BF2S Forums Does Socialized Medicine perpetuate Doctor Terrorists?

Turquoise wrote:

I wouldn't think that the U.K. is indifferent to terror at this point, but I'd say it's probably very difficult to scare them.  They haven't freaked out the same way we did after 9/11.  I think that should be admired, because it seems like most of them have maintained cool heads about all this (the people who attacked the Muslim establishments recently notwithstanding).

I just hope that the retaliation in Scotland doesn't lead to an escalation of ethnic conflict.  If it does, then the terrorists truly have won.

Not to downplay the recent terrorist attacks in Britain, especially the 7/7 bombings, but 3,000 people didn't die in one attack - two buildings that housed 50,000 people each didn't get destroyed. 

Granted, the UK stock exchange actually went UP after these attacks with the Doctor Terrorists.  I would hope the British aren't as complacent or accommodating to the terrorists, but you guys definitely have a much more leveled headed approach to terrorism that we in the United States (we freak out when the littlest thing happens here).



Has anyone asked what these Doctor and Medical technicians did while they were practicing?  How many vials of blood did they switch?  How many tests did they not read the results accurately?  Did they cause the deaths of others?  Is malpractice insurance for Muslim doctors higher?

Chaos_nation wrote:

I cant see where your going with this. Its irrespective that the organisers were doctors....they could have been dockers, it makes no difference. It has nothing at all to do with the UK's Health Service and how it is run.

You are correct.  They could had been lawyers or Computer Programmers here on H-1B Visas (in the U.S. high skilled immigrants can come here to work if the company pays the government about $10,000 to the government and can prove that the job could not be filled by an American), it would not had mattered.

But since the policies of a socialized medicine made it so doctors in the UK could not make the money that United States doctors had, it created a shortage of doctors in the UK, which then made them liberalize their immigration policy for foreign doctors.  This in turn gave these terrorists an 'in' and they exploited it.

Chaos_nation wrote:

Isolating your enemy does not protect you, it just makes you ignorant to their purpose and that is more of a threat. Paranoia is very dangerous.

Their purpose?  I believe they made it clear that their purpose is to kill us and impose Sharia law.  So allowing potential terrorists into your mists is better?  Would you invite a lion into your house?  I'm sorry, but I cannot agree with you on this point. 

Chaos_nation wrote:

Rather than trying to pick holes in the UK's health service, why don't you look closer to home to some of the route causes of why these people feel the need to drive badly made fire-bombs into airports.

We here in the United States too import foreign doctors, but generally have stricter requirements.  Not to say someone very determined could still milk the system, its just less likely.  Last year 21,000 foreign doctors applied to practice in the United States, but only 7,000 were allowed in after a lengthy arduous process.

Chaos_nation wrote:

Maybe if you stopped wetting your pants at the thought of a bomber carrying out an act of terror in the US, you would be more adept at doing what is more important in the war against terror and getting on with you life anyway. If a terrorist cannot change your way of life, he cannot win.

I don't understand why you don't want to do what can be done to stop terrorism?  Because you might hurt their feelings?  Don't you care about all the innocent civilians who may die because of your inaction?  Yes I want to live my life to its fullest.  Yes I want to bounce back as quickly as possible to normalcy to not allow terrorists the pleasure of affecting our moral or economy.  But to just ignore the attacks without trying to stop them?  What if it was your sister, your mother that was in the Glasgow Airport and the bomb actually went off?  What then?  Is is ok now?

Chaos_nation wrote:

By closing borders and stopping immigration you are giving the terrorist factions a clear message that you can be scared into submission.

Yes, the clear message is that we don't want any of you guys to have a chance to come into our country.  So if you're a moderate and not a terrorists you need to change the hearts of minds of those who are extremists in your county, to civilize it before we will allow you into our country.

Remember, you don't have the right to enter our county...its not yours.  If we wish to allow you into our country we will, but unfortunately there are too many extremists in your country for us to open the door.

Chaos_nation wrote:

If America had followed a closed border policy years ago, You would not be where you are today. Yes your parents were legal immigrants into the US and Yes they integrated (I would assume) into US society and now you have the hypocrisy to deny that to others.

I would only be a hypocrite if the people of the Dominican Republic had a large portion of their population extremists hell-bent on killing innocent civilians.  Luckily thats not the case so I don't consider myself a hypocrite.  If I were Muslim and from say Iran or Pakistan, then I would agree with you.

