of people doestn mean that they are all discriminated.
Also with the large suburban ghettos with concentrations of foreigners, their is a lack of social mix and such radical ideas build in these closed societies, Muslim cultures especially must be spread thinly through out the demographic so that their are enough citizens aware of any such fanatical groups or ideas brewing.
I think it is time for the UK to wake up from its role as saviour and take a good long look at who exaclty it is protecting. Even though Americas methods are criticiesed as being too conservative or paraniod the fact is that to deal with these people it is needed, the sooner the British come to term with this the better.
The concentrations of Muslims in Europe is disturbing, not only robbing Europe of its identity but also of its culture, even though it is in European ulture to show tolerance it is not in European culure to sit idily by and watch its culture degenerate into a confusing morass of fundamentalism, that too Muslim by Arabs in Europe.
The Dutch have woken up to this threat and so have the French to this threat on their culture and so too is Germany waking but in a different way, I think the UK should do the same.



posted on Jul, 15 2005 @ 11:44 AM
link   

Originally posted by IAF101
profiling is not bad as long as it isnt disciminating

Thats priceless


BTW the only refugees we would be able to accept would be French and Irish citizens. The rest would have to come through neutral and safe countries to get here and therefore are asylum seekers or illegal immigrants.



posted on Jul, 15 2005 @ 11:49 AM
link   

Originally posted by subz

BTW the only refugees we would be able to accept would be French and Irish citizens. The rest would have to come through neutral and safe countries to get here and therefore are asylum seekers or illegal immigrants.


Neutral and safe like IRAQ, Pakistan, Libya etc,
No wonder the British have got their own "home grown" bombers, if you put up with trash then you will be trash!


BTW Profiling: 5) A formal summary or analysis of data, often in the form of a graph or table, representing distinctive features or characteristics:.
-Dictionary.com
So that can be done without descrimination, i.e for all people, of all races, that should be easy to understand, it is done partly in America by the FBI and it has helped in busting many Al qaeda cells, also this hasnt been used as discrimination by the FBI. If the British arent capable I am sure the FBI can take care of that problem and the logistics involved since British citizens are allowed easy travel to the US and the US has to be sure that the people who come in on a UK passport arent terroists if not I dont see how the US can give special travel access to the British compared to anyother third world nation. As without such profiling they are almost the same with reagard to the intent of their citizens.

[edit on 15-7-2005 by IAF101]



posted on Jul, 15 2005 @ 11:49 AM
link   

Originally posted by IAF101

Originally posted by subz

BTW the only refugees we would be able to accept would be French and Irish citizens. The rest would have to come through neutral and safe countries to get here and therefore are asylum seekers or illegal immigrants.


Neutral and safe like IRAQ, Pakistan, Libya etc,
No wonder the British have got their own "home grown" bombers, if you put up with trash then you will be trash!



People from Pakistan are now trash?



posted on Jul, 15 2005 @ 12:39 PM
link   

Originally posted by Odium

People from Pakistan are now trash?

I never stated that, it is you who are inferring!

All I'm saying is that proper checks and balances need to be in place, if you allow every tom, dick and harry(lol
) assylum seekers to be a British citizens then you will end up with problems such as this.
That wasnt any racial remark on my part, it is deduced so by you.



posted on Jul, 15 2005 @ 12:44 PM
link   
Any collective peoples are trash?

I think you misinterpreted my post. A refugee can only claim refugee status in neighbouring countries to the one they are fleeing. They cannot move through other safe countries to claim refugee status in a country they choose. It doesnt work like that and any person that does exactly that is treat as an asylum seeker or illegal immigrant.

Refugees from Iraq could only go to countries that border Iraq: Syria, Turkey, Saudi Arabia, Jordan, Kuwait and Iran.

Any refugees from Pakistan (?) would only be able to claim refugee status in: India, China, Iran and Afghanistan.

etc.

Neutral and safe applies to whether the bordering country is involved in the conflict that the refugees are fleeing and whether or not they would be murdered in that country.

The only countries with a land link to the United Kingdom are France and Ireland.

The rest are illegal immigrants and asylum seekers.



posted on Jul, 15 2005 @ 01:12 PM
link   

Originally posted by IAF101
That wasnt any racial remark on my part, it is deduced so by you.


