England headed for A Caliphate

[Elixir]

You'd rather have Islamists than people opposed to Islamism. Typical islamoleftist nonsense.

Actually Derec, Great Replacement wackos are wackos by definition. An “Islamist” is just a person whose religion lends to pigeonholing by paranoid western xenophobes such as yourself.

You're saying all Muslims are Islamists?

You're saying Elixir thinks a “Muslim” is just a person whose religion lends to pigeonholing by paranoid western xenophobes such as Derec?

Appears like it to me. In fact, seems to me that there are many well developed pigeonholes in this society into which people like to place other people based on superficial criteria. But then, that's just OPINION. Maybe they're all just comical stereotypes, invented by the left, which I admit, are funny and mockworthy, bigot that I am.

This might mean Elixir thinks "Muslims" is a catch-all term for the followers of two or more different religions and thinks one or more of those religions lend to pigeonholing by paranoid western xenophobes such as Derec, and one or more don't.

Try again. “Islamist” is a subset of “Muslim”, not two separate religions, especially in the narrow minds of xenophobes, which is what counts. Any excuse will do for racist fearmongers and their willing audience of idiots.

 

[Elixir]

You'd rather have Islamists than people opposed to Islamism. Typical islamoleftist nonsense.

Actually Derec, Great Replacement wackos are wackos by definition. An “Islamist” is just a person whose religion lends to pigeonholing by paranoid western xenophobes such as yourself.

You're saying all Muslims are Islamists?

No. I’m saying that you too can be an Islamist if you incur the wrath of the xenophobe.

 

[Don2 (Don1 Revised)]

You'd rather have Islamists than people opposed to Islamism. Typical islamoleftist nonsense.

Actually Derec, Great Replacement wackos are wackos by definition. An “Islamist” is just a person whose religion lends to pigeonholing by paranoid western xenophobes such as yourself.

You're saying all Muslims are Islamists?

You're saying Elixir thinks a “Muslim” is just a person whose religion lends to pigeonholing by paranoid western xenophobes such as Derec?

That seemed like a plausible hypothesis about what Elixir thinks, but no, I was asking him for confirmation, not saying that's what he thinks. He denies it, so it's not clear what he thinks, or how to square

'All Muslims can be treated as part of the "islamist threat", if it is politically convenient, or satisfying for a xenophobic to do so.'​

with

'An “Islamist” is just a person whose religion lends to pigeonholing by paranoid western xenophobes such as yourself.'.​

This might mean Elixir thinks "Muslims" is a catch-all term for the followers of two or more different religions and thinks one or more of those religions lend to pigeonholing by paranoid western xenophobes such as Derec, and one or more don't. Alternately, it might mean he's withdrawing his original claim because I called him on it for posting the empty ad hominem propaganda it was.

It sounds like he's saying that the way Great Replacement conspiracy theorists use the term "Islamist" is in reference to Muslims some of whom are Islamists.

 

[Elixir]

sounds like he's saying that the way Great Replacement conspiracy theorists use the term "Islamist" is in reference to Muslims some of whom are Islamists.

As your own scare quotes indicate, it’s a label that serves as a focal point for xenophobes and racists. Not complicated, unless one wants to indulge in B20-style rhetorical gymnastics.

 

[Don2 (Don1 Revised)]

I think the great replacement people really do need to be replaced at this point.

You'd rather have Islamists than people opposed to Islamism. Typical islamoleftist nonsense.

The most productive discussion would be around what humane solution you actually have, starting with a non-extremist language description of the problem.

 

[Derec]

UK gave citizenship to Hamas chief’s guard, then he ‘plotted terror’

A former bodyguard to the leader of Hamas secured asylum and citizenship in Britain before “plotting” a terrorist attack against Jews in Europe before the second anniversary of the October 7 massacre.
Mr X, who cannot be named for legal reasons, served in the personal security team of Ismail Haniyeh, who was then the leader of Hamas in Gaza and later chairman of its political bureau, before moving to the UK more than a decade ago.
At the time he was awarded refugee status, it was public knowledge that he had worked for Haniyeh, was the son of another senior Hamas official, and had been arrested in Egypt for operating a tunnel allegedly used to smuggle firearms and gold into Gaza.

