Terror threat level raised... new laws coming?
02 September 2014, 02:40 PM
#61
But we can't keep them out. If they choose to come back here and commit a terrorist act the fact they can't re-enter on their real passport is of no issue to them.
Sadly it's a moot point as it won't stand up to international law. You cannot make someone stateless and by refusing them entry you are doing that no matter what Cameron says about refusing the entry being different to removing their passport. Imagine if any country we tried to deport someone to just said they were not allowing them entry so we had to keep them... the Daily Mail would have a field day with that.
Sadly it's a moot point as it won't stand up to international law. You cannot make someone stateless and by refusing them entry you are doing that no matter what Cameron says about refusing the entry being different to removing their passport. Imagine if any country we tried to deport someone to just said they were not allowing them entry so we had to keep them... the Daily Mail would have a field day with that.
Also how do you propose we decide who can and who can't come back in. You talk about the manpower to keep tabs on them when they are here, well surely we need just that amount of manpower if not more to decide whether they went to Syria to fight for IS or for another reason which maybe completely innocent like they have family or friends or business there or are we just going to say "if you're a darkie and you went to Syria you're a problem"?
02 September 2014, 03:05 PM
#62
Scooby Regular
Join Date: Jun 2005
Location: Home
Posts: 14,758
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
We can’t stop people from leaving the country without court orders and confiscation of passports or keep under surveillance of known suspects let alone the ones we don’t know about. Apparently there are around 500 suspected British IS fighters out in Iraq and Syria. If we let them return we simply do not have the resources or the manpower to keep them all under surveillance. How much of taxpayers money and personnel was used just to monitor the movements and communication of Abu Qatada or Abu Hamza al-Masri? If you keep them out, then they can’t commit atrocities here. They’ve made known their hatred of the West and the British way of life, so we’ll do them the favour of not letting them back in to Britain. Also rather than de-radicalising, deal with the root of the problem and get rid of the radicals.
02 September 2014, 03:37 PM
#63
But it is the radicals that preach the totalitarian ideology of world domination and a mandate that all Muslims to follow the doctorine of eternal war against non-believers through Jihad. We can't erradicate the ideology, but we can start with the radicals.
02 September 2014, 04:46 PM
#64
Scooby Regular
Join Date: Jun 2005
Location: Home
Posts: 14,758
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
For every radical "eradicated" another two are bred. Islamism is going through a massive growth period, because it's been allowed to by the useful idiots of the pc-left. But that's just in this country. The neo-cons' of the right (amongst whom I counted myself) got it wrong too with a foreign policy of liberal intervention and nation-building. In hindsight, and it really is a wonderful thing, we should have kept our nose out. Do nothing at home, Islamism breeds. Do something abroad, Islamism breeds. Now the problem is in the inverse. If we do something at home, we compromise our liberal ideology, if we do nothing abroad, IS spreads. Islamism is an ingenious meme, Sayyid Qutb out strategised the west.
03 September 2014, 06:23 AM
#65
Scooby Regular
Lol, reduce a country to rubble, and then spend the following years blaming the inhabitants for their own misfortune
Anyway - hopefully if they do remove the citizenship for people living abroad, who involve themselves in war and terror - we could finally tell Mark Thatcher to fvck off
Or would the law only apply to Muslims
Anyway - hopefully if they do remove the citizenship for people living abroad, who involve themselves in war and terror - we could finally tell Mark Thatcher to fvck off
Or would the law only apply to Muslims
03 September 2014, 01:57 PM
#67
Incidentally, Tony Blair has just received the GQ Men of the Year Award for Philanthropy, you may as well honour Jimmy Savile a lifetime award for contributions to childrens charities.
Last edited by jonc; 03 September 2014 at 01:59 PM.
03 September 2014, 04:26 PM
#68
Scooby Regular
Join Date: Apr 2010
Location: Birmingham
Posts: 2,482
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
03 September 2014, 04:30 PM
#69
Scooby Regular
Join Date: Apr 2010
Location: Birmingham
Posts: 2,482
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I have a solution that WILL work.
Every nation get rid of it's borders so that way nobody can leave or enter any country.
The whole land mass that is split into various countries should be renamed 'land'.
This would mean there are no more immigrants at all.
Nobody would be forced to live next to anyone they don't like.
Nationalism will disappear overnight.
Flags to be outlawed and destroyed.
This way there will be no Iraq or Syria for anyone to go to and there would be no Britons going there to fight
It's a win win for all!
Every nation get rid of it's borders so that way nobody can leave or enter any country.
The whole land mass that is split into various countries should be renamed 'land'.
This would mean there are no more immigrants at all.
Nobody would be forced to live next to anyone they don't like.
Nationalism will disappear overnight.
Flags to be outlawed and destroyed.
This way there will be no Iraq or Syria for anyone to go to and there would be no Britons going there to fight
It's a win win for all!
03 September 2014, 05:23 PM
#70
Scooby Regular
Join Date: Apr 2012
Location: weymouth
Posts: 995
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Thread
Thread Starter
Forum
Replies
Last Post