Afghan hunger strike in St Patricks.

BuffyBot

Perhaps the way it was worded earlier was a bit off.

You don't say?

juslookin

Giblet wrote:

What does that have to do with what I said. You're saying stuff like "Irish people" in a roll your eyes fashion, and yet your arguments so far is based on just as must conjecture as anyone elses. Choice quotes would be you saying you don't know about these men but you presume this and that about them. The same as the so called "loopy left" are doing on this thread.

Bear in mind my stance on this is to remove them from the church and consider asylum somewhere closer to home based on whether or not they are telling the truth.

Some of the suggestions in this thread are crazy and I'll be banning anyone who goes along the whole "put all nigerians, romanians in prison camps" line. I don't want such idiocy displayed in any threads.

I don't know about these men, but I presume they are proven and experienced in manipulating the truth, and if that means telling lies, so be it. They didn't get half way across the world by telling the truth. They apparently have had a chance to tell the Irish people the truth and they refused. What else do we need to know.

The loopy left as you call them are making the opposite presumtion that theh are telling the complete and utter truth, that they are in immediate mortal danger, as though their entire country is out to get them (which would be like people thinking that if you visit Ireland the IRA shoot you, and as anyone knows, if you want to avoid trouble spots, generally you can).

If the Irish loopy left are anything like the British loopy left, what happens is that they know that those they are championing are actually lying, but for the good of the "anti racist cause", those little while lies can be excused.

And of course, in this day and age where racial prejudice, racial bigotry, racially motivated violence have been replaced with the catch all phrase "RAAACCSIIIMSSMM", the loopy left play word games where somebody who has recieved a funny look has been a victim of "racism", and "Racism" means violence and murder.

I undertand that before the Celtic Tiger there were no Asylum Seekers in Ireland. Maybe some people can make a connection here.

Detainment camps in countries of destination may indeed play a role in detering bogus asylum seekers and chancers. If you are really in danger, you'll leave, the camp is better than life at home, at least you are safe and if you have a cast iron story then you'll probably be OK. This sort of reception deters the chancers who know even before they leave the benefit set up, where they will be staying, which of their friends are already there and so on.

HelterSkelter

woody wrote:

...Non-Nationals are screwing the country I fought for and my father and his grandfather... I have a right as a Citizen of Ireland to express my disgust at these people destroying my country, I have more time for the "Slab" Murphy than these people....

Woddy, I am still wondering how you fought for this country, who did you fight against? Who was attacking us?

AngryAnderson

HelterSkelter wrote:

Woddy, I am still wondering how you fought for this country, who did you fight against? Who was attacking us?

I don't think Woody's going to be replying to you. He's off fighting for his ban to be lifted.

ChityWest

The Irish army have held peace keeping missions for decades now & yes Irish soldiers have been killed keeping the peace in less developed countries.

tbh

AngryAnderson wrote:

I don't think Woody's going to be replying to you. He's off fighting for his ban to be lifted.

ROFL.

anarchobot

juslookin wrote:

I don't know about these men, but I presume they are proven and experienced in manipulating the truth....
what happens is that they know that those they are championing are actually lying, but for the good of the "anti racist cause", those little while lies can be excused.

Care to provide any proof of this? No? Prejudice is an "opinion formed beforehand or without knowledge or examination of the facts." Since you admit that you are only presuming, you have just proven yourself to be prejudiced.

juslookin wrote:

which would be like people thinking that if you visit Ireland the IRA shoot you

you really think that Ireland and Afghanistan are the same?

Extract from the most recent Amnesty International report on Afghanistan I could find (published April 05):

"Lawlessness and insecurity increased, hampering efforts towards peace and stability. Anti-government forces killed civilians involved in the electoral process, making large parts of the country inaccessible to humanitarian organizations. US forces continued arbitrary and unlawful detentions and failed to conduct independent investigations of reports that Afghan prisoners had been tortured and ill-treated. Armed groups committed abuses against civilians with impunity, including the abduction and rape of girls. Justice and redress were unobtainable for women who experienced widespread discrimination and violence in the community, including abduction, rape and forced marriage. Refugees were pressured into returning to Afghanistan despite continuing threats to their safety. A military commander was secretly executed after an unfair trial."

Yea, sounds just like life on the streets of Dublin. Idiot.

juslookin wrote:

the loopy left play word games where somebody who has recieved a funny look has been a victim of "racism", and "Racism" means violence and murder.