Unfuckingbelievable!

 

[Tigers!]

UK gave citizenship to Hamas chief’s guard, then he ‘plotted terror’

A former bodyguard to the leader of Hamas secured asylum and citizenship in Britain before “plotting” a terrorist attack against Jews in Europe before the second anniversary of the October 7 massacre.
Mr X, who cannot be named for legal reasons, served in the personal security team of Ismail Haniyeh, who was then the leader of Hamas in Gaza and later chairman of its political bureau, before moving to the UK more than a decade ago.
At the time he was awarded refugee status, it was public knowledge that he had worked for Haniyeh, was the son of another senior Hamas official, and had been arrested in Egypt for operating a tunnel allegedly used to smuggle firearms and gold into Gaza.

Unfuckingbelievable!

The easiest way to gain refugee status in the UK is to be a former (or not) member of a terrorist group.

 

[Bomb#20]

sounds like he's saying that the way Great Replacement conspiracy theorists use the term "Islamist" is in reference to Muslims some of whom are Islamists.

As your own scare quotes indicate, it’s a label that serves as a focal point for xenophobes and racists. Not complicated, unless one wants to indulge in B20-style rhetorical gymnastics.

By "rhetorical gymnastics" you're referring to my applying logic to your statements. Now that your statements have become self-contradictory, they imply everything, so that work is done. What's left is what Don said, and what I said: your post was empty ad hominem propaganda. You were falsely accusing Derec of being a paranoid Great Replacement conspiracy theorist who uses "Islamists" to refer to all Muslims. You were doing that to poison the well -- to encourage the choir you preach to to dismiss his observation without troubling themselves to refute it.

 

[Don2 (Don1 Revised)]

sounds like he's saying that the way Great Replacement conspiracy theorists use the term "Islamist" is in reference to Muslims some of whom are Islamists.

As your own scare quotes indicate, it’s a label that serves as a focal point for xenophobes and racists. Not complicated, unless one wants to indulge in B20-style rhetorical gymnastics.

By "rhetorical gymnastics" you're referring to my applying logic to your statements. Now that your statements have become self-contradictory, they imply everything, so that work is done. What's left is what Don said, and what I said: your post was empty ad hominem propaganda. You were falsely accusing Derec of being a paranoid Great Replacement conspiracy theorist who uses "Islamists" to refer to all Muslims. You were doing that to poison the well -- to encourage the choir you preach to to dismiss his observation without troubling themselves to refute it.

For the record, I actually agree that Great Replacement conspiracy theorists often use the word "Islamist" when they (should) really mean "Muslim."

Claiming that England is turning into a "Caliphate" comes across as inflammatory hyperbole and is entirely consistent with Great Replacement rhetoric. Furthermore, this kind of dehumanizing language has a nasty historical track record.

When it comes to the people actually crossing the English Channel, I am far more interested in how critics define the issue and what concrete solutions they are proposing.

So what comes next? If the proposed solutions are to shoot them or let them drown, that does not bode well for productive discussion. I asked about solutions earlier simply to cut through the unnecessary drama and steer us toward that productive discussion. I remain optimistic that someone can actually unpoison the well--a well that seems to have been tainted way before Elixir's post. I also have not been following this thread. So if solutions have already been discussed, please let's go back and look at what is happening with those or not and why.

 

[Bomb#20]

For the record, I actually agree that Great Replacement conspiracy theorists often use the word "Islamist" when they (should) really mean "Muslim."

Could be; but no evidence has been introduced showing Derec is one or does that.

When it comes to the people actually crossing the English Channel, I am far more interested in how critics define the issue and what concrete solutions they are proposing.

So what comes next? If the proposed solutions are to shoot them or let them drown, that does not bode well for productive discussion. I asked about solutions earlier simply to cut through the unnecessary drama and steer us toward that productive discussion. ...

Well, the prima facie simplest approach would be to monitor channel traffic from the air, spot a migrant boat early, have a navy vessel wait for it just shy of the median line and cross into French waters to stop it before it enters UK waters, take the migrants on board, sail them back to the nearest French port, and put them ashore. I'm not a lawyer, but my understanding of the law of the sea is that's all legal since the boats are overloaded and unseaworthy, making it legally a rescue.