Chaos_nation wrote:

That is what really grinds me about your views on this, the fact that you are already in the US as a first generation citizen and you want to deny through your beliefs the chance for anyone else to do what your own parents did. There are many reasons why someone will leave the country that they were born in for a foreign land, poverty, a better chance for life/their familys etc, persecution the list can go on. You cannot discriminate someone's desires because they were born to a particular religion or in a particular country because in my eyes you would be just as much a danger to society than the UK's Terror Doctors.

Why can't I discriminate based on what country someone comes from?  If this was WWII and Nazi soldiers wanted entry into the United in 1943 should we had let them in because they said they wanted to have a better life?  I believe you think that they have a right to enter our country, that they have a right to a better life that our country affords its citizens?  And that by you being benevolently that you have a more moral standing because you want what you have for them?

The population of the world is 6,602,224,175 (July 2007 est.).  The population of the United States is 302,283,943 (July 2007 est.).  Should we then let in 6,299,940,232 people into the United States so you will feel good about it?

The reason why I'm advocating not allowing people from known terrorist harboring/supporting nations is because I don't want your mother to die.

Chaos_nation wrote:

There is an old saying that is so very true, "keep your friends close, keep your enemies closer".

Perhaps its,  "Keep your friends close, and your enemies with suicide vests as far as possible from you."?

Chaos_nation wrote:

If you can identify a threat and keep it under scrutiny you can remove it. If you cant watch it, you cant stop it.

How about if you keep it off your soil then they can't threat your local population.  Or at least have a much harder time to do so in your hometown.


Perhaps if I explain my position like this it'll be more clear:

/yoda Terror is the path to the dark side.
/yoda Extreme Islam leads to anger.
/yoda Anger leads to hate.
/yoda Hate leads to suffering.
/yoda Suffering leads to death.

Chaos_nation wrote:

Doctors in the UK can earn a good salary. In fact they earn a very good salary. I would like to know where you get your facts from to state anything otherwise. Or is it speculation to back up your "theory"?

Sure.  Take a look at General Surgeons in New York City in the United States vs. a General Surgeon in London:

US: General Surgeon in New York City in the United States - $199,103
UK: General Surgeon in London, Great Britain -  $120,329.11 (59,815 pounds)

How about comparing the salaries of a General Practice Doctor in New York City in the United States vs. a General Practice Doctor in London:

US:  General Practice Doctor - New York City, the United States - $126,045
UK: General Practice Doctor - London, Great Britain - $66,784 (49,009 pounds)

Seems to me its pretty clear that doctors in the United States make generally twice as much doctors in the UK?  I would think all the 'Beverly Hill' Plastic Surgery doctors in the United States probably make alot more than in the UK.

Chaos_nation wrote:

You are quoting this from where? I know a lot of muslims in the UK who are opposed to Sharia Law, would fight side by side in the streets to ensure that it would NEVER be allowed to take precedence. And by the way, the muslims I know have no desire to kill me or my family and neither do their families in packistan. And yes, if I knew a lion was a danger to the kids on the streets, I would take it into the house and I would damn well make sure it DIDNT eat the kids.

I'm happy to know that you personally know alot of moderate Muslims that go against the extremism that is terrorism in their religion...I just wish they were more vocal about it (minus the Muslim's United!), to condemn all the terrorist acts.  Problem is that its extremist Muslims that are largely committing these terrorist acts - the 8 suspects are not Catholic or Protestant doctors. 

As for the lion analogy, is it our responsibility to protect the world from terrorists?  You say to bring the lion into your home (UK), to protect the kids (other countries smaller than yourself).  Well you have by allowing all those imams to asylum in your country, and what did they do with their freedom?  They preached hate and encouraged terrorism. 

My take is you kill the lion (terrorists), because that's all it can understand.  That is why we are fighting terrorism abroad (offensive actions), instead of fighting terrorism defensively (a police action).

Chaos_nation wrote:

Why do you say that I do not want to stop the terrorists?

Because you say we should open our country up to countries like Pakistan, Iran, Syria.  By allowing people from those country into your country there will be a larger than normal chance that they will exploit your liberal immigration policy to do what they are doing in your country now. 

