Should President Trumps state visit to Britain be banned?

I'm surprised the Queen invited him in the first place tbh.

The latest update is more than one million people have signed the petition to say he should be banned from coming here on a state visit.


http://www.mirror.co.uk/news/uk-news/sadiq-khan-demands-donald-trumps-9716177

"London Mayor Sadiq Khan - the first Muslim mayor of a major western city - has demanded Donald Trump’s state visit to the UK is cancelled.
He told Sky News: "I am quite clear, this ban is cruel, this ban is shameful, while this ban is in place we should not be rolling out the red carpet for President Trump.
"I don't think he should be coming on a state visit while the ban is in place, I couldn't be clearer."
He said the ban "flies in the face of the values" the US was built on.
He added: "I'm pleased that the Prime Minister has now said she and the Government do not agree with President Trump's policy, which will affect many British citizens who have dual nationality, including Londoners born in countries affected by the ban."

The simple answer is no.
Two wrongs do not make a right and by banning him, gives credence to his reasoning to ban people through the view they are a threat.
The people calling for his ban see Trump as a threat, so I fail to see how this achieves anything by doing as he is doing.

It would be far more productive to have him visit and hundreds of thousands turn out to protest against him. One thing he thrives on is his image, and it will demoralize him to face such hostility, outside his comfort zone.

I personally don't think he should be banned from coming to GB Thor, like you say  that would be like following his own narrow minded views. I do think a state visit, staying at the palace with all the royal hospitality should not be laid out for him though.

Syl wrote:I personally don't think he should be banned from coming to GB Thor, like you say  that would be like following his own narrow minded views. I do think a state visit, staying at the palace with all the royal hospitality should not be laid out for him though.

They would never snub him like that, what with Brexit on the horizon, though I agree they should not give him a state visit. Lets see if our leaders have the balls to refuse him one and just invite him over to meet some people.

Last count this AM on the petition against was 1,200,000 and climbing.

Why should he be banned this is just stupid and very childish , he is the President of America and we are supposed to be a tolerant country lol - or are we only tolerant when it suits us ?

I'm in favour of him coming here and in favour of a state visit . Fair is fair .

Original Quill wrote:Last count this AM on the petition against was 1,200,000 and climbing.

So about 2% of the population.

Yet another media circus. People voted him him. It's their country. They have the right to do what they want. As for him coming here, who gives a fuck. Don't deprive some leftie maniacs their right to pelt the prat with rotten eggs and bags of self raising.

HoratioTarr wrote:Yet another media circus.   People voted him him.  It's their country.  They have the right to do what they want.   As for him coming here, who gives a fuck.  Don't deprive some leftie maniacs their right to pelt the prat with rotten eggs and bags of self raising.

Er not right really, as a President has to abide by the laws.
I think he should come here and be humiliated by the public, simply by booing him, it will effect his ego.

He should be respected - its a disgrace the comments here wanting to publicly ridicule a President of America .

If a leader of a muslm country came over would you want him to be publicly humilated ???

HoratioTarr wrote:Yet another media circus.   People voted him him.  It's their country.  They have the right to do what they want.   As for him coming here, who gives a fuck.  Don't deprive some leftie maniacs their right to pelt the prat with rotten eggs and bags of self raising.

No, he was not voted in. He was appointed by the electoral college. He lost the popular vote by a total of 10-million votes, including the Libertarians and Green Party votes.

He is the diametric opposite of what the majority of the American people wanted. Don't get me wrong, he was lawfully appointed. But don't misrepresent the procedures.

Nope. He shouldnt  be banned. What, are countries now just going to follow a big mass-hysteria hate that seems to be sweeping the world, and start banning people from entering countries?

Isn't that what we dislike about him? Segregating people?
It's all a bit pathetic if you ask me.

Seems there is always an excuse now for the losers - such as our Brexit vote ( oh it was just and advisory) and now the President of America wasn't voted in it was the electoral college , for goodness sake he is the President accept it and try to make your country work instead all this division . Just like here the losers have managed to divide our country because they cannot accept democracy .

eddie wrote:Nope. He shouldnt  be banned. What, are countries now just going to follow a big mass-hysteria hate that seems to be sweeping the world, and start banning people from entering countries?

Isn't that what we dislike about him? Segregating people?
It's all a bit pathetic if you ask me.

Just this morning, Iraq's Foreign affairs committee as well as militia coalition has just voted to ban all Americans from coming into their country. So, I guess so.