 

[bilby]

Well, the prima facie simplest approach would be to monitor channel traffic from the air, spot a migrant boat early, have a navy vessel wait for it just shy of the median line and cross into French waters to stop it before it enters UK waters, take the migrants on board, sail them back to the nearest French port, and put them ashore. I'm not a lawyer, but my understanding of the law of the sea is that's all legal since the boats are overloaded and unseaworthy, making it legally a rescue.

The biggest problem with this would be that the Royal Navy doesn't have a spare vessel. They can't even meet their existing requirements, because they spent all their money on two aircraft carriers (for which they cannot afford adequate escort vessels).

The RN, like the rest of the British Armed Forces are out of money. The new Chancellor of the Exchequer was previously Secretary of State for Defence, A position he resigned in June because of the lack of funds, and the obstinancy of the then Chancellor in refusing to increase Defence spending.

Having become Chancellor in July, he has reversed his position, and now says that there is no more money available for defence.

Basically, post-Brexit Britain is broke, broken, and irrepairable. The country is totally screwed. It's really sad.

But they have two aircraft carriers, so they can still cosplay being a world power.

 

[Don2 (Don1 Revised)]

For the record, I actually agree that Great Replacement conspiracy theorists often use the word "Islamist" when they (should) really mean "Muslim."

Could be; but no evidence has been introduced showing Derec is one or does that.

When it comes to the people actually crossing the English Channel, I am far more interested in how critics define the issue and what concrete solutions they are proposing.

So what comes next? If the proposed solutions are to shoot them or let them drown, that does not bode well for productive discussion. I asked about solutions earlier simply to cut through the unnecessary drama and steer us toward that productive discussion. ...

Well, the prima facie simplest approach would be to monitor channel traffic from the air, spot a migrant boat early, have a navy vessel wait for it just shy of the median line and cross into French waters to stop it before it enters UK waters, take the migrants on board, sail them back to the nearest French port, and put them ashore. I'm not a lawyer, but my understanding of the law of the sea is that's all legal since the boats are overloaded and unseaworthy, making it legally a rescue.

I also originally thought this was simple. However, I had done some quick reading on this earlier, and the reality is that French authorities simply won't allow it. While maritime law certainly requires rescuing people from unseaworthy boats, a UK vessel cannot legally cross into French sovereign waters, sail into a French port, and unload people without France's explicit permission.

Furthermore, since Brexit, diplomatic solutions are much more difficult because the UK no longer participates in the EU frameworks (like the Dublin Regulation) that managed the return of asylum seekers. Those previous agreements were definitely burdensome and bureaucratic, but today they are completely non-existent, leaving no bilateral legal mechanism to simply send people back. It is also worth noting that pre-Brexit, the UK actually sometimes accepted more asylum seekers transferred from other EU countries than it successfully sent out. But post-Brexit, that calculus is entirely different.

 

[Patooka]

For the record, I actually agree that Great Replacement conspiracy theorists often use the word "Islamist" when they (should) really mean "Muslim."

Could be; but no evidence has been introduced showing Derec is one or does that.

When it comes to the people actually crossing the English Channel, I am far more interested in how critics define the issue and what concrete solutions they are proposing.

So what comes next? If the proposed solutions are to shoot them or let them drown, that does not bode well for productive discussion. I asked about solutions earlier simply to cut through the unnecessary drama and steer us toward that productive discussion. ...

Well, the prima facie simplest approach would be to monitor channel traffic from the air, spot a migrant boat early, have a navy vessel wait for it just shy of the median line and cross into French waters to stop it before it enters UK waters, take the migrants on board, sail them back to the nearest French port, and put them ashore. I'm not a lawyer, but my understanding of the law of the sea is that's all legal since the boats are overloaded and unseaworthy, making it legally a rescue.

I also originally thought this was simple. However, I had done some quick reading on this earlier, and the reality is that French authorities simply won't allow it. While maritime law certainly requires rescuing people from unseaworthy boats, a UK vessel cannot legally cross into French sovereign waters, sail into a French port, and unload people without France's explicit permission.

