ThreadKiller quote# 99 [quote][cite]Posted By: BlackForestReds[/cite]Much better to make all muslims wear a clearly identifiable symbol - say a green crescent armband and in case they take that off they should get a tattoo as well.[/quote]
Your comparison to France is interesting but people can wear a veil at home, on the street in shops etc - just not in public institutions. The reason for that is that France doesn't take a multi-cultural stance but instead one of integration. Ironically integration is worse than in the UK.
But what I really want to know is what all this has got to do with eating Tofu - you've lost me there. Explain please.
why would i debate with people who delight in seeingthis country f**ked--- mate i dont want to debate with you ------ i want to see all u types burned on Blackheath !
who was it again who called the fact that our army is in Afghanistan "neo colonilism " ??? who ever it was has and always will be a total spineless face idiot.
its the radical muslims who want women to wear burkhas , not be educated, chop peoples heads off for murder, stone to death adulterers, kill homosexuals etc etc etc etc etc ------- how funny its is that you Guardianistas will slate some one for talking about slowing imingration when we have 3million umemployeed or slate someone for saying small amounts of profiling at airports might help but you go missing in action when REAL FACISTS like the radical muslims are about ------ pathetic-- go cower behind your sofas -- u might hear a naughty word.
who was it again who called the fact that our army is in Afghanistan "neo colonilism " ??? who ever it was has and always will be a total spineless face idiot.
...............
I think you'll find the word is spelt "neo-colonialism" and as usual you are having the latest of your inarticulate I hate everyone childish rants.
The war in Afghanistan has some legitimacy - certainly more than the Iraq war ever had but when Hamai Karzai, our appointed President, starts fixing elections, banning opponents and introducing some very Islamic extremist legistaion (legalising rape in marriage etc) then it loses it's democratic legitimacy and I start to wonder why we are sending our soldiers to fight - it doesn't seem to be in the name of freeing a nation, but in backing a warlord who is likely to be more sympathetic to western interests than any other leader. And by sympathetic to our interests it seems he's a bought up member of UNOCAL who want/are building a gas pipeline across the country. I'm sure that it's pure coincidence that he was chosen.
how funny its is that you Guardianistas will slate some one for talking about slowing imingration
Remind me again - your wife is an "imingrant" isn't she? Are you going to send her home? Maybe a job could then be freed up?
[cite]Posted By: Goonerhater[/cite]why would i debate with people who delight in seeingthis country f**ked--- mate i dont want to debate with you
i want to see all u types burned on Blackheath !
who was it again who called the fact that our army is in Afghanistan "neo colonilism " ??? who ever it was has and always will be a total spineless face idiot.
its the radical muslims who want women to wear burkhas , not be educated, chop peoples heads off for murder, stone to death adulterers, kill homosexuals etc etc etc etc etc
how funny its is that you Guardianistas will slate some one for talking about slowing imingration when we have 3million umemployeed or slate someone for saying small amounts of profiling at airports might help but you go missing in action when REAL FACISTS like the radical muslims are about
pathetic-- go cower behind your sofas -- u might hear a naughty word.
[cite]Posted By: Goonerhater[/cite]why would i debate with people who delight in seeingthis country f**ked--- mate i dont want to debate with you
i want to see all u types burned on Blackheath !
who was it again who called the fact that our army is in Afghanistan "neo colonilism " ??? who ever it was has and always will be a total spineless face idiot.
its the radical muslims who want women to wear burkhas , not be educated, chop peoples heads off for murder, stone to death adulterers, kill homosexuals etc etc etc etc etc
how funny its is that you Guardianistas will slate some one for talking about slowing imingration when we have 3million umemployeed or slate someone for saying small amounts of profiling at airports might help but you go missing in action when REAL FACISTS like the radical muslims are about
pathetic-- go cower behind your sofas -- u might hear a naughty word.
Nice. You realise no one takes a word you say seriously, right? That must be embarrassing.
You think you have it all sorted in your head - and that means you can't see the wood for the trees. In true right wing fashion, you sensationalise your facts, make others up, and twist the other side of the argument.