This is a very incoherent sentence, I'm not sure exactly what you're saying... Hovever, speaking as someone who is left-wing, I don't work with anyone who uses "racist" as a catch-all term for people who disagree with them. Ag marbh, for example, doesn't strike me as someone I would ever agree with. His/her arguments are not based on politics, they're based on morality, which tends to be the preserve of the right. To associate him/her with the left based on his/her stance on ONE issue is pretty spurious.

The lumping-together of left-wing activists with liberals and the "PC Brigade" is an over-simplification. I think you'll find that for most people on the left, "liberal" is actually an insult, not something we would ever self-apply.

juslookin wrote:

I undertand that before the Celtic Tiger there were no Asylum Seekers in Ireland. Maybe some people can make a connection here.

There were relatively few, not none. If you had any common sense, an explanation would not be necessary. It makes no sense for refugees to travel half-way around the world to a poor country where there is no prospect of them ever living a normal life, where the possibility of future employment and "naturalisation" are practically non-existant. Why would anyone have chose to come here and spend their lives surviving on a pittance from the Government when there were opportunities to build proper lives in other countries? We did have a welfare state before the Celtic Tiger you know, so how do those of you who claim that refugees are all scroungers looking for dole explain this?

juslookin wrote:

Detainment camps in countries of destination......... if you have a cast iron story then you'll probably be OK

more conjecture

dathi1

We did have a welfare state before the Celtic Tiger you know, so how do those of you who claim that refugees are all scroungers looking for dole explain this?

The schengen agreement didnt exist...That's why.
Beware people infiltration by Indymedia International Marxists has just begun

juslookin

anarchobot wrote:

you really think that Ireland and Afghanistan are the same?

Extract from the most recent Amnesty International report on Afghanistan I could find (published April 05):

"Lawlessness and insecurity increased, hampering efforts towards peace and stability. Anti-government forces killed civilians involved in the electoral process, making large parts of the country inaccessible to humanitarian organizations. US forces continued arbitrary and unlawful detentions and failed to conduct independent investigations of reports that Afghan prisoners had been tortured and ill-treated. Armed groups committed abuses against civilians with impunity, including the abduction and rape of girls. Justice and redress were unobtainable for women who experienced widespread discrimination and violence in the community, including abduction, rape and forced marriage. Refugees were pressured into returning to Afghanistan despite continuing threats to their safety. A military commander was secretly executed after an unfair trial."

Yea, sounds just like life on the streets of Dublin. Idiot.

No, Ireland and Afghanistan are not the same. But it is a country of 30 million people and while lots of bad things are happening, bad things cannot be happening to all 30 million people.

Perhaps all 30 million should come to Dublin then ? Or does the international community work towards solving the problems internally. Because 30 million people can't all have asylum, in the country that they cherry pick to claim it in.

With regard to abduction, rape and forced marraiges and women who faced injustice in the community, Are these men in danger ? As it's a cultural, community thing, perhaps they are even guitly of this themselves ?

anarchobot

Ireland hasn't signed the Schengen agreement. What's your point exactly?

And calling me an "Indymedia International Marxist" (i think my name might be a giveaway that I'm actually an anarchist) is hardly an argument now, is it?

juslookin wrote:

As it's a cultural, community thing, perhaps they are even guitly of this themselves ?

You're Irish, yea? Perhaps you were in the IRA?

AngryAnderson

anarchobot wrote:

Care to provide any proof of this? No? Prejudice is an "opinion formed beforehand or without knowledge or examination of the facts." Since you admit that you are only presuming, you have just proven yourself to be prejudiced.



you really think that Ireland and Afghanistan are the same?

Extract from the most recent Amnesty International report on Afghanistan I could find (published April 05):

"Lawlessness and insecurity increased, hampering efforts towards peace and stability. Anti-government forces killed civilians involved in the electoral process, making large parts of the country inaccessible to humanitarian organizations. US forces continued arbitrary and unlawful detentions and failed to conduct independent investigations of reports that Afghan prisoners had been tortured and ill-treated. Armed groups committed abuses against civilians with impunity, including the abduction and rape of girls. Justice and redress were unobtainable for women who experienced widespread discrimination and violence in the community, including abduction, rape and forced marriage. Refugees were pressured into returning to Afghanistan despite continuing threats to their safety. A military commander was secretly executed after an unfair trial."

Yea, sounds just like life on the streets of Dublin. Idiot.




This is a very incoherent sentence, I'm not sure exactly what you're saying... Hovever, speaking as someone who is left-wing, I don't work with anyone who uses "racist" as a catch-all term for people who disagree with them. Ag marbh, for example, doesn't strike me as someone I would ever agree with. His/her arguments are not based on politics, they're based on morality, which tends to be the preserve of the right. To associate him/her with the left based on his/her stance on ONE issue is pretty spurious.