I inferred it as well. Damn, everyone that read it inferred it. That's got to tell you something.

Look in your u2u inbox please.



posted on Jul, 15 2005 @ 01:47 PM
link   
Any response to this requires the reader to acknowledge membership in one of two camps. Either the US/UK manufactured their respective 'terror' incidents for nefarious reasons, or there is a real Islamic menace which movement's foot-soldiers are poised to wantonly massacre US/UK civilians with whatever weaponry they can procure.

I belong to the latter school of thought.

I believe there are far more Islamic groups/factions/cells imbedded in US/UK society than are known.

I believe that Islamic organizations that advocate, abet and/or applaud the types of murders experienced in the US/UK should be dismantled, their membership identified, investigated and tried, imprisoned or deported as the individual cases require.

Political reluctance to profile, pursue and prosecute will be the undoing of the world that we know.



posted on Jul, 16 2005 @ 12:44 AM
link   

Originally posted by subz
Any collective peoples are trash?

You said it not I!

Originally posted by subz
I think you misinterpreted my post. A refugee can only claim refugee status in neighbouring countries to the one they are fleeing. They cannot move through other safe countries to claim refugee status in a country they choose. It doesnt work like that and any person that does exactly that is treat as an asylum seeker or illegal immigrant.

Neutral and safe applies to whether the bordering country is involved in the conflict that the refugees are fleeing and whether or not they would be murdered in that country.

That is all very well but how do you explain the large population of Iraqi's, Pakistanis and other large groups of people from very dangerous regions that are presently British Citizens ?
I know personally 3 people who are British Citizens from IRAQ who fled iraq during Saddams persecution of Shias, they didnt need to apply or have backgroung checks on them or anything, they were just let into the UK and naturalised! That in my opinion is shocking as these people might have dubioous intent and with a British Citizenship they travel unchecked to other parts of the world and thus pose a danger to other regions as well.
All these "assylum seekers" as you call them are what i am talking about, the peole who come to UK form all over the place without check, most cant even speak english yet they are british citrizens!



posted on Jul, 16 2005 @ 05:05 AM
link   

Originally posted by IAF101
All these "assylum seekers" as you call them are what i am talking about, the peole who come to UK form all over the place without check, most cant even speak english yet they are british citrizens!

Well actually you were talking about refugees:


Originally posted by IAF101
Atleast now maybe the British will consider who comes in and who doesnt, most of the people the UK lets in are Refugees from one dangerous region or the other, most with questionable histories making UK the Refugge camp of Europe.

Britain offered citizenship to lots of commonwealth citizens over the years. Those included lots who didnt speak English. Now this is a problem?


Originally posted by IAF101
most cant even speak english yet they are british citrizens!

Now its not really my style to say so but you've mispelt quite a few words in your posts here. Does that mean you should be viewed with increased suspicion?

During the IRA attacks on Britain our enemy looked liked us, they could even talk like "us" in Northern Ireland and we still defeated them. That enemy was extremely hard to detect and we still broke them even without the aid of racist profiling or "banning all Irish".

Lets not set a precedent with our muslim cousins eh?



posted on Jul, 16 2005 @ 07:48 AM
link   

Originally posted by subz

Originally posted by IAF101
All these "assylum seekers" as you call them are what i am talking about, the peole who come to UK form all over the place without check, most cant even speak english yet they are british citrizens!

Well actually you were talking about refugees:

What ever you call them like I said, refugees, asylum seekers, whatever. You have effectively deviated from my central message and instead chosen to a pernickety response!


Originally posted by subz
Britain offered citizenship to lots of commonwealth citizens over the years. Those included lots who didnt speak English. Now this is a problem?

It is not about the silly language but about the indiscriminate granting of citizenship to people "asylum seekers" without adequate background checks!


Originally posted by subz
Now its not really my style to say so but you've mispelt quite a few words in your posts here. Does that mean you should be viewed with increased suspicion?