Chaos_nation wrote:

There has been a constant threat in the UK for a very long time now and I have known people who have been directly affected by the bombing in Birmingham by the IRA, and I know someone who was directly affected by the bus that was blown up in London.

I'm sorry that you had have loved ones affected by terrorism.  You have a strong love for extremist Muslims, much more than I.  The closest I've ever had to terrorism is when my father was in Beruit, Lebanon when the Marine barracks blown up killing 241 American servicemen.  Luckily he broke his thumb the day before and was flying back from the hospital ship to the barracks right before it was blown up.

I guess the IRA have conditioned you guys to terrorism?

Chaos_nation wrote:

I have lived with this all my life. I will never get used to talking to people I know when they talk about those who they lost. That said, those people do not demand that everyone who might want to plant a bomb be deported, they are better than that. They understand as do most of the population of the world (yourself excluded here for very obvious reasons) that cutting off all contact with anyone who may and I stress  may be planning to plant a bomb is NOT the answer. Giving the security forces more power is the answer.

The difference is that in the United States we have a distrust of the government.  Need I site examples of the Patriot Act that was passed immediately after 9/11 or the warrantless wire-tapping of foreign calls into the United States (which was resolved by the FISA courts).  Additionally you have your 10,000 CCTV camera system that you use...you can't get something like that in the United States.

Chaos_nation wrote:

Collaboration between security forces from different nations is the answer. How do you think the last attempt to blow up passenger jets was thwarted? Guesswork??

And I would hope we continue to cooperate in the War on Terror.  God knows that your Brits have been with us since the beginning and we are grateful for that. 

Chaos_nation wrote:

I really cannot give a toss about hurting feelings, but I will not condemn the thousands of muslims in the UK for the cowardly act of a few random assholes who believed that they were off to meet the virgins.

Again I can not agree with you there.  These countries are too dangerous for us to let them in.  We thought that it was disaffected youth that would do these suicide attacks, but with the recent events it debunked that theory where now even doctors, those sworn to saves lives, are ready to take it.

Chaos_nation wrote:

I am a UK citizen through a fluke of birth. You are only living in the USA because of the same reason. It is not your god given right to deny anyone else the opportunities that you have through a fluke.

I will have to disagree with you on this point.  Americans, or any other sovereign country, are not required to give the opportunities that their citizens enjoy.  Why can't we disallow people into our country?  You honestly believe that there is some law above our own sovereignty that says we must allow into our country?

Chaos_nation wrote:

You would never know if an extremist was "An extremist", they are hardly likely to admit it. So Pakistan stays quiet for a couple of years. No Terrorist events are lined to Pakistan. They "appear" to be moderate now. You start to let people from Pakistan back into the USA...your back to square one except now you have no idea of who to look for when they walk through your custom control.

That is the definition of a sleeper cell.  That type of cell is the most difficult to detect as you noted.  I'm not sure even the UK security forces could stop that.  But yes, if for a period of time, Pakistan was moderated, as moderate as say Egypt is now, then yes we should revise our immigration policy then, but not now.

Chaos_nation wrote:

Anyway, America is already full of terrorists. Its already too late for you.

So we should exacerbate the problem by letting more in?  We should root out as many as we can without adding any more in so they don't kill any  innocent civilians.

Chaos_nation wrote:

Have you not heard of the Cult that your government so graciously wiped out at Wako (and on TV too, nice PR stunt). That Cult was one of many that are well armed and waiting for a word from (and I am using this phrase very liberally) God before they start their own Armageddon.

Yep, that was under the Clinton administration, a democrat.  Janet Reno really fucked that one up.  Don't forget the Nike cult in San Diego...Hale Bop, that all killed themselves a couple of years ago.  We have some nut jobs in our country.

Chaos_nation wrote:

The Klu Klux Klan were terrorists, and you cannot honestly tell me that that organisation is no longer going, I refuse to believe that for one second. White supremacists are rife in the USA.

The KKK are marginalized.  I haven't heard of a recent attack from any of their members for quite a while.  I would agree with you though if they were still doing the lynching and cross burnings that they did in the 50's and 60's or blowing up Mercedez-benz cars full of propane, nails and gasoline, but they are not.

Chaos_nation wrote:

That is just three examples off the top of my head. All groups pose a very serious risk to some portion of your population.