The lumping-together of left-wing activists with liberals and the "PC Brigade" is an over-simplification. I think you'll find that for most people on the left, "liberal" is actually an insult, not something we would ever self-apply.



There were relatively few, not none. If you had any common sense, an explanation would not be necessary. It makes no sense for refugees to travel half-way around the world to a poor country where there is no prospect of them ever living a normal life, where the possibility of future employment and "naturalisation" are practically non-existant. Why would anyone have chose to come here and spend their lives surviving on a pittance from the Government when there were opportunities to build proper lives in other countries? We did have a welfare state before the Celtic Tiger you know, so how do those of you who claim that refugees are all scroungers looking for dole explain this?



more conjecture

Um, so what's your solution then? Should we allow anyone who claims asylum here to live here because they're from a dangerous country? Where do you draw the line? Or would you even bother? What exactly ARE you marching for? Laissez-faire for anyone from a warzone to move to any Western country? If so, what is your recommendation for sorting out these dangerous countries? Because last time I checked it was the left who were moaning about the West's intervention... :rolleyes:

juslookin

Originally Posted by juslookin
I undertand that before the Celtic Tiger there were no Asylum Seekers in Ireland. Maybe some people can make a connection here.

anarchobot wrote:

There were relatively few, not none. If you had any common sense, an explanation would not be necessary. It makes no sense for refugees to travel half-way around the world to a poor country where there is no prospect of them ever living a normal life, where the possibility of future employment and "naturalisation" are practically non-existant. Why would anyone have chose to come here and spend their lives surviving on a pittance from the Government when there were opportunities to build proper lives in other countries? We did have a welfare state before the Celtic Tiger you know, so how do those of you who claim that refugees are all scroungers looking for dole explain this?

You are showing your true colours here now. Getting mixed up between Asylum Seekers and Economic Migrants, which is of course what this is all about.

It makes perfect sense for refugees, people in "genuine fear of their lives" and of "facing certain death" to travel to any country in the world to escape it. If I or my family were facing certain death I would transport them not half but the entire way round the world if needed. What is the alternative

You could claim asylum and move on if it was work that you sought, after all, first and foremost you wanted "asylum".

These "genuine asylum seekers" would come to Ireland because they wanted "Asylum" not "opportunities" which is what economic migrants seek.

Why did they not come before the Celtic tiger when there was a welfare system system in place ? Pre Celtic Tiger the asylum laws in their present state did not exist, so they were not there to be abused. There was no internet, no international network of people helping you exploit the system, crooked lawyers on legal aid, and an established community to hook up with who could tell you what to say and who to say it to.

Niave.

dathi1

Ireland hasn't signed the Schengen agreement. What's your point exactly?

FYI:http://oasis.gov.ie/moving_country/moving_abroad/schengen_agreement.html and my point was a rebuff to your point about the welfare system being in existence before our economy took off. AND yes Anarchist youth....what's the moto again??? oh yeah: open borders, let them all in etc etc....

juslookin

anarchobot wrote:

You're Irish, yea? Perhaps you were in the IRA?

You are playing the selective word games I outlined above.

So women are "discriminated" against in Afghanistan.

I'll think you find that happens in Ireland too. Perhaps women from Ireland should go and claim asylum somewhere.

Actually I'm not Irish

adonis

let them stay...why not? they arent gonna take your jobs or do anything untoward (probably not anyway)

or send them home, then send the illegal immigrants from america home -all the irish that are over there-..then everyone can only live in their own respective countries..thats what we want, more borders, more segregation, more control

anarchobot

juslookin: why are you arguing with an extract from an amnesty international report? i didn't write it. I merely used it as an example of how Afghanistan and Ireland are not similar, in order to rebutt something you said.

"So women are "discriminated" against in Afghanistan."

girls are abducted and raped by armed groups. according to a human rights group, not me. and that was one sentence in a paragraph. why focus on it?

daithi: quote from the link you posted "The Schengen area has been extended to include almost every EU Member State, with the exception of Ireland and the United Kingdom."

maybe you should read what you're referencing. And where did I say I was a member of Anarchist Youth?

How about engaging with points I actually made?

rkeane

They won't be getting asylum here on the basis of this stunt...so everybody relax. Even by some miracle they start dying - we (the majority) are not giving in to lefty anarchists.