Well are you trying to tell me that all English people (i.e. the whites) have impeccable spelling!
What has spelling got to do with knowing a language? BTW that is not the point again!
The point here is that a lot of asylum seekers have come to the UK and they have been given citizenship status without much check on their antecedents!
Also why are these asylum seekers not spread thin in the society so that such fundamental activities are not possible?


Originally posted by subz
During the IRA attacks on Britain our enemy looked liked us, they could even talk like "us" in Northern Ireland and we still defeated them. That enemy was extremely hard to detect and we still broke them even without the aid of racist profiling or "banning all Irish".
Lets not set a precedent with our muslim cousins eh?

The IRA were different, they were freedom fighters but these terrorist are not so they are people who’s only aim is to kill and destroy through any means, they have nothing to say, just want people dead.
The Muslims have this tendency to form these closed societies which are centered on mosques and other religious places. They is no regulation into what goes on inside these mosques and what these people preach, such regulation must be there or atleast their should be some board to oversee their activities. Also since these people are not accepted by the original British as English this breeds resentment from them and thus they form more and more closed societies.
Profiling of all if done universally in UK can be useful in preventing such mishaps as the London bombings again! Such profiling would have enabled the Intelligence services of all the people who have gone to such high-risk zones and thus enable them to prevent such things from happening!
It is upto the people of Britain to see what they value more and how interested they are in safety!



posted on Jul, 16 2005 @ 08:24 AM
link   


The IRA were different, they were freedom fighters


Northern Ireland is our land.

UK, US, Australia, UN and NATO all label the IRA as a terrorist organisation. We sent the army into Northern Ireland after the IRA became a terrorist group and started to target civilians.

They are not freedom fighters

[edit on 16-7-2005 by infinite]



posted on Jul, 16 2005 @ 08:27 AM
link   

Originally posted by IAF101
It is not about the silly language but about the indiscriminate granting of citizenship to people "asylum seekers" without adequate background checks!

Describe adequate background checks. The vast majority of asylum seekers who try to stay in this country are repatriated. We do accept thousands of asylum seekers but they have all gone through back ground checks for the validity of their asylum seeker status claim.


Originally posted by IAF101
Well are you trying to tell me that all English people (i.e. the whites) have impeccable spelling!
What has spelling got to do with knowing a language? BTW that is not the point again!

My point is that profiling distinctions such as "not being able to speak English" are useless and dont mean squat.


Originally posted by IAF101
The point here is that a lot of asylum seekers have come to the UK and they have been given citizenship status without much check on their antecedents!
Also why are these asylum seekers not spread thin in the society so that such fundamental activities are not possible?

Again, they have been checked. You seem to think we have a complete open door policy whereby 100% of asylum seekers are allowed to stay. Thats just not true.

Why are they not spread thin in society? We are a democratic and freedom orientated society. We dont allow restrictions on who can and cannot live in which ever house they want. What you propose is a police state.


Originally posted by IAF101
The IRA were different, they were freedom fighters but these terrorist are not so they are people who’s only aim is to kill and destroy through any means, they have nothing to say, just want people dead.

I think you'll find they do have something to say. The vast majority of islamic terrorists want westerners out of the middle east and want the removal of Israel. Whether you class this is a freedom fighter action is relative. I think the Palestinians who's homes have been demolished would class Hamas as freedom fighters. Israeli's wouldnt.


Originally posted by IAF101
The Muslims have this tendency to form these closed societies which are centered on mosques and other religious places.

Welcome to a democratic and free country



Originally posted by IAF101
They is no regulation into what goes on inside these mosques and what these people preach, such regulation must be there or atleast their should be some board to oversee their activities.

Yes there is, we have racial hatred laws in place in the United Kingdom. If you preach hatred against a race of people you will be arrested and jailed. Soon you will get the same treatment if you preach hatred against a religion as well. No regulation? I dont think so.


Originally posted by IAF101
Also since these people are not accepted by the original British as English this breeds resentment from them and thus they form more and more closed societies.

Yup and your ideas of forcing muslims to be thinly spread and profiled will just compound this problem


Originally posted by IAF101
Profiling of all if done universally in UK can be useful in preventing such mishaps as the London bombings again! Such profiling would have enabled the Intelligence services of all the people who have gone to such high-risk zones and thus enable them to prevent such things from happening!
It is upto the people of Britain to see what they value more and how interested they are in safety!