Sadly this interesting exchange of views has been dragged into the nonsensical gutter, but equally sadly perhaps I was able to watch the Commons Debate on Freeview 81 this morning.I know life one get spring to mind, but the politicians have ruled that there will indeed be extra security checks on nationals of half a dozen countries, Yemen being one Nigeria Pakistand Iraq Somalia, Afghanistan and some others.
More of the debate is here, but Ben Wallaces comments are worrying http://www.theyworkforyou.com/debates/?id=2010-01-05a.28.0
Ben Wallace (Shadow Minister, Scotland; Lancaster & Wyre, Conservative)
This is a bit rich from this Government who year on year have cut the research budget that allowed our law enforcement agencies to stay at least one step ahead of the terrorists. When I developed the millimetre wave with the team at QinetiQ, before I came into this House, we had to go to the Americans to get the funding because the Government cut it. What concrete extra resources will the Home Secretary put into the further development of technologies and manning at airports to ensure that our borders are more secure?
[cite]Posted By: BlackForestReds[/cite]It seems completely nonsensical to me to deliberatly ignore the opportunity this factor gives our security staff to look at someone a bit closer. If you're searching for a suspect believed to be driving a blue, Ford Focus about to be used in a bank robbery
...............
That would be intelligence, and you'd expect the police etc to act on that.
However in profiling muslims I'm not convinced that you'd necessarily catch anyone - and as soon as the first woould be suicide bomber detonates a trouser leg full of semtex then it will show up profiling for what it is - a flawed strategy. Bear in mind the success of the "suss laws" in the early 80s - the police were given the right to stop and search anyone they suspected might be up to no good. The result was that young Afro-caribbean males were targeted, they got the hump with being disproportionately picked on and the result was rioting in Brixton, Handsworth, Toxteth etc. The suss laws were profiling by another name and failed - yet the Daily Mail crowd want to repeat something that didn't work, was divisive and had to be dropped after a lot more damage had been done - however it did prove that the law of unintended consequences should never be forgotten.
If we want to beat Islamic extremist terrorism then it simply makes no sense to start driving a wedge between the islamic community and the police/rest of Britain. The struggle against Islamic extremism will not succeed unless we are seen to be treating them with respect and the same as everyone else - profiling will make things worse, alienate ordinary muslims and make intelligence gathering harder not easier to conduct.
Firstly, yes it is intelligence and you would expect the authourities to act on it right? We'll is the 'intelligence' around this form of terrorism not that it is usually, not exclusivley but usually, planned and carried out by a certain profile of person? But in this case we should ignore this intelligence?
I also don't think you can compare the culture and approach of the 70's/80's Met Police to today can you? There's far more accountabilty and sensitivity around, there are ways and means of doing this without alienating huge sections of the public and I think it's actually quite insulting to suggest that the majority of those who might, on paper, fit the profile, would all react badly and couldn't understand the reason for it. I note that you haven't commented on the links to the muslim MP and community groups that are in support of it.
Anyway, on this note, I'm out, as I think I spy a periscope on the port side...
Nice link Floyd, thanks. Makes for interesting reading.
Following on from Bournemouth Addicks last post (and my response) I thought the following exchange during that debate regarding the problems with profiling, and its difference from behavioural detection, is interesting:
I am concerned that we will not have sufficiently robust research into the effects of such profiling on young Asian or Muslim men who think that they are expected to behave in a certain way and therefore think, "Why don't I?" Can he assure the House that robust research will be done on the potential consequences of identity-based profiling before any such proposal is introduced?
Alan Johnson (Home Secretary; Kingston upon Hull West & Hessle, Labour)
I can give my hon. Friend that assurance, but behavioural detection is different from profiling.
Ironically, while I was writing that BA posted again! This is still a decent response to what you wrote, I think. Regarding the Muslim groups that support profiling: it doesn't really make any difference. What one or two groups want doesn't relfect or affect the potential impact of profiling on others. I have Indian friends who are sympathetic to BNP arguments (would you believe), but that doesn't make them right.
(And I don;t see why there should be any periscopes pointing here - its been an interesting, mature and well informed discussion, barring one person.)
[cite]Posted By: BlackForestReds[/cite]It seems completely nonsensical to me to deliberatly ignore the opportunity this factor gives our security staff to look at someone a bit closer. If you're searching for a suspect believed to be driving a blue, Ford Focus about to be used in a bank robbery
...............