Archeron

adonis wrote:

or send them home, then send the illegal immigrants from america home -all the irish that are over there-..then everyone can only live in their own respective countries..thats what we want, more borders, more segregation, more control

Not more control, just some control.

darkman2

Did McDowell really say this:


'I have, in the past, been confronted with threats of hunger strike by people who have sewn their mouths shut to demonstrate their determination. I have been confronted with threats of suicide, self-harm and so forth. It has been our invariable practice to refuse to be influenced by such tactics. No democratic society can do business on that basis and the Irish people would not tolerate us capitulating in such a fashion.'

That was on the Indymedia site (not that I believe the tripe on that site)

If he did say it, it looks like we are in for the long haul.

WhiteWashMan

attention

lovely people of boards.

i know you are all hot under the collar and i know you all have opinions that feel everyone needs to understand.

but remember one thing. if youre going to argue a point, try and back it up.
we've had an awful lot of complaints about this thread, but we've let it run becuase its a hot topic and some people are posting some interesting things on AH (for a change)

i would however ask that people argue the point they want to make. if you want to counter a point, argue the facts.

please stop bringing it down to petty personal point-scoring and name calling.

from here on out, this is going to be mdoerated tightly, and we will ban people. if anyone does get banned from here on out, please dont go running to the feedback forum to complain. you have been warned.

and just remember, its ok for other people to have opinions that are different, even opposite, to yours.

New_Departure06

darkman2 wrote:

Did McDowell really say this:


'I have, in the past, been confronted with threats of hunger strike by people who have sewn their mouths shut to demonstrate their determination. I have been confronted with threats of suicide, self-harm and so forth. It has been our invariable practice to refuse to be influenced by such tactics. No democratic society can do business on that basis and the Irish people would not tolerate us capitulating in such a fashion.'

That was on the Indymedia site (not that I believe the tripe on that site)

If he did say it, it looks like we are in for the long haul.

He has no choice but to take this position. The capitulation of the Belgian government to similar tactics has led to pver 30 churches being occupied there. http://www.brusselsjournal.com/node/1064

A final decision has not even been made on most of the Afghan asylum-claims regarding this hunger strike in St.Patrick's but still they are hunger-striking. I understand from the Dail debate last night that children are involved in the strike. As McDowell said, the HSE should fulfill its responsibilities if that is so. What kind of parent or responsible adult would entice children into a hunger-strike? Have they no shame?

darkman2

ND, your view I agree with, however I keep an open mind on these things.

IMO, so that we dont draw the wrong type of attention to the country something is going to have to give. We cant let them starve to death (surely you wouldnt reckon we should) and we cant just grant them asylum. The answer is dialouge, which in fairness the asylum seekers have refused to get involved in, in a meaningful manner.

I was listening to RTE radio this evening and there was a man on, in a posistion of authority on these matters and he said we have a 'crisis' here. He said, after visiting the men, that they will carry out their threat to the end.

Archeron

darkman2 wrote:

ND, your view I agree with, however I keep an open mind on these things.

IMO, so that we dont draw the wrong type of attention to the country something is going to have to give. We cant let them starve to death (surely you wouldnt reckon we should) and we cant just grant them asylum. The answer is dialouge, which in fairness the asylum seekers have refused to get involved in, in a meaningful manner.

I was listening to RTE radio this evening and there was a man on, in a posistion of authority on these matters and he said we have a 'crisis' here. He said, after visiting the men, that they will carry out their threat to the end.

I think that the image we are projecting to the world is quite good. We are concerned. Our bishops, our politicians, the UN, a lot of people are involved. We have emergency medical care in place in case of emergency. We will do our utmost to let no harm come to these men, and that is the right thing to do. Never in my life have a I seen a matter of principle on such a large scale. From what I have seen, the Irish people have made (generally) an educated response to this crisis. And it is a crisis. Something of such diplomatic importance has never happened before in Ireland, and we are handling it well. The people of Ireland should be pround' of their stance. Too many lives of genuine refugees need help for us to think any other way.

darkman2

Archeron wrote:

I think that the image we are projecting to the world is quite good. We are concerned. Our bishops, our politicians, the UN, a lot of people are involved. We have emergency medical care in place in case of emergency. We will do our utmost to let no harm come to these men, and that is the right thing to do. Never in my life have a I seen a matter of principle on such a large scale. From what I have seen, the Irish people have made (generally) an educated response to this crisis. And it is a crisis. Something of such diplomatic importance has never happened before in Ireland, and we are handling it well. The people of Ireland should be pround' of their stance. Too many lives of genuine refugees need help for us to think any other way.

