Page 5 of 9

Re: Afghanistan

Posted: Fri Aug 27, 2021 10:31 am
by Sciolus
jimbob wrote:
Thu Aug 26, 2021 10:11 pm
But the one that my girlfriend found was really telling, was the person saying animals were important and #AllLivesMatter which really highlights the racism
There are quite a few saying that animals are better than humans because humans are trashing the planet. Western humans might be trashing the planet, but the carbon footprint for Afghans is 0.2 t/head (UK: 5.4 t/head), less than the average westerner's dog or cat.

Re: Afghanistan

Posted: Sat Aug 28, 2021 12:45 pm
by Fishnut
I'm really not following the arguments that it's all ok that X got out because the plane was almost empty anyway. These are the flying version of life boats. Why the f.ck are they taking off without being full?
There's more than enough people who want to get on them. Fill the planes, get people out and let them apply for asylum where they land. Just get them out!!

Re: Afghanistan

Posted: Sat Aug 28, 2021 2:34 pm
by Woodchopper
Fishnut wrote:
Sat Aug 28, 2021 12:45 pm
I'm really not following the arguments that it's all ok that X got out because the plane was almost empty anyway. These are the flying version of life boats. Why the f.ck are they taking off without being full?
There's more than enough people who want to get on them. Fill the planes, get people out and let them apply for asylum where they land. Just get them out!!
They are taking off half empty because of lack of capacity to process people on the ground. They did though find the time to process some dogs: https://twitter.com/defencehqpress/stat ... 93347?s=21

Re: Afghanistan

Posted: Sat Aug 28, 2021 6:58 pm
by Fishnut
Why are they processing people on the ground? When the boat is sinking you don't check people's boarding passes before letting them on the life raft. Get them out and process them at the other end. They are refugees fleeing a country descending into hell. If your asylum rules will reject claims from any of these people your asylum rules are broken. Get them out, deal with the paperwork later. I cannot understand why we are trying to do administration on these people fleeing for their lives.

Re: Afghanistan

Posted: Sat Aug 28, 2021 8:36 pm
by plodder
Fishnut wrote:
Sat Aug 28, 2021 6:58 pm
Why are they processing people on the ground? When the boat is sinking you don't check people's boarding passes before letting them on the life raft. Get them out and process them at the other end. They are refugees fleeing a country descending into hell. If your asylum rules will reject claims from any of these people your asylum rules are broken. Get them out, deal with the paperwork later. I cannot understand why we are trying to do administration on these people fleeing for their lives.
They might be worried about letting e.g. a suicide jihadist onto the plane

Re: Afghanistan

Posted: Sun Aug 29, 2021 4:43 am
by dyqik
plodder wrote:
Sat Aug 28, 2021 8:36 pm
Fishnut wrote:
Sat Aug 28, 2021 6:58 pm
Why are they processing people on the ground? When the boat is sinking you don't check people's boarding passes before letting them on the life raft. Get them out and process them at the other end. They are refugees fleeing a country descending into hell. If your asylum rules will reject claims from any of these people your asylum rules are broken. Get them out, deal with the paperwork later. I cannot understand why we are trying to do administration on these people fleeing for their lives.
They might be worried about letting e.g. a suicide jihadist onto the plane
That wouldn't need paperwork to deal with. Just basic physical security searches.

Re: Afghanistan

Posted: Sun Aug 29, 2021 7:49 am
by Woodchopper
dyqik wrote:
Sun Aug 29, 2021 4:43 am
plodder wrote:
Sat Aug 28, 2021 8:36 pm
Fishnut wrote:
Sat Aug 28, 2021 6:58 pm
Why are they processing people on the ground? When the boat is sinking you don't check people's boarding passes before letting them on the life raft. Get them out and process them at the other end. They are refugees fleeing a country descending into hell. If your asylum rules will reject claims from any of these people your asylum rules are broken. Get them out, deal with the paperwork later. I cannot understand why we are trying to do administration on these people fleeing for their lives.
They might be worried about letting e.g. a suicide jihadist onto the plane
That wouldn't need paperwork to deal with. Just basic physical security searches.
The physical search will prevent a bomb on the plane. It wouldn’t stop a jihadist being flown to the US or UK.

As far as I’m aware they’re flying out people whose identities have been documented - for example translators who worked for the UK.

Re: Afghanistan

Posted: Sun Aug 29, 2021 12:15 pm
by dyqik
Woodchopper wrote:
Sun Aug 29, 2021 7:49 am
dyqik wrote:
Sun Aug 29, 2021 4:43 am
plodder wrote:
Sat Aug 28, 2021 8:36 pm


They might be worried about letting e.g. a suicide jihadist onto the plane
That wouldn't need paperwork to deal with. Just basic physical security searches.
The physical search will prevent a bomb on the plane. It wouldn’t stop a jihadist being flown to the US or UK.
And why is that a problem? If you can do paperwork to check for that before they get on the plane, you can do paperwork to check for that when they get off the plane.

