Bounce Posted August 22, 2011 Share Posted August 22, 2011 No one occupies the 'land' from what I understand, in Libya at least. Am I missing something or does air support not mean being in the sky ? I would understand the comment in reference to Iraq but given that the regime under which people fled and claimed asylum is now gone how would you justify the need to stay here ? occupying Libyan air space and bombing the country causing civilian casualties? How is that helping the people? Nato couldn't give a monkeys about the Libyan people they helped Gaddafis political opponents remove himi for their own interests. If western nations really cared about humanity in general why aren't they attacking Israel? Why wern't they in Bahrain? Why aren't they in Yemen? Why are they occupying Afghanistan which is causing massive suffering to the people of Afghanistan and also neighbouring Pakistan. When the west has destroyed countries like Iraq and Afghanistan obviously people will want to run from the conflict and look for a better life elsewhere in the world it's natural. What better place than the rich and powerful nations who are bombing and occupying their countries? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
andygardener Posted August 22, 2011 Share Posted August 22, 2011 occupying Libyan air space and bombing the country causing civilian casualties? How is that helping the people? Nato couldn't give a monkeys about the Libyan people they helped Gaddafis political opponents remove himi for their own interests. If western nations really cared about humanity in general why aren't they attacking Israel? Why wern't they in Bahrain? Why aren't they in Yemen? Why are they occupying Afghanistan which is causing massive suffering to the people of Afghanistan and also neighbouring Pakistan. When the west has destroyed countries like Iraq and Afghanistan obviously people will want to run from the conflict and look for a better life elsewhere in the world it's natural. What better place than the rich and powerful nations who are bombing and occupying their countries? The libyan airspace that is "occupied" was being used to kill libyan citizens by gaddafis airforce. So the people were helped by no longer being killed by gaddafis airforce. The rest of your post is too retarded to comment on. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kimba Posted August 22, 2011 Author Share Posted August 22, 2011 occupying Libyan air space and bombing the country causing civilian casualties? How is that helping the people? Nato couldn't give a monkeys about the Libyan people they helped Gaddafis political opponents remove himi for their own interests. If western nations really cared about humanity in general why aren't they attacking Israel? Why wern't they in Bahrain? Why aren't they in Yemen? Why are they occupying Afghanistan which is causing massive suffering to the people of Afghanistan and also neighbouring Pakistan. When the west has destroyed countries like Iraq and Afghanistan obviously people will want to run from the conflict and look for a better life elsewhere in the world it's natural. What better place than the rich and powerful nations who are bombing and occupying their countries? I see you are lost, in the wrong topic ? Im not sure what why you quoted me because no where in my quote do I talk of any of what you put, I as answering someone else's post, your post here looks like the rambling of a mad man. Has something upset you ? Are you by any chance a Libyan over here after been granted asylum and now fear being asked to go back ? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Quinnwok Posted August 22, 2011 Share Posted August 22, 2011 Ok so we are now seeing on TV that Libya is soon to be declared free of the Gaddafi so would that create a situation where people that claimed asylum here to escape that regime would then be safe and would they then be asked to leave ? I noticed that a lot of Kurds that came here to get away from Saddam are still here after his regime came to an end so how exactly should asylum work and why don't cases get looked back into if indeed they don't ? In this country, with this leadership? no chance. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kimba Posted August 22, 2011 Author Share Posted August 22, 2011 In this country, with this leadership? no chance.I don't know,we heard a lot of tough talk from Cameron about immigration ect to get elected, and he certainly does not mind bringing in policies that are controversial (well with his own peoples at least). Maybe its just that no one has ever thought about it ? Just hope someone comes across this forum and thinks its something to consider if its not already a policy that is practiced. I don't see why its not normal practice, maybe it is ? it should be if not because its logical. Does anyone now for sure if they revoke asylum or not, and/or indeed if its at all possible ? Im going to try and dig into this, write to Dave Blunkett or something. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
HeadingNorth Posted August 22, 2011 Share Posted August 22, 2011 I know which message I would sooner give out to any would be migrant coming here to float our systems of compassion for economic reasons. But we are not talking about migrants coming here for economic reasons. We are talking specifically about people claiming asylum. The two are entirely different, and different rules apply. You need to decide first, which group of people you want to talk about. Only then can we have a sensible debate. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ronthenekred Posted August 22, 2011 Share Posted August 22, 2011 But we are not talking about migrants coming here for economic reasons. We are talking specifically about people claiming asylum. The two are entirely different, and different rules apply. You need to decide first, which group of people you want to talk about. Only then can we have a sensible debate. Not a difficult concept to grasp I agree, but the two will always get blurred into one...as already shown. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kimba Posted August 22, 2011 Author Share Posted August 22, 2011 But we are not talking about migrants coming here for economic reasons. We are talking specifically about people claiming asylum. The two are entirely different, and different rules apply. You need to decide first, which group of people you want to talk about. Only then can we have a sensible debate. How very naive of you to think that people do not use asylum to come here and stay on here after the bogus claim fails. You are seriously not going to contest that that happens are you ? I grant that the topic is most defiantly about asylum first and foremost, but others have come here and crossed the boundaries into other relevant issues related, such has the stance the BNP have or our foreign policies, all I may add relevant. Why do people drift off into making points about bigotry and racism but if you put anything yourself that is part of the big picture of a topic someone asks you to keep it to what they are comfortable with ? I did not see you pipe up earlier when an attempt to label me was being made ? - How predictable of you. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kimba Posted August 23, 2011 Author Share Posted August 23, 2011 http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/1296044.stm http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-404269/Up-80-000-bogus-asylum-seekers-granted-amnesty.html http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/home-news/eurostar-checks-to-stop-bogus-asylum-seekers-723923.html http://www.derbygripe.co.uk/asylum.htm http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-49963/Tories-tough-bogus-asylum-seekers.html I guess there is no such thing right ? Amazing how unrelated asylum and migrants are until you open your eyes a little. But yes, I do want to keep it to the title if possible because it is interesting to know if we would ask people to return would they or not once they have no justification for being here, as it is a good way of highlighting just how many asylum seekers soon would become economic migrants once asked if they would return once they could. Its all relative. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
HeadingNorth Posted August 23, 2011 Share Posted August 23, 2011 How very naive of you to think that people do not use asylum to come here and stay on here after the bogus claim fails. You are seriously not going to contest that that happens are you ? I am not, but it's irrelevant to the point. Either you wish to do something about economic migrants, or you wish to do something about people who have claimed asylum. You need to make up your mind which it is. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.