That would be intelligence, and you'd expect the police etc to act on that.
However in profiling muslims I'm not convinced that you'd necessarily catch anyone - and as soon as the first woould be suicide bomber detonates a trouser leg full of semtex then it will show up profiling for what it is - a flawed strategy. Bear in mind the success of the "suss laws" in the early 80s - the police were given the right to stop and search anyone they suspected might be up to no good. The result was that young Afro-caribbean males were targeted, they got the hump with being disproportionately picked on and the result was rioting in Brixton, Handsworth, Toxteth etc. The suss laws were profiling by another name and failed - yet the Daily Mail crowd want to repeat something that didn't work, was divisive and had to be dropped after a lot more damage had been done - however it did prove that the law of unintended consequences should never be forgotten.
If we want to beat Islamic extremist terrorism then it simply makes no sense to start driving a wedge between the islamic community and the police/rest of Britain. The struggle against Islamic extremism will not succeed unless we are seen to be treating them with respect and the same as everyone else - profiling will make things worse, alienate ordinary muslims and make intelligence gathering harder not easier to conduct.
Firstly, yes it is intelligence and you would expect the authourities to act on it right? We'll is the 'intelligence' around this form of terrorism not that it isusually, not exclusivley butusually, planned and carried out by a certain profile of person? But in this case we should ignore this intelligence?
I also don't think you can compare the culture and approach of the 70's/80's Met Police to today can you? There's far more accountabilty and sensitivity around, there are ways and means of doing this without alienating huge sections of the public and I think it's actually quite insulting to suggest that the majority of those who might, on paper, fit the profile, wouldallreact badly and couldn't understand the reason for it. I note that you haven't commented on the links to the muslim MP and community groups that are insupportof it.
Anyway, on this note, I'm out, as I think I spy a periscope on the port side...
Those who don't or won't learn from history are condemned to repeat it's mistakes.
If we are to be effective in combatting islamic terrorism then we'll need good intelligence and you won't get that if you persist in throwing up as many barriers as possible between the islamic community and the rest of Britain and especially the police/security forces.
As I've pointed out - it didn't work with the suss laws, it didn't work with the IRA and it won't work now, no amount of bed wetting will change that.
Morally I'm not happy about it either - I simply don't want to see a group of people being racially targeted.
As for the muslim MP that apparently is in favour of profiling, what of it, I think he's wrong, I'm sure you didn't need me to spell that out for you.
This a very long thread so i'm not going to read it all. Therefore i apologise if what i'm about to add has previously been posted. After posting, i shall don a tin hat and return to my bunker.
The post title is 'naked scanners at airports'
If i wanted someone to smuggle a bomb on board a plane i would suggest they wear a full Burkha. How many Burkha wearers do you think will be subjected to a 'full naked body scan' ?
Comments
[quote][cite]Posted By: BlackForestReds[/cite]Much better to make all muslims wear a clearly identifiable symbol - say a green crescent armband and in case they take that off they should get a tattoo as well.[/quote]
get i.d. cards and the problem is solved.
You've Changed, Threadkiller!
Your comparison to France is interesting but people can wear a veil at home, on the street in shops etc - just not in public institutions. The reason for that is that France doesn't take a multi-cultural stance but instead one of integration. Ironically integration is worse than in the UK.
But what I really want to know is what all this has got to do with eating Tofu - you've lost me there. Explain please.
who was it again who called the fact that our army is in Afghanistan "neo colonilism " ??? who ever it was has and always will be a total spineless face idiot.
its the radical muslims who want women to wear burkhas , not be educated, chop peoples heads off for murder, stone to death adulterers, kill homosexuals etc etc etc etc etc ------- how funny its is that you Guardianistas will slate some one for talking about slowing imingration when we have 3million umemployeed or slate someone for saying small amounts of profiling at airports might help but you go missing in action when REAL FACISTS like the radical muslims are about ------ pathetic-- go cower behind your sofas -- u might hear a naughty word.
Remind us again, which consituency are you standing for election in?
...............
I think you'll find the word is spelt "neo-colonialism" and as usual you are having the latest of your inarticulate I hate everyone childish rants.