Re: Afghanistan

Posted: Sun Aug 29, 2021 1:07 pm
by Woodchopper
dyqik wrote:
Sun Aug 29, 2021 12:15 pm
Woodchopper wrote:
Sun Aug 29, 2021 7:49 am
dyqik wrote:
Sun Aug 29, 2021 4:43 am

That wouldn't need paperwork to deal with. Just basic physical security searches.
The physical search will prevent a bomb on the plane. It wouldn’t stop a jihadist being flown to the US or UK.
And why is that a problem? If you can do paperwork to check for that before they get on the plane, you can do paperwork to check for that when they get off the plane.
That’s a good question. All the reports I’ve seen are that they’re only taking people who’ve been processed.

Perhaps I’m cynical but I assume it’ll be a lot easier to stop someone boarding than to send them back to Afghanistan later (especially if they had a valid reason to believe they’d be persecuted by the Taliban).

Re: Afghanistan

Posted: Sun Aug 29, 2021 2:01 pm
by jdc
https://twitter.com/witandwhiz/status/1431319892318375942 wrote:
Channel 4 news exposes Raab and Johnsons indolence and complete lack of grip of the detail.

45 senior Army personnel wrote to Johnson over a month ago imploring him to start the process of flying out Afghanis who had helped the British such as interpreters.

They did nothing.
See also Dannatt's comments reported in the Guardian:
“On the particular issue of those who we knew were in danger, people who had worked for us, interpreters, former locally engaged civilians, this issue has been in the media,” he told Times Radio.

“This issue has been on politicians’ desks for two to three years and, certainly, it’s been there during the course of this year … Back in July, 45 senior officers wrote to the government … saying there are people we are concerned about and if we don’t do the right thing, their blood will be on our hands. It is unfathomable why it would appear that the government was asleep on watch.”
Also
Pakistan government sources told the Sunday Times that the foreign secretary, Dominic Raab, had shown no interest in talking to them or Afghan ministers in the six months before the crisis.

Re: Afghanistan

Posted: Sun Aug 29, 2021 2:39 pm
by FlammableFlower
Government by disinterest.

Re: Afghanistan

Posted: Sun Aug 29, 2021 6:04 pm
by jdc
https://twitter.com/davidschneider/status/1431928024547696642 wrote:Emails for help ignored: 5000

People eligible to be brought out left behind: maybe 9000

Phone calls made by Raab to Afghan/Pakistan foreign ministers in last 6 months: 0

Resignations: 0
Ministers and officials accused the Foreign Office of negligence in preparing escape routes and claimed that up to 9,000 people who could have been eligible for rescue would be left behind.

It was also claimed that the decision by Dominic Raab, the foreign secretary, to remain on holiday at the start of the crisis cost vital days that meant up to 1,000 people have not been evacuated who otherwise would have been.
https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/afgh ... -6b0c2x9tx

Also this via Henry Mance:

Image

Re: Afghanistan

Posted: Mon Aug 30, 2021 3:05 am
by plodder
William Dalrymple on the parallels with previous British / Afghan wars: https://unherd.com/2021/08/afghanistan- ... -the-west/

Re: Afghanistan

Posted: Tue Aug 31, 2021 3:55 am
by Millennie Al
Fishnut wrote:
Sat Aug 28, 2021 6:58 pm
Why are they processing people on the ground? When the boat is sinking you don't check people's boarding passes before letting them on the life raft.
Are you familiar with the term "institutional racism"? Have you noticed the extreme racism and xenophobia in our immigration policies?

Re: Afghanistan

Posted: Tue Aug 31, 2021 3:37 pm
by tom p
dyqik wrote:
Sun Aug 29, 2021 12:15 pm
Woodchopper wrote:
Sun Aug 29, 2021 7:49 am
dyqik wrote:
Sun Aug 29, 2021 4:43 am

That wouldn't need paperwork to deal with. Just basic physical security searches.
The physical search will prevent a bomb on the plane. It wouldn’t stop a jihadist being flown to the US or UK.
And why is that a problem? If you can do paperwork to check for that before they get on the plane, you can do paperwork to check for that when they get off the plane.
One can also do it in the air. If the plane is going to return for another round of evacuations, just drop back anyone who is rejected. Simples.

Re: Afghanistan

Posted: Tue Aug 31, 2021 4:19 pm
by Trinucleus
HMG's settlement scheme for Afghan refugees is to be called Operation Warm Welcome

It replaces the Home Office's Operation F*ck of and Drown

Re: Afghanistan

Posted: Wed Sep 01, 2021 12:22 pm
by shpalman
the Pope quotes Putin but thought he was quoting Merkel
“It is necessary to put an end to the irresponsible policy of intervening from the outside and building democracy in other countries, ignoring the traditions of the people.”

