Sunday, 14 December 2008

COUNTERING TERRORISM

Today Gordon Brown has stated that 75% of terrorism incidents have a Pakistani connection.
This high number should surprise nobody and I presume the rest come from other muslim countries such as Afganistan or Iraq.

The difference is that we have had no military involvement in Pakistan so retaliation for our wars in that area should not be a problem, indeed Pakistan, already in receipt of hundreds of millions in grants from us is being given even more by our retarded Prime Minister. This at a time when our own finances are a disaster.

This is just appeasement as are the grants given to muslim areas in this country. They look on us as weak and ask for more, and yet Brown calls islam a religion of peace.
But the biggest danger to our security is the continued influx of people from Pakistan without any control, so that large areas of our cities are in effect no go areas for true Brits.



It should be obvious to even "Brain Dead" Brown that these people among us contain a fifth column waiting their chance to commit another outrage, even though the majority are peaceful.
To those who say Pakistanis are an asset to us in this country the question is--If there were no Pakistani and other muslim people here would we have this threat?
We know the answer to that NO, but how do we address it?
First stop ANY more immigration from muslim countries
Second deport ALL illegal immigrants from those countries.
Third, BAN the building of mosques thus encouraging them to return home.
Fourth DEPORT all families and dependants of suicide bombers immediately following an attack, whether they are in danger in their countries of origin or not.
THE GOVERNMENT SHOULD TAKE THIS STRONG ACTION TO SAFEGUARD US,
SAFETY IS OUR HUMAN RIGHT!

6 comments:

Anti-gag said...

Hi Charles,

I pretty much agree with 90% of your post, however I'm unable to agree that we should single out the families of terrorist simply because they are related to a bomber. Now it may well be that a brother, or other close relative, of a suicide bomber can be shown to have similar view, and in that case I'd be the first to say we must play safe and deport them. But simply to assume without any good reason that Mr Ali must be deported because his cousin is a terrorist is unfair.

Having said that any illegal or undesirable activity should mark a person out for immediate deportation, ie, I agree that playing it safe is the only fair way to protect our people. But the key word, in our policy, must be fair!

Anyone currently residing legally in the UK, who is prepared to accept our laws and way of life, must not be forcibly deported. Voluntary repatriation is quite another issue of which I'm 100% in favour of.

From
Chris Hill
(Lancaster)

Lanky Patriot said...

So where is your deterrent? He is with his 70 virgins in heaven safe in the knowledge that his large earthly family will be supported by us, the people who he had bombed.
The threat of serious sanctions to his family would make him think twice.
In other words make bombing not a paying proposition.

Anti-gag said...

Dear Charles,

I'm sorry I simply can't agree that if we are to convince the British people that we are a decent party that will, when in government, treat everyone fairly then we must have policies that reflect that fairness. Punishing people because of what their relatives have done, will not be seen as being fair by most British people. Terrorism is a terrible problem, that its perpetrators intend will erode our liberties, and in some ways responding to it in the way you suggest is simply playing into their hands.

The way to deal with this problem is by firm, but fair action. Any sabotage, or anyone aiding a saboteur (aged +18) should, after being convicted in a fair trial, be subject to the death penalty. But punishing people because they are related to a criminal is wrong, plus we all know that when they returned home they would be treated as heroes by their own people, so even the deterrent factor is doubtful.

Sorry Charles on this one you're wrong.

From
Chris Hill
(Lancaster)

PS.
Someday we must discuses the death penalty, and how we can be sure we have a police and prosecution service that will give people the confidence to allow its reintroduction. But that, as they say, is another issue.

Lanky Patriot said...

No Chris, you are wrong.The only way to deter a suicide bomber who is going to die is to take it out of his loved ones, ie women and children, not by injuring them but deporting them. Why should we keep them in any case?
Reprisals against families have been used for centuries but usually of a bloody nature.My way is not. The families would return to their rightful countries where often they would feel more at home
I don't believe in the death penalty but any assistant who would be a danger would in my world be kept in jail painted with pigs blood and that would be sufficient deterrant for them.
Appeasement of these people is and has been shown to be counterproductive so you have to think what they really would not want in a humane way.

Anti-gag said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
Anti-gag said...

Hi Charles,

We will just have to disagree on this one. I will have no part in taking revenge on the families of terrorists. Now if any individual member is in anyway complacent in any terrorist actions that's totally different. But to punish innocent people that's simply not fair.

From
Chris Hill
(Lancaster)

yaz