I don't recall the Waco wackos posing a significant threat to innocent civilians.  But the KKK did reign their terror on blacks in the south, but again they have been marginalized.

Chaos_nation wrote:

Major over exaggeration there. A large proportion of Pakistanis do not even care about the UK or USA let alone want to kill us. Anyway, there is a risk in the Dominican Republic to tourists. That is why tourists are advised not to venture off on their own. Its bloody dangerous. Admittedly, it wouldn't be everyone who would pose the risk, their are some very nice friendly people on that island, but that said, there are also some who wouldn't think twice about killing a tourist for the money in their bumbag. So that does make you a hpocrite.

I disagree.  The Dominican Republic's population is no where near as dangerous as the Pakistani, Iranian or Syrian populations.  Yes there are thugs and criminals that prey on tourists, but no more so than say in Florida or L.A.  Do we have to worry about Dominicans blowing themselves up on the streets of New York each day?  Nope. 

Chaos_nation wrote:

Again with the generalisations. All Germans were not Nazis and there were many who fled Germany to escape the Nazi regime. Many fled Germany to be with their families in the USA, and there was no way of telling what political persuasion those people had when they arrived on the liners that took them there. The USA did not send them back to Germany, which would have meant a strong possibility of death for those poor sods who did escape. Those people had a right to life, nothing more. Your arguments would deny them that life.  You are not allowed to discriminate against someone because of their race or religion. THAT would make you the NAZI

You notice I said "Nazi soldier" and not "German citizen".  I only need to remind you that we accepted thousands of Germans fleeing the Nazi slaughter.  Heck, Einstein, a German Jew, fled and helped us make an atomic bomb to help us win the war - how ironic.

Chaos_nation wrote:

6,299,940,232 do not want to live in the United States. Their may be a couple of million out of that number who do, but then there are probably a couple of million people in the US who want to live somewhere else in the world. It kind of evens things out.

How so?  With your logic that would mean those who want to live in our country would have to displace those who do not want to live in the United States.  Also I'm pretty sure it more than a couple of million...if the last immigration debate showed there were at least 100 million ready to come to our country right now if the Democrats had their way to allow extended families to enter into the country.

Chaos_nation wrote:

My mother will does very well with our current policy but thank you for your concern.

Earlier you said you had people close that were affected by terrorism in your country.  For the safety of those you love I would think you would want them protected the best way possible.  To me that means not allowing people from dangerous countries into our country, to you, I think it means to allow them into your country and moderate them?  Is that correct?

Chaos_nation wrote:

Nope, its definately what I said, and not that. It wouldn't really be an old saying if it had suicide vests in it since that is a relatively new phrase.

You are being literal.  I was trying to be funny because in this case you don't want extremist Muslims near you because they are much more likely to have suicide vests than anyone else.

Chaos_nation wrote:

Erm, have you finished learning English yet? Are you still at school by the way? That is just a small observation. Nevermind. Still your point here, Terrorists have a very hard time already in my town. We tend to know who is who around here.

Perhaps that is because you guys are all anglo saxons?  A Muslim would probably stand out more there than here in the United States.  They don't call us the 'melting pot' for nothing.  Everyone is integrated, for the most part, here.  Yes you have your 'China Towns' or your 'Little Italy' sections, but really we are not segregated by race for the most part.  Here when we are segreated its usually by income in most places.

Chaos_nation wrote:

Final word. I am not going to debate this anymore.

Yet a couple of more paragraphs continue below?  I'm not trying to anger you, but its obvious that your beliefs are very strong in giving extreamist Muslims the benifit of the doubt.  See that's where we differ since I am advocating that we do not for all the reasons already stated, and that makes you angry and upset that someone could have a different viewpoint contrary to yours on this subject.

Chaos_nation wrote:

Ignorance leads to hate, that has been proven over the centuries.

I think the extremist Muslims make it pretty clear that they want to kill innocent civilians.  Seems pretty clear to me.  After 9/11 we didn't kill all the Muslims in our country, or try to expel them.  I mean there aren't any internment camps that we did with the Japanese during WWII, but we reserver the right to do so if our leaders determined it was in the best interest of our security of our nation.

Chaos_nation wrote:

Quoting a puppet from a film to suit your purpose doesn't make a blind bit of difference. Being ignorant of others (closed border theory) makes you hate what you cannot understand.