A sign perhaps that the Asylum seekers may be prepared to give way:

http://www.rte.ie/news/2006/0518/asylum.html

Of course the government would never agree to outsiders making decisions on cases of asylum but its something.

Archeron

darkman2 wrote:

A sign perhaps that the Asylum seekers may be prepared to give way:

http://www.rte.ie/news/2006/0518/asylum.html

Of course the government would never agree to outsiders making decisions on cases of asylum but its something.

I hope the government open our policies and procedures to international interest and scrutiny immediately. If they find inefficiencies, we, and genuine refugees will be better for it. I doubt there would be many inefficiencies found. We want what is best for refugees, but we cannot be held to ransom. This has got to be the underlying point to this scenario.

darkman2

Archeron wrote:

I hope the government open our policies and procedures to international interest and scrutiny immediately. If they find inefficiencies, we, and genuine refugees will be better for it. I doubt there would be many inefficiencies found. We want what is best for refugees, but we cannot be held to ransom. This has got to be the underlying point to this scenario.

Do you agree that the government cant grant this demand? I think it would be a violation of sovereignty as it is our asylum system and no one should be allowed to tell us who we can and cant have in the country.

ChityWest

darkman2 wrote:

Do you agree that the government cant grant this demand? I think it would be a violation of sovereignty as it is our asylum system and no one should be allowed to tell us who we can and cant have in the country.

I think the nerve of these men is absolutely mind boggling. If I was fleeing persecution and certain death (as a result of things I did working for a violent regime now overthrown) and I had cherry picked the country with the best benefits to make my asylum claim in - the last thing I would seek to do would be to draw attention.

These men have done just that and are threatening violence against themselves in a very cynical and manipulative manner in order to terrorise people into giving them what they want so they can sidestep Irish law - and now lo and behold - they are ready to dictate terms ? Unbelievable.

juslookin

Ireland is already looking like a soft touch.

If I was a chancer I would be looking at the situation thinking there are enough bleeding hearts there to give me a good 50 / 50 chance, and I could string it out for years if I tried hard enough.

But I STILL wouldn't take a chance on stuffing heroin in a condom and hide it up my back passage in Thailand, spitting out chewing gum on the street in Singapore, or wearing a T shirt that said "I love Allah, Allah smokes Dope" in Iran (or Bradford, Leicester or Leeds for that matter).

If they get away with this, the message to the 100s of millions of potential economic migrants (or a very small number of criminal chancers and organised criminal gangs) around the globe is, "Get into Ireland, and they'll never be able to get you out". Given that you have a virtually unenforcable border with Britain, where the greatest minds of illegal immigration and systematic abuse are gathered, I'd be worried.

Archeron

darkman2 wrote:

Do you agree that the government cant grant this demand? I think it would be a violation of sovereignty as it is our asylum system and no one should be allowed to tell us who we can and cant have in the country.

I agree that they cannot grant this demand, and IMO, its not just on our own personal (Irish) grounds. We cannot set a precedent internationally that this can be an acceptable tactic. On all the grounds I can imagine, this is intolerable.
1. We have a clear legal policy. Where we can help, we will help. Thus the reason so many people try to come here. The people we have to help are those who need it, and we must deal with this in a calm orderly way. This protest dismisses this fact entirely.
2. Our lives and society are based on the fact that we live in a democracy. Moral blackmail falls outside democracies boundaries.
3. We are known, traditionally as a religious people. Certainly in Christianities eyes anyway. They have essentially shut down our largest most important cathderal for this protest. I would not interfere in their beliefs in this way, and I expect the same in return. Our most important religious leaders are calling for an end to this.

AngryAnderson

I am glad to see that this thread has returned to sensible, ordered reason dealing with the core issue and that the weirdos with their taunts of racism have started to disperse.

My thoughts on this are varied. As human beings, we cannot let these people kill themselves. If it means we have to strom the church and stuff and tube into these guys, then so be it. However, as a state we cannot be held to ransom by emotional blackmail. We always have been, and are now, a very generous nation for such a small island. Even when we were a poor country and didn't have much economic wealth to offer, we were spread across the globe in warzones and in parts of the world even lesser off than old Ireland - doing missionary and volunteer work in a more disproportionate ratio to nearly any other country in the Western world. We continue to be very generous in our prosperity. As do many countries in the West. But we have systems and rules. Our own incumbant people cannot break these rules and neither can people from other countries. No matter what their situation. If we let these Afghan men win by granting them asylum because they've threatened to kill themselves then we have lost control of this country. Because essentially it means that ANYONE who wants to live in this country should be allowed do so. Let's face it; no matter how left-leaning you are - the principle is ridiculous.