Vicar of Dibley (vod) wrote:Seems there is always an excuse now for the losers - such as our Brexit vote ( oh it was just and advisory) and now the President of America wasn't voted in it was the electoral college , for goodness sake he is the President accept it and try to make your country work instead all this division . Just like here the losers have managed to divide our country because they cannot accept democracy .

You can't ignore the reality of it, though.  To use democratic euphemisms--such as 'the American people wanted it'--is false and misleading.  Recognizing that America is not a full democracy, and speaking with more precision helps guide others away from misapprehensions.

It's not all about being 'nice-nice'.  Trump is in a precarious position.  At some point he is likely to be impeached.  If you mislead others into thinking all is well, they may be caught completely off guard.

I do think that some people genuinely dislike the guy, but it also seems in vogue to hate and petition against people, and what these sheeple don't seem to realise is that they're doing exactly to him, what they dislike about him doing to others!

It's all double-standards and hypocrisy and people just follow blindly without actually thinking.

Original Quill wrote:

Vicar of Dibley (vod) wrote:Seems there is always an excuse now for the losers - such as our Brexit vote ( oh it was just and advisory) and now the President of America wasn't voted in it was the electoral college , for goodness sake he is the President accept it and try to make your country work instead all this division . Just like here the losers have managed to divide our country because they cannot accept democracy .

You can't ignore the reality of it, though.  To use democratic euphemisms--such as 'the American people wanted it'--is false and misleading.  Recognizing that America is not a full democracy, and speaking with more precision helps guide others away from misapprehensions.

It's not all about being 'nice-nice'.  Trump is in a precarious position.  At some point he is likely to be impeached.  If you mislead them into thinking all is well, they may be caught completely off guard.

It just seems to be a worldwide tantrum whenever something doesn't go the way people want . It is just so ridiculous and its getting really boring to honest . I mean how many protests do we have to see in the news daily or how many petitions do we have hear about .
I remember a time when people accepted a result and that was it - everyone got on with life and lived with the out come .

Would you expect Hilary Clinton to be impeached with the things she has done if she had won ?

eddie wrote:I do think that some people genuinely dislike the guy, but it also seems en vogue to hate and petition against people, and what these sheeple don't seem to realise is that they're doing exactly to him, what they dislike about him doing to others!

It's all double-standards and hypocrisy and people just follow blindly without actually thinking.

I think you are 180° wrong in that. Trump has created such division in America, normalized incivility and disregarded the laws and Constitution, that he has taken America to a place where most Americans don't want to be. Certain behaviors are not a double standard when someone has stolen your wallet and is holding a gun to your head.

Were we back on former ground, your point might be well-taken. Indeed, most people would like to be back in that place. To paraphrase Barry Goldwater, extremism in the defense of civility is no vice.

Original Quill wrote:

eddie wrote:I do think that some people genuinely dislike the guy, but it also seems en vogue to hate and petition against people, and what these sheeple don't seem to realise is that they're doing exactly to him, what they dislike about him doing to others!

It's all double-standards and hypocrisy and people just follow blindly without actually thinking.

I think you are 180° wrong in that.  Trump has created such division in America, normalized incivility and disregarded the laws and Constitution, that he has taken America to a place where most Americans don't want to be.  Certain behaviors are not a double standard when someone has stolen your wallet and is holding a gun to your head.

Were we back on former ground, your point might be well-taken.  Indeed, most people would like to be back in that place.  To paraphrase Barry Goldwater, extremism in the defense of civility is no vice.

Okay well I guess that makes sense but to ban someone from a country?
That's simply taking it too far and I don't even like the guy myself.

Vicar of Dibley (vod) wrote:Why should he be banned this is just stupid and very childish , he is the President of America and we are supposed to be a tolerant country lol - or are we only tolerant when it suits us ?

I'm in favour of him coming here and in favour of a state visit . Fair is fair .

I say let him come....on an official visit not a state visit.

I wonder if a few decades ago people would be supporting a state visit for Hitler?

Just because a person has been elected as leader in their own country surely other countries are not expected to give them great privileges, and being invited and entertained by the queen is still considered a high honour here.

Vicar of Dibley (vod) wrote:

Original Quill wrote:

Vicar of Dibley (vod) wrote:Seems there is always an excuse now for the losers - such as our Brexit vote ( oh it was just and advisory) and now the President of America wasn't voted in it was the electoral college , for goodness sake he is the President accept it and try to make your country work instead all this division . Just like here the losers have managed to divide our country because they cannot accept democracy .