The war in Afghanistan has some legitimacy - certainly more than the Iraq war ever had but when Hamai Karzai, our appointed President, starts fixing elections, banning opponents and introducing some very Islamic extremist legistaion (legalising rape in marriage etc) then it loses it's democratic legitimacy and I start to wonder why we are sending our soldiers to fight - it doesn't seem to be in the name of freeing a nation, but in backing a warlord who is likely to be more sympathetic to western interests than any other leader. And by sympathetic to our interests it seems he's a bought up member of UNOCAL who want/are building a gas pipeline across the country. I'm sure that it's pure coincidence that he was chosen.
how funny its is that you Guardianistas will slate some one for talking about slowing imingration
Remind me again - your wife is an "imingrant" isn't she? Are you going to send her home? Maybe a job could then be freed up?
You think you have it all sorted in your head - and that means you can't see the wood for the trees. In true right wing fashion, you sensationalise your facts, make others up, and twist the other side of the argument.
More of the debate is here, but Ben Wallaces comments are worrying
http://www.theyworkforyou.com/debates/?id=2010-01-05a.28.0
Ben Wallace (Shadow Minister, Scotland; Lancaster & Wyre, Conservative)
This is a bit rich from this Government who year on year have cut the research budget that allowed our law enforcement agencies to stay at least one step ahead of the terrorists. When I developed the millimetre wave with the team at QinetiQ, before I came into this House, we had to go to the Americans to get the funding because the Government cut it. What concrete extra resources will the Home Secretary put into the further development of technologies and manning at airports to ensure that our borders are more secure?
Firstly, yes it is intelligence and you would expect the authourities to act on it right? We'll is the 'intelligence' around this form of terrorism not that it is usually, not exclusivley but usually, planned and carried out by a certain profile of person? But in this case we should ignore this intelligence?
I also don't think you can compare the culture and approach of the 70's/80's Met Police to today can you? There's far more accountabilty and sensitivity around, there are ways and means of doing this without alienating huge sections of the public and I think it's actually quite insulting to suggest that the majority of those who might, on paper, fit the profile, would all react badly and couldn't understand the reason for it. I note that you haven't commented on the links to the muslim MP and community groups that are in support of it.
Anyway, on this note, I'm out, as I think I spy a periscope on the port side...
Following on from Bournemouth Addicks last post (and my response) I thought the following exchange during that debate regarding the problems with profiling, and its difference from behavioural detection, is interesting:
I am concerned that we will not have sufficiently robust research into the effects of such profiling on young Asian or Muslim men who think that they are expected to behave in a certain way and therefore think, "Why don't I?" Can he assure the House that robust research will be done on the potential consequences of identity-based profiling before any such proposal is introduced?
Alan Johnson (Home Secretary; Kingston upon Hull West & Hessle, Labour)
I can give my hon. Friend that assurance, but behavioural detection is different from profiling.
Ironically, while I was writing that BA posted again! This is still a decent response to what you wrote, I think. Regarding the Muslim groups that support profiling: it doesn't really make any difference. What one or two groups want doesn't relfect or affect the potential impact of profiling on others. I have Indian friends who are sympathetic to BNP arguments (would you believe), but that doesn't make them right.
(And I don;t see why there should be any periscopes pointing here - its been an interesting, mature and well informed discussion, barring one person.)
Those who don't or won't learn from history are condemned to repeat it's mistakes.
If we are to be effective in combatting islamic terrorism then we'll need good intelligence and you won't get that if you persist in throwing up as many barriers as possible between the islamic community and the rest of Britain and especially the police/security forces.
As I've pointed out - it didn't work with the suss laws, it didn't work with the IRA and it won't work now, no amount of bed wetting will change that.
Morally I'm not happy about it either - I simply don't want to see a group of people being racially targeted.
As for the muslim MP that apparently is in favour of profiling, what of it, I think he's wrong, I'm sure you didn't need me to spell that out for you.
After posting, i shall don a tin hat and return to my bunker.
The post title is 'naked scanners at airports'
If i wanted someone to smuggle a bomb on board a plane i would suggest they wear a full Burkha.
How many Burkha wearers do you think will be subjected to a 'full naked body scan' ?