I think we understand them...they want to kill us and we don't like being killed.  Seems pretty simple to me.

Chaos_nation wrote:

You are talking from the viewpoint of an American, a young country about people who are following a perfectly good religion that has been around for over a thousand years.

Until Islam has a religion I won't consider it a 'good religion'.  I mean until Catholicism had a reformation they would do things like Crusades...need I even mention the Inquisition?  You only need to ask the Turks or the Spaniards how nice this 'religion of peace' was with them.  Basically it was convert or die.  That is what is happening today...many of these extremist Muslims are living in the Dark Ages still (i.e. you recall that Christian killed in Afghanistan about a year ago...stoned to death, and WE liberated them from the Taliban too).

Chaos_nation wrote:

I believe that it is your ignorance of what you cannot understand that leads to hate and that leads to the death of innocent people.

If ignorance means that less of our innocent citizens are killed then I guess I'm ignorant.  At this time I cannot agree with a liberal immigration policy with these countries.

Chaos_nation wrote:

For a country that is populated from the extremities of the globe (Yes the USA is NOT full of Americans, The Population of the USA can be traced back to Dutch, Germans, Koreans, Chinese, Japanese, Pakistanis, Indians, Saudi Arabians, Iraqis, Iranians, Syrians, Polish, Italians, French...Jesus the list is endless.) you have no right at all to condemn anyone born in a different country. You are Hispanic yourself, Not a true American.

Technically every country could trace its roots back to Africa.  We are a nation of immigrants, but when the Irish, Dutch, Germans, Koreans, Chinese, Japanese, Indians, Polish, Italians, and French came here they didn't strap on suicide vests to kill innocent civilians.  I was born in this country.  I am an true American because I pledge loyalty to it and am willing to die for it.

Chaos_nation wrote:

The History of the United States that is known and recognised today is very, very short. The USA is still growing as a Nation. Fine. If you want to close all the borders so potential terrorists cannot gain access do it. All you will have to worry about then is getting shot by the gangbangers, drug addicts or worse still...your school kids.

I don't believe domestic terrorism is good.  But in this case we have the power to stop it, so why not just stop immigration from countries like Iran, Pakistan and Iraq?  To me its a no brainer.  I would much rather deal with a gangbanger that takes his gat and does a drive by on a rival gang then have to deal with terrorists flying planes into our sky scrapers.

Chaos_nation wrote:

You have had one real attack on US soil and 3000 people lost their lives. Its sad, it created a big problem...you were not safe on your homeland. Well guess what! you never have been.

The difference is we are doing something about it with your help.  Right now there are drum beating from the war hawks in our country trying to drum up support for an attack on Iran.  Pakistan is now allowing us to enter their country to attack the Taliban.  The surge in Iraq seems to be working - we'll know for sure by September.

Chaos_nation wrote:

As long as you try to influence global policies of other nations as you are currently doing in Afghanistan and Iraq (admittedly with our assistance) you will have dissidents who want to strike back. So what is your response to that? Ignore the rest of the world, close all borders, shoot to kill on border crossings, sink any ship that approaches your ports and shoot down any aircraft that flys anywhere near the USA? Commit the atrocities that the terrorist commit but in the name of self defence? Yeah right, I can really see that happening.

Who said I wanted to close off legal immigration from countries like France or Germany?  I only want to close off immigration from those countries with disproportionate amount of extremist Muslims.  What atrocities have we committed?  Abu-grab?  A few guys with panties on their head?  Guantanamo? The best run prison for illegal combatants (those picked up attempting to kill our soldiers, that do not follow the Geneva convention because they do not wear a uniform fighting for a country).  If I recall we are still finding mass graves in Iraq...

Chaos_nation wrote:

Forget the fact that with closed borders you would quickly lose a very large portion of your tourist industry, you would have no imported goods, you would have no exports, jobs would be lost in their droves. It would be like the great depression all over again. Thousands starving to death because of no work to buy food. Great plan, really well though out. Your a frikkin genius. You have just sacrificed thousands of innocent people to satisfy your paranoia.

At no time did I mention closing off all immigration or tourism.  I speically mentioned cutting off immigration from those countries with disproportionate amount of extremist Muslims. 