You can't ignore the reality of it, though.  To use democratic euphemisms--such as 'the American people wanted it'--is false and misleading.  Recognizing that America is not a full democracy, and speaking with more precision helps guide others away from misapprehensions.

It's not all about being 'nice-nice'.  Trump is in a precarious position.  At some point he is likely to be impeached.  If you mislead them into thinking all is well, they may be caught completely off guard.

It just seems to be a worldwide tantrum whenever something doesn't go the way people want . It is just so ridiculous and its getting really boring to honest . I mean how many protests do we have to see in the news daily or how many petitions do we have hear about .
I remember a time when people accepted a result and that was it - everyone got on with life and lived with the out come .

Would you expect Hilary Clinton to be impeached with the things she has done if she had won  ?

You're acting like this was a normal election, with two relatively qualified candidates who could at least be expected to be competent. Even George W. Bush spent six years serving as governor of the second-largest state.

Culturally, Bush was and remains conservative, but American parents never had to worry about explaining to their kids why the president bragged about grabbing women by the pussy. He had a great number of inept moments, but they were the punctuation marks in the story of his presidency, not the entire text, as Trump's has been thus far.

What we have now is a president who can be instantly distracted from his duties simply because some celebrity ridicules him; who may have colluded with Russia to win; who may be compromised by Russia; who while addressing the heads of national security goes on a rambling diatribe about the size of the crowds on Inauguration Day; who pulls executive orders seemingly out of his ass rather than putting any thought or planning into them; and on and on.

Me being angry about that is not anger that my side didn't win -- it's anger over what Trump is doing to my country. For you to act like the millions of people who are angry about what Trump is doing are simply sore losers is pretty shitty.

I take it you don't like him then !

nicko wrote:I take it you don't like him then !

At least I have some good reasons

I forgot to address what VOD said about Clinton -- first of all, I don't think she's been proven to have done anything she could have been impeached over. Secondly, I just do not understand the hatred for her.

Syl wrote:I'm surprised the Queen invited him in the first place tbh.

The latest update is more than one million people have signed the petition to say he should be banned from coming here on a state visit.


http://www.mirror.co.uk/news/uk-news/sadiq-khan-demands-donald-trumps-9716177

"London Mayor Sadiq Khan - the first Muslim mayor of a major western city - has demanded Donald Trump’s state visit to the UK is cancelled.
He told Sky News: "I am quite clear, this ban is cruel, this ban is shameful, while this ban is in place we should not be rolling out the red carpet for President Trump.
"I don't think he should be coming on a state visit while the ban is in place, I couldn't be clearer."
He said the ban "flies in the face of the values" the US was built on.
He added: "I'm pleased that the Prime Minister has now said she and the Government do not agree with President Trump's policy, which will affect many British citizens who have dual nationality, including Londoners born in countries affected by the ban."

The fact is, of course, that Her Majesty did not invite Trump to visit the UK on a state visit; the invitation was offered in her name.

We have, thank God, a Head of State who is above politics and who has always, throughout her long reign,
followed to the letter the true conventions of a constitutional monarchy. The Prince of Wales may well be a very different kettle of fish in that he has a reputation for endlessly interfering in political matters with his infamous "black spider" missives, but Elizabeth the Second, by the grace of God, etc.,etc. is still our Queen, and as such is our legal Head of State.

The invitation was a political matter, taking into account not only political considerations but also considerations of trade (made more important by this country's wise decision to leave the demonstrably undemocratic and authoritarian European Union), economics and security.

It would have been proposed by the Cabinet Office with the approval of the Prime Minister; considered by a committee of Her Majesty's Privy Council and presented for her approval with a recommendation of acceptance.

Trump, odious a character though he may be, is the democratically elected President of the United States (Quill, it is to my great regret that we cannot meet and argue this matter in a civilized and friendly manner as befits two people with similar interests and academic qualifications) and as such is entitled to be afforded the honour of a full state visit to the United Kingdom.

Personally, I think that the invitation is premature and should have been delayed for at least six months,but I fully accept that the new US administration very publicly honoured the UK with their very prompt invitation to Prime Minister May to Washington as the first international national leader to be received by Trump and that this had to be reciprocated in accordance with diplomatic convention.

As to the results of the UK internet "petition" calling for the cancellation of the invitation, this means absolutely nothing. Those who hate Trump, for whatever reason, are entitled in a free society to say so...but their freedom does not extend to controlling government policy.

