Yep the Islamic invasion and destruction of the Visigothic culture in Spain in 711 was a great triumph of humanity.....
Because the Visigoths got their on a ludo game. Lets be realistic here, everyone was waring with everyone at some point, making out that Islam had a monopoly on it is silly, medieval Europe was one long war, kings and lords duking it out for power.
Yep the Islamic invasion and destruction of the Visigothic culture in Spain in 711 was a great triumph of humanity.....
Yes, like the Visigoth invasion and destruction of the Alan culture in Spain a few hundred years earlier. Invasion and war were endemic in the Medieval period in Europe - it isn't a realistic measure of 'civilisation' from any point of view. There is however no doubt that Islam, during the Middle Ages, was a great source of education, progress in the arts and sciences.
I do hope if found guilty they are sent back home to serve their sentence and not in a European country as that's a win for them.
Yes. Well. Italy is probably not thrilled at being confronted with 15 new arrivals all apparently awaiting charges for multiple aggravated murders. But that is how international law works. They might be returned of course, but we don't know where they have travelled from, and there is always the danger that if they are, they will not serve any punishment at all. If the victims were people known to us, and not just numbers, we certainly woudn't want Italy to shrug its shoulders and say, "nothing to do with us, mate". We would want them charged, found guilty, where appropriate, and given the sentence appropriate for aggravated murder.
How long before on of these religiously bigoted murderers claims asylum and becomes a right on cause for the left when the goverment try to deport him?
I was discussing this last night at home. I am concerned about the immigration itself but more so the death of so many people who are risking this crossing. I worry that the rescue missions, though laudable, are encouraging more to take that risk. But the alternative seems impossible too... where do you take them back (there is no infrastructure in the North African countries to cope... so they would just keep trying). I don't think Europe alone can manage the problem but the countries that also need to help are in no fit state to do so.
Well we can't leave people, many of them children, to drown in sinking boats. Europe has to work with countries like Libya to improve their coastal security and stop the boats leaving at all. I can well believe that Libya is a difficult country to work with, but that is surely better than thinking "if we save these peoples' lives, more will come."
Because the Visigoths got their on a ludo game. Lets be realistic here, everyone was waring with everyone at some point, making out that Islam had a monopoly on it is silly, medieval Europe was one long war, kings and lords duking it out for power.
I don't recall saying Islam had a monopoly on it. Care to show me where I did
However you said Islam showed "promise" back then but I think it's fair to say that it was also an aggressive, expansionist, slaving culture, and even then was bitterly divided. It's easy to produce cultural triumphs and scientific breakthroughs when you have forcibly seized your neighbours lands. The Romans did, the Chinese did, the Aztecs did and the British did as well. Imperialism allows you to do that.
I really don't think I have. The third paragraph states that they have been accused of mass murder based on religious hatred. It's a one sentence paragraph and is very difficult to misunderstand.
They may be innocent of course, at the moment it's just an accusation, and I suspect it will be difficult to prove without any actual bodies. However IF they are found guilty at trial THEN I think it's perfectly valid to describe them as religiously bigoted murderers.
I really don't think I have. The third paragraph states that they have been accused of mass murder based on religious hatred. It's a one sentence paragraph and is very difficult to misunderstand.
They may be innocent of course, at the moment it's just an accusation, and I suspect it will be difficult to prove without any actual bodies. However IF they are found guilty at trial THEN I think it's perfectly valid to describe them as religiously bigoted murderers.
I don't think anyone has a problem with describing them as religiously bigoted murderers, and there seem to be loads of witnesses, so there should be no problem putting together a case.
My issue was your suggestion that they might start claiming asylum. Everyone in the boat was hoping to claim asylum. There is no other way any of them could get any right to remain in Europe. Most asylum claimers are returned; the bar for claiming asylum is set very high.
Those in prison for aggravated murder will not be granted asylum. They might be allowed to remain for the duration of their prison sentence if it is decided that they will not be adequately punished at home. (And the opposite, come to think of it. Countries with no death penalty do not normally extradite someone to a country where they will be executed.)
I don't recall saying Islam had a monopoly on it. Care to show me where I did
However you said Islam showed "promise" back then but I think it's fair to say that it was also an aggressive, expansionist, slaving culture, and even then was bitterly divided. It's easy to produce cultural triumphs and scientific breakthroughs when you have forcibly seized your neighbours lands. The Romans did, the Chinese did, the Aztecs did and the British did as well. Imperialism allows you to do that.
The fact you countered my "promise" point with the fact they went to war with another country assumed that somehow this was proof they did not show promise.