Chaos_nation wrote:

Lets just back up a second. Lets not sink ships, shoot down tourist planes and shoot anyone crossing the borders. Lets keep our export and import companies going and sustain the tourist trade. How on earth are you going to stop a determined terrorist from entering the USA if they have a toursit visa or work visa? You can't.!!

We can try at least.  Problem is that the 9/11 hijackers were all here on expired visas.  With my proposal we wouldn't have ever let them in the in the first place.

Chaos_nation wrote:

There is no need to bring any weapons into the USA, christ you just go to a corner store, pay over the odds and you can come out with a full arsenal. Hmmm, No wonder your kids arent safe in school!

The ability to have guns is in our Constitution, in our Bill of Rights as the 2nd Amendment.  Those with visas are not allowed to buy guns.  Even those with Green Cards have heavy restrictions.  If one of the professors in the Virginia Tech shooting had a gun perhaps less than the 33 people would had been killed?  An armed society is a polite society.  If we didn't build up our nukes against the U.S.S.R. during the Cold War we would all probably be speaking Russian right now.  Weapons can be used as deterants. 

Extremist Muslims only understand violence...they cannot be reasoned with.  That's why even affluent doctors in the UK can be convinced to be suicide bombers.

Chaos_nation wrote:

You are screwed whichever way you look at it. So the choice is clear. Do you take a calculated risk, monitor the borders for potential and known terrorists who may pull off a stroke and kill some of your population or do you close all your borders and kill your population yourself because of the hardships that would follow. The USA cannot support itself. Don't be naive enough to think it can.

I beg to differ.  The amount of trade that we would loose from stopping immigration from these countries is a drop in the bucket.  We are not closing our borders, just not allowing those from those countries already mentioned not to be allowed in.  When they moderate their views they will be welcomed.  Until then, goto the UK, they will allow you in.


BTW, did you know that you guys changed your immigration policy for foreign doctors?  Many foreign doctors are complaining because they will not be able to finish their residency in the UK.

Last edited by Harmor (2007-07-07 21:59:31)

Isolating them, for the last time, WILL NOT HELP.

You don't solve terrorism by concentrating and isolating its breeding grounds.

Spark wrote:

Isolating them, for the last time, WILL NOT HELP.

You don't solve terrorism by concentrating and isolating its breeding grounds.

These terrorists are free to goto other countries, just not ours - that's what I'm advocating.  What's wrong with that.  Even Britain doesn't allow everyone into their own country.  France now with Sarkozy is taking a more stringent line on immigration.  The Netherlands are cracking down on Muslims after the murder of Van Gogh's family.

Harmor wrote:

Before the Catholics had a reformation, I would agree with you, they were as ruthless as the Muslims.  But after they had a reformation alot of the 'Old Testament' isn't adhered to.

No, but Christians have their ways.  Abortion clinics and doctors is what jumps to my mind.  But you are right, Christians, in general, do not seem quite as prepared to meet God as Muslims are to meet Allah.

Chaos_nation wrote:

This thread is all coming around to one conclusion, its nothing to do with the UK's Health Service at all or our immigration policies.

To cap it all off, no matter how you try to say it or word around it...you just hate muslims.

Nope, I don't hate Muslims, I hate what extremist Muslims are doing - killing innocent civilians.  If extremist Muslims went around in large peaceful rallies or they did civil disobedience then I wouldn't have a problem with them.

Chaos_nation wrote:

There can be no other explanation. You will happily allow French and German visitors to the USA but not Pakistanis or anyone from the Middle East under the guise of stemming terrorism. Which means that Christians are OK and of no threat to the USA but muslims are.

See above.

Chaos_nation wrote:

RECAP: So you are happy to deal with Countries that are governed by Christians but not ones by Muslims. That is the main point that keeps getting screamed out in this thread.

I am happy to deal with countries that have their extremist Muslim threat under control, like your country and France.  The country doesn't have to be governed by Christians...India, Japan, South Africa, and Kenya those are all fine and they aren't governed by Christians.

I think you are trying to pin me into being a bigot for Muslims and that is the furthest from the truth.  If anything I feel sorry for Muslims because the extremists perverted a religion that could be just as peaceful as Buddhism.