That is the definition of a police state my friend. To do your style of "universal" profiling in the United Kingdom, we would all have to be subject to invasive investigation. It would have to include all the books we read, all the people we talk to, what we say, what we buy etc. Sorry but that is unacceptable and I would rather run the rather minute risk of being blown up by a terrorist thanks.



posted on Jul, 16 2005 @ 12:26 PM
link   

Originally posted by subz
Describe adequate background checks. The vast majority of asylum seekers who try to stay in this country are repatriated. We do accept thousands of asylum seekers but they have all gone through back ground checks for the validity of their asylum seeker status claim.


Well, like I stated in an earlier post, I know of people who have been let into the UK without much check.
Meaning no investigation by the consulate as to what these people do for a living, criminal records, qualification, countries traveled, people they have associated with etc.
This has not taken place because most people who come to the Uk arent fit to be there! No great qualifications, most with fake records and made up histories and some who cant communicate in English!
I say english because since england is a "english" country it would be required of all permanent residents to know the local language!
Well atleast that applies in America and is followed by the NIS.

Originally posted by subz
Again, they have been checked. You seem to think we have a complete open door policy whereby 100% of asylum seekers are allowed to stay. Thats just not true.

Well this is true in many cases, the one i am most familiar with is the case of Iraqi's fleeing Iraq after Saddams attack on shias, everybody who applied to the UK was taken in while some were sent to other parts of Europe. Also about these "common wealth" people they arrived a long while back so their presence is understandable. But isnt it true that their is resentment of the fact that their are so many asians and arabs in the UK ?

Originally posted by subz
Why are they not spread thin in society? We are a democratic and freedom orientated society. We dont allow restrictions on who can and cannot live in which ever house they want. What you propose is a police state.

You dont need it to be a police state, the government simply allocates housing so that the population maintains enough diversity uniformly! That way you cant call it as " policing" and that way the saociety is safer, more tolerant and gets more diversity without just being pockets of one race and a pocket of another and so on!

Originally posted by subz
I think you'll find they do have something to say. The vast majority of islamic terrorists want westerners out of the middle east and want the removal of Israel. Whether you class this is a freedom fighter action is relative. I think the Palestinians who's homes have been demolished would class Hamas as freedom fighters. Israeli's wouldnt.

Then why have attacks in the western world? That would make it seem as if they want to wage war agaisnt the west, but if they really want they should approach an internatinal forum and plead with the world to restore the Arab world to the arabs. They should carry out peacefull strikes and that sort of activities to give any credibility to their "cause", they know this but they dont do this, what does that mean? Also why did the london bombers not leave any notes or messages to give the police or the media to explain what they were doing? They just went out and killed people so what does that tell you ? That they cant write or they dotn want to say anything!

It means that they have nothing to say and merely want to kill as many as possible!

Originally posted by subz
Yes there is, we have racial hatred laws in place in the United Kingdom. If you preach hatred against a race of people you will be arrested and jailed. Soon you will get the same treatment if you preach hatred against a religion as well. No regulation? I dont think so.

No their isnt! What your talking about is racial crime, ie when somebody walks up to you and beats you unconcious becasue you are a black or somesuch! But what I am saying is something like a jurisdiction on what can be said in muslim gatherings and what cant, like some sort of individual or board member who monitors these things to find out the amount of hate and propaganda that is beings sent out there, to find out the truly fundamentalistic and the progressive Imams etc.
Another point is, if somebody has attended one such meeting say where he/she was pumped with such propaganda how likely would it be for that person to go to the police and complain about such activity, not likely! Thats why their should be video recording or audio recordings of all such discourses.

You assuem that somebody will actually go and tell the police or write a complaint or something, which is highly impossible. Also the only people who would attend such a meeting would be that perticular group and thus the content would be tailored to them while the other people dotn even now what they preach in these places.



posted on Jul, 16 2005 @ 03:01 PM
link   
I am a muslim but I hate those damn bastards eating up the UK's governments money while still saying that they will destroy the UK, commit terorist acts etc. the UK shouldnt even give them their plane ticket make them swim home



posted on Jul, 16 2005 @ 05:04 PM
link   

Originally posted by IAF101
Then why have attacks in the western world? That would make it seem as if they want to wage war agaisnt the west, but if they really want they should approach an internatinal forum and plead with the world to restore the Arab world to the arabs.