As to your second point, all empires were aggresive, expansionist, its one of the hallmarks of an empire. If Islam was no different than the Chinese and the British, and those two are where they are now, then they really did show promise. Their slaving culture was actually very limited for large parts of Islams history, and they outlawed slavery back when they were fighting the Greeks. Not to mention, the only reason we know about European history is because whilst we were knocking ten bells of shit out of each other trying to curry favor with the pope, Islamic scholars took and protected the manuscripts and writings of ancient Greeks, they also allowed Europeans access to it as well. They also were very tolerant, when a Muslim wouldn't dare step foot in Europe, Christians were fine to go to Muslim city states and trade as long as they paid a small non-Muslim tax.
But to balance that out in the interests of fairness, yes they were also able to do bad things as well. They messed up parts of Africa (Mali empire for a start). African culture was mixed with Islam, and a lot of Africans were very progressive for their time, such as treating females with respect and allowing them to hold position of power and ownership of land. Islam proper didn't like this, and forced its views on Africans with the threat of war. The reason the threats worked is because when some went against them, they did wage war, and they did it very well.
The notion they are a bloody religion and its in their DNA is basically racism, because its based on racist history that we stopped teaching about 200 years ago. Same as "savage uncivilized Africa" that we used to push, until it came out Africa was actually ahead of the curve until European power and Islamic power went into Africa and messed a lot of it up. (and of course, Africa being a highly developed culture unlike the racist lies from our colonising ancestors, it too waged internal wars for power and had its own issues with its scholars)
Well we can't leave people, many of them children, to drown in sinking boats. Europe has to work with countries like Libya to improve their coastal security and stop the boats leaving at all. I can well believe that Libya is a difficult country to work with, but that is surely better than thinking "if we save these peoples' lives, more will come."
I agree, but I think it is realistic to say 'if we save these people's lives, more will come' - because the migrants (and the traffickers) will believe that they will make it over the water as a result. That doesn't mean I think we should stop rescuing them - of course I don't -- but It is a poor solution as people will still die and the pressure on countries like Italy and Malta will continue and exacerbate resentment. The solution has to lie further back in the migrant's journey and without stable governments in North Africa and elsewhere this will either continue or get much worse.
I don't think anyone has a problem with describing them as religiously bigoted murderers, and there seem to be loads of witnesses, so there should be no problem putting together a case.
My issue was your suggestion that they might start claiming asylum. Everyone in the boat was hoping to claim asylum. There is no other way any of them could get any right to remain in Europe. Most asylum claimers are returned; the bar for claiming asylum is set very high.
Those in prison for aggravated murder will not be granted asylum. They might be allowed to remain for the duration of their prison sentence if it is decided that they will not be adequately punished at home. (And the opposite, come to think of it. Countries with no death penalty do not normally extradite someone to a country where they will be executed.)
It certainly wouldn't be the first time that a mass murderer was granted asylum
Mr John Thuo, through his solicitors, complained to the Press Complaints Commission, under Clause 1 (Accuracy), Clause 3 (Privacy) and Clause 10 (Subterfuge) about an article which he considered to have reported as fact his claims to have committed serious crimes in Kenya, when these claims had been rejected by both the Home Office and Immigration Tribunal during his successful appeal against deportation.
RESOLUTION:
The complaint was resolved after the PCC negotiated the publication of the following correction, in print and online:
‘An article on May 21 reported claims by John Thuo, a Kenyan immigrant who had sought asylum in the UK, that he had committed crimes in Kenya. In fact, the immigration tribunal found his claims unlikely to be true and allowed his appeal due to the risk of his committing suicide is he was sent back.'
DATE PUBLISHED: 03/09/2013
A rare - though probably not unique - example of someone confessing to a lot of murders, and the government ruling that they are lying.
As a matter of detail, it is wrong that all the press reports seem to describe him living 'rent free'. Asylum seekers are not entitled to housing benefit, or to work, so they always live 'rent free'. By law, they must be housed in properties that cannot otherwise be let, so they tend to be pretty grim.
I
But the alternative seems impossible too... where do you take them back (there is no infrastructure in the North African countries to cope... so they would just keep trying). I don't think Europe alone can manage the problem but the countries that also need to help are in no fit state to do so.
Back to North Africa is the solution - that's where they come from and where they belong. They cannot make themselves our problem just by showing up on European territory.
It won't stop unless the Europeans take steps to stop the traffickers putting people in boats and sending them out to sea. Shipping people back when they do arrive, working to get African countries to take responsibility and care of their own problems and citizens, (e.g. Nigeria, a rich and powerful country should be perfectly capable of this, yet here were its citizens being murdered in a dinghy and others being attacked by locals in South Africa), are other measures that would halt this growing trade which Europe seems curiously passive and ineffective in getting a handle on.