Chaos_nation wrote:

Have you not heard of German Extremist Muslims? French Extremist Muslims maybe? You have no chance of slowing down the movement of anyone whilst you have an open border to ANY other country.  You will not know the faith of a traveller just by the colour of their skin. Your theory just does not stand up to scrutiny.

Germany is not harboring or supporting extremist Muslims.  If we gave them enough information about a cell or a person inside Germany then the German government would prosecute.  A country like Iran does the opposite, so yes we should not allow immigration from Iran...to me its very clear.  The only thing that isn't is when do we allow immigration to continue after they have been banned?  What exactly would they have to do to gain our trust back.

Chaos_nation wrote:

Hey since we are talking about theories here I have one. Britain isolates itself from the USA. We leave you to it in Afghanistan and Iraq, and do not help out the UN with peacekeeping duties. There would be no need for Extremists to come to the UK to blow us up then. It doesn't matter to us that they may go to the USA and blow things up there as long as they don't do it here. We might even have collections for them to keep the bombs out of Britain. Hang about a bit, weren't you guys doing that back in the 80's and 90's for the Irish terrorists? (incidentally, I have no desire to stop any relations with the USA)

Unlikely.

Chaos_nation wrote:

On the point about having collections, didn't the USA arm the Taliban? They were called the Mujahadeen (someone correct my spelling please) back then but they were freedom fighters against USA's biggest enemy at the time so it was OK. Now they are freedom fighters in the name of Allah, only difference is that the USA is now the target along with the rest of the Western World. Foreign Policies change and we suffer the consequences for the acts of our fathers. That is life. Live with it.

Yes we armed the Mujahadeen against the Russians.  To us, at the time, the enemy of our enemy is our friend.  We did that to stop the Russians from expanding Communism and I agree with that policy.  But the difference is that the Taliban then turned their ire towards us and supported al-Qaeda...that's where they went wrong.

Chaos_nation wrote:

My mother would be proud of me for coming up with the isolate the UK from the USA theory. She wont be blown up (which the chances of happening are so small they are not worth contemplating or worrying about by the way). Doesn't matter what happens anywhere else just as long as she is safe. Of course she will have to go to Baghdad for her holidays now instead of Florida but I am sure that the Magic Kingdom in Baghdad is as good as the one in Florida.

I don't understand where you are going with this?

Chaos_nation wrote:

And for the record. I hate extremism in any form. Be it a muslim cleric preaching hate from Finsbury Park or the Mosques in Birmingham to the racists who want to rid Britain of anyone who isn't "white".  They have their viewpoint which I strongly protest against. Closing down borders to them just drives them underground making them harder to trace and eventually stop.

I agree with you, I hate extremist Muslims too.  What I think what you guys should do in the UK is follow what we do in the United States.  Even though we have free speech here in the United States you cannot do what the extremist imams that you asylumed - you can be arrested for conspiracy to commit terrorism.

Chaos_nation wrote:

We can go on for ever putting forward theories etc as to who is right here and why and between the two of us we would get no where.

I'm having a great time debating this.  I enjoy the fact that we can debate civilly and are not strapping bombs to blow up innocent civilians to prove our point.

Chaos_nation wrote:

Why not stop the counter arguments now and let the rest of the forum users have a simple yes or no vote on the initial question.

I vote NO as you will have noticed. Socialised Medicine does not perpetuate Doctor Terrorists.

There is no need.  Its very clear and I'll explain it here again:

1.  British doctors make less than American doctors because of Socialized medicine.
2.  Less British want to be doctors so they become another profession that isn't as regulated.
3.  The British now have a shortage of doctors.
4.  They fill this need for doctors with foreign doctors.
5.  To do this they change their immigration policy to allow foreign doctors, from even extremist Muslim supporting/harboring nations, to enter
6.  Extremist Muslims exploit the British immigration policy to enter Britain


I think you would agree that its pretty simple and straight forward.  Where am I wrong?

BTW, this argument would go for ANY profession...the key is #5 above...once you do that the extremist Muslims will exploit it and your use generosity to kill you.

Chaos_nation wrote:

1) A lot of professions in the UK earn a lot less than they do in the states so this does not have anything to do with perpetuating Terrorist Doctors.
2) Has nothing to do with perpetuating Terrorists
3) As 2
4) Still has nothing to do with perpetuating terrorists
5) Lack of Doctors in the UK was not the reason for changing immigration policy. Blame Europe for that and the asylum system. Abu Hamza the most famous of the preachers of hate was here as a political asylum seeker, not an immigrant.
6) Everyone exploits the immigration system. Still it does not perpetuate Doctor Terrorists.