Re: Afghanistan

Posted: Wed Sep 01, 2021 2:41 pm
by tenchboy
BBC News Live has this beauty:
A particularly difficult moment for Mr Raab came when asked by Mr Tugendhat about a key risk report from late July that spoke of a rapid Taliban advance that could lead to a return to power.

When Mr Raab asked for the source of this, he was met with a short response: "It's your principle risk report."

Re: Afghanistan

Posted: Wed Sep 01, 2021 5:29 pm
by WFJ
shpalman wrote:
Wed Sep 01, 2021 12:22 pm
the Pope quotes Putin but thought he was quoting Merkel
“It is necessary to put an end to the irresponsible policy of intervening from the outside and building democracy in other countries, ignoring the traditions of the people.”
If he was moved by the words of wisdom, would it matter who uttered them?

Re: Afghanistan

Posted: Thu Sep 02, 2021 6:38 am
by plodder
tenchboy wrote:
Wed Sep 01, 2021 2:41 pm
BBC News Live has this beauty:
A particularly difficult moment for Mr Raab came when asked by Mr Tugendhat about a key risk report from late July that spoke of a rapid Taliban advance that could lead to a return to power.

When Mr Raab asked for the source of this, he was met with a short response: "It's your principle risk report."
I don’t know why we tolerate a system where Raab hasn’t been fired.

Re: Afghanistan

Posted: Thu Sep 02, 2021 7:38 am
by Little waster
plodder wrote:
Thu Sep 02, 2021 6:38 am
tenchboy wrote:
Wed Sep 01, 2021 2:41 pm
BBC News Live has this beauty:
A particularly difficult moment for Mr Raab came when asked by Mr Tugendhat about a key risk report from late July that spoke of a rapid Taliban advance that could lead to a return to power.

When Mr Raab asked for the source of this, he was met with a short response: "It's your principle risk report."
I don’t know why we tolerate a system where Raab hasn’t been fired out of a cannon into a vat of steaming slurry and then had the lid put back on
FTFM

The Dutch once ate their Prime Minister when he turned out to be a useless tw.t.

Have we considered that approach pour encourager les autres?

Re: Afghanistan

Posted: Thu Sep 02, 2021 7:47 am
by tenchboy
plodder wrote:
Thu Sep 02, 2021 6:38 am
tenchboy wrote:
Wed Sep 01, 2021 2:41 pm
BBC News Live has this beauty:
A particularly difficult moment for Mr Raab came when asked by Mr Tugendhat about a key risk report from late July that spoke of a rapid Taliban advance that could lead to a return to power.

When Mr Raab asked for the source of this, he was met with a short response: "It's your principle risk report."
I don’t know why we tolerate a system where Raab hasn’t been fired.
It's probably gone now, but later on, when asked about those who had helped us but had been left behind, he said he would ensure there would be a full enquiry and that lessons would be learned.
Which I am sure was a great comfort to those still out there who are hiding in fear for their lives from gangs of murderous psycopaths*.
He may be very adept at giving glib answers and avoiding direct answers or indeed any meaningful answers at all; I'm no expert, but he does seem to approach the generally accepted criteria for being regarded as a c.nt.

Re: Afghanistan

Posted: Thu Sep 02, 2021 9:23 am
by plodder
I suppose (minor derail) that the tension between the executive and parliament has swung too far and will need to be reined in. Not sure what process that would take or what would trigger it though. How bad do things need to be before people can be forced to be held to account?

Re: Afghanistan

Posted: Thu Sep 02, 2021 2:02 pm
by tom p
plodder wrote:
Thu Sep 02, 2021 9:23 am
I suppose (minor derail) that the tension between the executive and parliament has swung too far and will need to be reined in. Not sure what process that would take or what would trigger it though. How bad do things need to be before people can be forced to be held to account?
You'll find out over the next couple of years

Re: Afghanistan

Posted: Thu Sep 02, 2021 4:24 pm
by IvanV
Fishnut wrote:
Sat Aug 28, 2021 6:58 pm
Why are they processing people on the ground? When the boat is sinking you don't check people's boarding passes before letting them on the life raft. Get them out and process them at the other end. They are refugees fleeing a country descending into hell. If your asylum rules will reject claims from any of these people your asylum rules are broken. Get them out, deal with the paperwork later. I cannot understand why we are trying to do administration on these people fleeing for their lives.
Who is "they"?

I have heard news items about Taliban processing the papers and refusing to let people through to the planes either if they didn't have just the right papers, or just because they felt like it. I have heard journalists interviewing Afghans in Kabul who were unable to leave for this reason.

I have also heard of Afghans being unable to get the papers the British promised them, which sounds like contributory negligence/hostile environment on the British side.

But were the British also "processing" and deciding who would be let on to empty planes, after you'd got past the Taliban, who wouldn't let you get that far without what at least the Taliban considered to be the papers necessary to let you leave? I have not read that and could not find it on a quick google.