And the obvious fact that if this hasn't happened and those Christians reached Europe and tried to claim asylum as a persecuted minority whose lives were in danger for their religion or race that we would probably have deported them....
Back to North Africa is the solution - that's where they come from and where they belong. They cannot make themselves our problem just by showing up on European territory.
They are not though - they are from all over the place, including Syria and other parts of the Middle East. North Africa is just another stop on the way.
they are mostly economic migrants who should remain in italy seeing as italy is encouraging this people smuggling operation. why cant france and the other countries stop them entering the schengen zone so italy has to care for whoever it allows to enter its territory. the australian government showed how it can be stopped. imo the italian government is creating a big problem
The developed world needs more Islamic migrants from the Third World like it needs a hole in the head. We've been "enriched" enough thank you very much.
Just the look of them, they look sinister. Not all of them, but many of them.
I know a bad person when I see one.
I so badly want to ask you if its based on the skin pigment, but I am not sure if it will be taken the wrong way...
but then again, they are hardly going to walk off the boat like it was a party cruise, I suspect most times people arrive on a boat like that, they look rather grim.
I so badly want to ask you if its based on the skin pigment, but I am not sure if it will be taken the wrong way...
but then again, they are hardly going to walk off the boat like it was a party cruise, I suspect most times people arrive on a boat like that, they look rather grim.
I think judging how they look isn't on. Judge them on their actions, which are surely indefensible.
they are mostly economic migrants who should remain in italy seeing as italy is encouraging this people smuggling operation. why cant france and the other countries stop them entering the schengen zone so italy has to care for whoever it allows to enter its territory. the australian government showed how it can be stopped. imo the italian government is creating a big problem
They won't stay in Italy, they will make their way up to Calais and try and come here.
Comments
Because the Visigoths got their on a ludo game. Lets be realistic here, everyone was waring with everyone at some point, making out that Islam had a monopoly on it is silly, medieval Europe was one long war, kings and lords duking it out for power.
Yes, like the Visigoth invasion and destruction of the Alan culture in Spain a few hundred years earlier. Invasion and war were endemic in the Medieval period in Europe - it isn't a realistic measure of 'civilisation' from any point of view. There is however no doubt that Islam, during the Middle Ages, was a great source of education, progress in the arts and sciences.
What point of view is that meant to represent? I really think you have misunderstood the story.
Well we can't leave people, many of them children, to drown in sinking boats. Europe has to work with countries like Libya to improve their coastal security and stop the boats leaving at all. I can well believe that Libya is a difficult country to work with, but that is surely better than thinking "if we save these peoples' lives, more will come."
I don't recall saying Islam had a monopoly on it. Care to show me where I did
However you said Islam showed "promise" back then but I think it's fair to say that it was also an aggressive, expansionist, slaving culture, and even then was bitterly divided. It's easy to produce cultural triumphs and scientific breakthroughs when you have forcibly seized your neighbours lands. The Romans did, the Chinese did, the Aztecs did and the British did as well. Imperialism allows you to do that.
I really don't think I have. The third paragraph states that they have been accused of mass murder based on religious hatred. It's a one sentence paragraph and is very difficult to misunderstand.
They may be innocent of course, at the moment it's just an accusation, and I suspect it will be difficult to prove without any actual bodies. However IF they are found guilty at trial THEN I think it's perfectly valid to describe them as religiously bigoted murderers.
I don't think anyone has a problem with describing them as religiously bigoted murderers, and there seem to be loads of witnesses, so there should be no problem putting together a case.
My issue was your suggestion that they might start claiming asylum. Everyone in the boat was hoping to claim asylum. There is no other way any of them could get any right to remain in Europe. Most asylum claimers are returned; the bar for claiming asylum is set very high.
Those in prison for aggravated murder will not be granted asylum. They might be allowed to remain for the duration of their prison sentence if it is decided that they will not be adequately punished at home. (And the opposite, come to think of it. Countries with no death penalty do not normally extradite someone to a country where they will be executed.)
The fact you countered my "promise" point with the fact they went to war with another country assumed that somehow this was proof they did not show promise.
As to your second point, all empires were aggresive, expansionist, its one of the hallmarks of an empire. If Islam was no different than the Chinese and the British, and those two are where they are now, then they really did show promise. Their slaving culture was actually very limited for large parts of Islams history, and they outlawed slavery back when they were fighting the Greeks. Not to mention, the only reason we know about European history is because whilst we were knocking ten bells of shit out of each other trying to curry favor with the pope, Islamic scholars took and protected the manuscripts and writings of ancient Greeks, they also allowed Europeans access to it as well. They also were very tolerant, when a Muslim wouldn't dare step foot in Europe, Christians were fine to go to Muslim city states and trade as long as they paid a small non-Muslim tax.