In addition to the point you mentioned, the asylum system, and the fact that doctors are scarce for the reasons I made previously is why you are allowing more extremist Muslims into your country.  Thus why should you not be surprised that they commit terrorism? 

Chaos_nation wrote:

In answer to you question, you are wrong on all 6 points. None of these points perpetuate Doctor Terrorists.

See above.

Chaos_nation wrote:

What does perpetuate terrorism is ignorance,

Because you 'opened up' your immigration of extremist Muslims you are less ignorant?  To me that is ignorant because why would you let more of your enemy into your mist?  So they can kill you here instead of overseas?

Chaos_nation wrote:

foreign policy

Because we do business and have alot of immigration means that their business is our business...its within our interest.  As has been stated before, because we can do something about a problem means we think we can solve it...case in point Iraq.  Problem is our leaders didn't understand the problem and did not expect that the Iraqis would have a civil war.  Bush wants to allow 7,000 Iraqis into our country, which I appose because we have no idea what their background is.  I'm sure the UK would allow them in and wait till a small portion of them commit a terrorist act, I mean you guys rely on your Security Forces, yet your Security Forces did not thwart this latest attack of these Doctor Terrorists.

Chaos_nation wrote:

and external influences from other Nations through their foreign policy. Again nothing to do with our health service.

Everything to do with your Socialized Health Care system.  In the United States we have alot of illegals who come here because we never refuse medical treatment at our Emergency Rooms.  Have you tried going to the Emergency Room in San Diego or any border town with Mexico?  I had to go into an Emergency Room about 3 years ago and it took them 9 hours before a doctor could see me...and I had Health Insurance.

So I also believe that because of your stellar Health care system its a draw, a sink, for immigration, plus the fact that you allow many more extremist Muslims into the UK there is no surprise that you have had many more attacks that we have in the United States since 9/11.  Granted the 10 plane plan you guys thwarted flying form England to the United States would had been worst than 9/11 so I can't knock you for that.

Chaos_nation wrote:

Isolationism from these countries that you deem to harbour encourage terrorism is like trying to stop a an infection from a splinter in your small finger by cutting off your arm. Its Overkill. Just find the splinter and get it out.

Well what I'm purposing is wearing gloves (stopping immigration, i.e. the splinter from ever touching the finger, our soil), so we wouldn't have the splinter in the first place, or if we do it'll have to one pretty big splinter to get through our defenses.  Stopping immigration from these country that harbors/encourages terrorism is overkill?  To me that is the primary reason why we should stop immigration from a country that does that.  Until they can get their act together and prove to us that they are not a country that harbors/encourages terrorism then the door is locked.  We however, will work with them as best we can to help them along the way as long as they want our help (i.e. Pakistan now allowing us into their country to attack the Taliban).



I think we are going in circles.  Neither of us will convince the other their point.  We literally have written a few chapters to a book with our debate so far.  So unless you can come up with some other reasons why we should stop immigration from countries that harbor/encourage terrorism not already stated we might as well close this thread.

Last edited by Harmor (2007-07-08 18:25:10)

No keep this thread going. I want at least 10 pages of this stupidness.

Harmor wrote:

Spark wrote:

Isolating them, for the last time, WILL NOT HELP.

You don't solve terrorism by concentrating and isolating its breeding grounds.

These terrorists are free to goto other countries, just not ours - that's what I'm advocating.  What's wrong with that.  Even Britain doesn't allow everyone into their own country.  France now with Sarkozy is taking a more stringent line on immigration.  The Netherlands are cracking down on Muslims after the murder of Van Gogh's family.

Nothing.

But, as the post after yours shows, you aren't advocating TIGHTENING immigration.

You are advocating BANNING IMMIGRATION FROM THOSE COUNTRIES, which is somewhat extreme.

PureFodder wrote:

Chaos_nation wrote:

PureFodder wrote:

No keep this thread going. I want at least 10 pages of this stupidness.

Are you saying that everything in this thread is stupid? There are no valid arguments being made by either side or is it just a ridiculous subject to debate?

The latter.

Ahh ok then