Furthermore, since Brexit, diplomatic solutions are much more difficult because the UK no longer participates in the EU frameworks (like the Dublin Regulation) that managed the return of asylum seekers. Those previous agreements were definitely burdensome and bureaucratic, but today they are completely non-existent, leaving no bilateral legal mechanism to simply send people back. It is also worth noting that pre-Brexit, the UK actually sometimes accepted more asylum seekers transferred from other EU countries than it successfully sent out. But post-Brexit, that calculus is entirely different.

It's almost as thoigh the crueelty is the point.

Funny how that works out...

 

[Don2 (Don1 Revised)]

Well, the prima facie simplest approach would be to monitor channel traffic from the air, spot a migrant boat early, have a navy vessel wait for it just shy of the median line and cross into French waters to stop it before it enters UK waters, take the migrants on board, sail them back to the nearest French port, and put them ashore. I'm not a lawyer, but my understanding of the law of the sea is that's all legal since the boats are overloaded and unseaworthy, making it legally a rescue.

The biggest problem with this would be that the Royal Navy doesn't have a spare vessel. They can't even meet their existing requirements, because they spent all their money on two aircraft carriers (for which they cannot afford adequate escort vessels).

The RN, like the rest of the British Armed Forces are out of money. The new Chancellor of the Exchequer was previously Secretary of State for Defence, A position he resigned in June because of the lack of funds, and the obstinancy of the then Chancellor in refusing to increase Defence spending.

Having become Chancellor in July, he has reversed his position, and now says that there is no more money available for defence.

Basically, post-Brexit Britain is broke, broken, and irrepairable. The country is totally screwed. It's really sad.

But they have two aircraft carriers, so they can still cosplay being a world power.

I wasn't aware of the naval and budget angle at all. Clearly, the UK needs to make some structural changes. But first, I think we need to accurately and precisely define what the major relevant problems actually are related to this issue.

 

[ZiprHead]

For the record, I actually agree that Great Replacement conspiracy theorists often use the word "Islamist" when they (should) really mean "Muslim."

Could be; but no evidence has been introduced showing Derec is one or does that.

Are you blind or just purposely ignorant?

 

[Elixir]

Now that your statements have become self-contradictory, they imply everything, so that work is done.

Now that you have constructed your rhetorical trap, are you expecting some concession of the material point?
“Islamist” is a construct, not a physical reality that differentiates the so-designated from the rest of humanity.
Bleat away, but it doesn’t change that fact.

Are you blind or just purposely ignorant?

B is neither. He is addicted to his own meticulously manufactured and maintained perceptions of other’s evils.

 

[bilby]

I wasn't aware of the naval and budget angle at all.

To paraphrase a popular song from the Crimean War:

Well we don't want to fight,
But by jingo if we do,
We've got no men,
We've got no ships,
We've got no money, too!

 

[Bomb#20]

For the record, I actually agree that Great Replacement conspiracy theorists often use the word "Islamist" when they (should) really mean "Muslim."

Could be; but no evidence has been introduced showing Derec is one or does that.

Are you blind or just purposely ignorant?

How many times have Christians said something like that to you when you pointed out no evidence has been introduced to support their claims? If you think I'm wrong, don't insult me, quote someone presenting evidence against him.

 

[Don2 (Don1 Revised)]

I wasn't aware of the naval and budget angle at all.

To paraphrase a popular song from the Crimean War:

Well we don't want to fight,
But by jingo if we do,
We've got no men,
We've got no ships,
We've got no money, too!

Look, an old war song isn't a foreign policy. The UK needs real, productive solutions. They need to build a massive, beautiful wall right down the middle of the English Channel, and they need to make France pay for it.

If France refuses, the UK can simply pivot, attempt to buy Belgium, and then immediately rename the English Channel to the "United Kingdom Channel." This strategy will naturally ensure that the price of gas (or petrol, as you foreigners call it) goes down on Day One and stays down.

 

[ZiprHead]

For the record, I actually agree that Great Replacement conspiracy theorists often use the word "Islamist" when they (should) really mean "Muslim."

Could be; but no evidence has been introduced showing Derec is one or does that.

Are you blind or just purposely ignorant?

How many times have Christians said something like that to you when you pointed out no evidence has been introduced to support their claims? If you think I'm wrong, don't insult me, quote someone presenting evidence against him.