But to balance that out in the interests of fairness, yes they were also able to do bad things as well. They messed up parts of Africa (Mali empire for a start). African culture was mixed with Islam, and a lot of Africans were very progressive for their time, such as treating females with respect and allowing them to hold position of power and ownership of land. Islam proper didn't like this, and forced its views on Africans with the threat of war. The reason the threats worked is because when some went against them, they did wage war, and they did it very well.
The notion they are a bloody religion and its in their DNA is basically racism, because its based on racist history that we stopped teaching about 200 years ago. Same as "savage uncivilized Africa" that we used to push, until it came out Africa was actually ahead of the curve until European power and Islamic power went into Africa and messed a lot of it up. (and of course, Africa being a highly developed culture unlike the racist lies from our colonising ancestors, it too waged internal wars for power and had its own issues with its scholars)
I agree, but I think it is realistic to say 'if we save these people's lives, more will come' - because the migrants (and the traffickers) will believe that they will make it over the water as a result. That doesn't mean I think we should stop rescuing them - of course I don't -- but It is a poor solution as people will still die and the pressure on countries like Italy and Malta will continue and exacerbate resentment. The solution has to lie further back in the migrant's journey and without stable governments in North Africa and elsewhere this will either continue or get much worse.
I was being sarcastic - simple really.
It certainly wouldn't be the first time that a mass murderer was granted asylum
http://m.jambonewspot.com/?ref=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.google.co.uk%2Furl%3Fsa%3Dt%26rct%3Dj%26q%3Djohn%2520thuo%26source%3Dweb%26cd%3D1%26ved%3D0CB8QFjAA%26url%3Dhttp%253A%252F%252Fwww.jambonewspot.com%252Fkenyan-man-who-confessed-in-uk-to-killing-400-kenyans-will-not-be-deported%252F%26ei%3DedAwVamzJtPpaJ60gJAO%26usg%3DAFQjCNENfTq3ywhqIecJ7suIJL9cNJoaHQ%26bvm%3Dbv.91071109%2Cd.d2s&url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.jambonewspot.com%2Fkenyan-man-who-confessed-in-uk-to-killing-400-kenyans-will-not-be-deported%2F
Blimey. Contradicted (not a very reliable site, I would say, but still): http://www.standardmedia.co.ke/article/2000085035/confessions-of-a-mungiki-man-and-tall-tales-asylum-seekers-tell
A better site, and interesting: The press complaints commission. http://www.pcc.org.uk/cases/adjudicated.html?article=ODU3Mw==&type=
COMPLAINT:
Mr John Thuo, through his solicitors, complained to the Press Complaints Commission, under Clause 1 (Accuracy), Clause 3 (Privacy) and Clause 10 (Subterfuge) about an article which he considered to have reported as fact his claims to have committed serious crimes in Kenya, when these claims had been rejected by both the Home Office and Immigration Tribunal during his successful appeal against deportation.
RESOLUTION:
The complaint was resolved after the PCC negotiated the publication of the following correction, in print and online:
‘An article on May 21 reported claims by John Thuo, a Kenyan immigrant who had sought asylum in the UK, that he had committed crimes in Kenya. In fact, the immigration tribunal found his claims unlikely to be true and allowed his appeal due to the risk of his committing suicide is he was sent back.'
DATE PUBLISHED: 03/09/2013
A rare - though probably not unique - example of someone confessing to a lot of murders, and the government ruling that they are lying.
As a matter of detail, it is wrong that all the press reports seem to describe him living 'rent free'. Asylum seekers are not entitled to housing benefit, or to work, so they always live 'rent free'. By law, they must be housed in properties that cannot otherwise be let, so they tend to be pretty grim.
Back to North Africa is the solution - that's where they come from and where they belong. They cannot make themselves our problem just by showing up on European territory.
I very much doubt that, what evidence is there .?
Based on what?
The Red Cross seem to think so http://www.redcross.org.uk/en/What-we-do/Refugee-support/Refugee-facts-and-figures
And the obvious fact that if this hasn't happened and those Christians reached Europe and tried to claim asylum as a persecuted minority whose lives were in danger for their religion or race that we would probably have deported them....
Just the look of them, they look sinister. Not all of them, but many of them.
I know a bad person when I see one.
They are not though - they are from all over the place, including Syria and other parts of the Middle East. North Africa is just another stop on the way.
I so badly want to ask you if its based on the skin pigment, but I am not sure if it will be taken the wrong way...
but then again, they are hardly going to walk off the boat like it was a party cruise, I suspect most times people arrive on a boat like that, they look rather grim.
I think judging how they look isn't on. Judge them on their actions, which are surely indefensible.
They won't stay in Italy, they will make their way up to Calais and try and come here.