You mean like in the UN?

Lets see, theres been 40 U.S veto's of UN resolutions critical of Israel since 1972.
Jewish Virtual Library.org - U.S vetoes of UN resolutions critical of Israel

What do you do when the UN doesnt listen? You wage war. Thats right isnt it Mr.President?


Originally posted by IAF101
They should carry out peacefull strikes and that sort of activities to give any credibility to their "cause", they know this but they dont do this, what does that mean? Also why did the london bombers not leave any notes or messages to give the police or the media to explain what they were doing? They just went out and killed people so what does that tell you ? That they cant write or they dotn want to say anything!

It means that they have nothing to say and merely want to kill as many as possible!

No it casts a considerable amount of doubt over whether or not it was the work of Islamic terrorists at all.


Originally posted by IAF101
No their isnt! What your talking about is racial crime, ie when somebody walks up to you and beats you unconcious becasue you are a black or somesuch! But what I am saying is something like a jurisdiction on what can be said in muslim gatherings and what cant, like some sort of individual or board member who monitors these things to find out the amount of hate and propaganda that is beings sent out there, to find out the truly fundamentalistic and the progressive Imams etc.

I think you'll find we do have laws that prevent incitement of racial hatred. You dont have to physically beat some one to fall foul of this law. We wil also have a religious hatred version of this law if it passes through the House of Lords


Government attempts to clamp down on expressions of religious hatred have cleared the Commons, but are set for a rocky ride in the House of Lords.
MPs gave the Racial and Religious Hatred Bill a third reading by 301 votes to 229, a majority of 72.

[...]

The bill would create a new offence of incitement to religious hatred and would apply to comments made in public or in the media, as well as through written material.

The plans, which have failed to make it through Parliament twice before, cover words or behaviour intended or likely to stir up religious hatred. Jews and Sikhs are already covered by race-hate laws.

news.bbc.co.uk...


Originally posted by IAF101
Another point is, if somebody has attended one such meeting say where he/she was pumped with such propaganda how likely would it be for that person to go to the police and complain about such activity, not likely! Thats why their should be video recording or audio recordings of all such discourses.

Quite logical if you overlook the privacy implications. How about we extend the video recording to all meetings, both commerical and governmental. Yeah thats the ticket, no more hidden truths!



posted on Jul, 18 2005 @ 09:40 AM
link   

Originally posted by subz
You mean like in the UN?
Lets see, theres been 40 U.S veto's of UN resolutions critical of Israel since 1972.
What do you do when the UN doesnt listen? You wage war. Thats right isnt it Mr.President?

You seem to forget that Yassir Arafat was allowed to address the UN general assembly even though he was actively engaging in terrorist activities at that time. Also the UN flag was at half-mast to mourn Arafats death. He was also given the Nobel Peace prize.
How come all this has been forgotten by the muslim world? Because they havent got anything to say except- DIE !

Americas circumventing of the UN was understandable, with petty politics by the Russian, French and the Chinese no credible statement of purpose could come forth. Various global powers even though they owe their existence to the US have some inherent insecurities and this deep seated jealousy that permeates at every opportunity they have to stifle any American proposal, because of this Bush decided that the UN was more about petty politics and no real world problems could be solved by so decadent a institution.

Originally posted by subz
No it casts a considerable amount of doubt over whether or not it was the work of Islamic terrorists at all.

What doubt? Isnt it clear that all those involved were Mohammedans and fanatical at that? Also they had attended camps in Pakistan as well, so what is this "doubt" ?

Originally posted by subz
Quite logical if you overlook the privacy implications. How about we extend the video recording to all meetings, both commerical and governmental. Yeah thats the ticket, no more hidden truths!

Not govenrmental, as this would help in espionage and may be politically usefull to theh oponents of the present political system.
But certainly for religious and other closed community meetings, it should be mandatory!



new topics

top topics



 
7
<< 1   >>

log in

join