And anyway, just how many of those who clicked on the petition were chanting their slogans and demonstrating in the streets when Islamic extremists murdered about 3,000 American citizens as an expression of their values and rights on 9/11?

Fred Moletrousers wrote:

Syl wrote:I'm surprised the Queen invited him in the first place tbh.

The latest update is more than one million people have signed the petition to say he should be banned from coming here on a state visit.


http://www.mirror.co.uk/news/uk-news/sadiq-khan-demands-donald-trumps-9716177

"London Mayor Sadiq Khan - the first Muslim mayor of a major western city - has demanded Donald Trump’s state visit to the UK is cancelled.
He told Sky News: "I am quite clear, this ban is cruel, this ban is shameful, while this ban is in place we should not be rolling out the red carpet for President Trump.
"I don't think he should be coming on a state visit while the ban is in place, I couldn't be clearer."
He said the ban "flies in the face of the values" the US was built on.
He added: "I'm pleased that the Prime Minister has now said she and the Government do not agree with President Trump's policy, which will affect many British citizens who have dual nationality, including Londoners born in countries affected by the ban."

The fact is, of course, that Her Majesty did not invite Trump to visit the UK on a state visit; the invitation was offered in her name.

We have, thank God, a Head of State who is above politics and who has always, throughout her long reign,
followed to the letter the true conventions of a constitutional monarchy. The Prince of Wales may well be a very different kettle of fish in that he has a reputation for endlessly interfering in political matters with his infamous "black spider" missives, but Elizabeth the Second, by the grace of God, etc.,etc. is still our Queen, and as such is our legal Head of State.

The invitation was a political matter, taking into account not only political considerations but also considerations of trade (made more important by this country's wise decision to leave the demonstrably undemocratic and authoritarian European Union), economics and security.

It would have been proposed by the Cabinet Office with the approval of the Prime Minister; considered by a committee of Her Majesty's Privy Council and presented for her approval with a recommendation of acceptance.

Trump, odious a character though he may be, is the democratically elected President of the United States (Quill, it is to my great regret that we cannot meet and argue this matter in a civilized and friendly manner as befits  two people with similar interests and academic qualifications) and as such is entitled to be afforded the honour of a full state visit to the United Kingdom.

Personally, I think that the invitation is premature and should have been delayed for at least six months,but I fully accept that the new US administration very publicly honoured the UK with their very prompt invitation to  Prime Minister May to Washington as the first international national leader to be received by Trump and that this had to be reciprocated in accordance with diplomatic convention.

As to the results of the UK internet "petition" calling for the cancellation of the invitation, this means absolutely nothing. Those who hate Trump, for whatever reason, are entitled in a free society to say so...but their freedom does not extend to controlling government policy.

And anyway, just how many of those who clicked on the petition were chanting their slogans and demonstrating in the streets when Islamic extremists murdered about 3,000 American citizens as an expression of their values and rights on 9/11?

Not sure how you are making a comparison to 9/11 a the President of the United States?
I do not recall there being a state visit for the Al-Qaeda Operatives that carried out 9/11?
If I recall most people were in shock and mourning, as it was such a tragic loss of life.
Trump has not killed anyone, "yet", this is about how he is going above the US law and what it has signed up to with refugees. Now if he wants to make the system have more security checks, that is fine, but to pick out 7 nations and place a temp ban on all citizens of those nations is flawed, prejudiced and ultimately going to send some people to their deaths.

Need I remind you of the British White Paper of 1939, that restricted Jewish immigration to the British Mandate of Palestine. Let alone Jewish restriction to the US and UK. Which fundamentally sentenced thousands of Jews to their death in Europe. Such measures past and present are born from a fear and prejudice. Its more likely that the US will be attacked by someone homegrown terrorist, let alone how its so easy for terrorists to go through the EU then on to the US. So putting up such a crowd pleaser, for which this ban was really about. Was to please his supporters. It has little ability to stop terrorism.

Now do we have an imbalance on how we view some leaders and countries in the West to how we view them in the East?
Absolutely?
Is it wrong?
Absolutely
Is it holding some nations to an unequal standard?
Absolutely

As already stated, I do not think we should ban him, but I do think people should protest him when he is hear to show rightly the UK does not support his intolerant views.

Ben Reilly wrote:

nicko wrote:I take it you don't like him then !

At least I have some good reasons

I forgot to address what VOD said about Clinton -- first of all, I don't think she's been proven to have done anything she could have been impeached over. Secondly, I just do not understand the hatred for her.

I don't hate anyone .

Thorin wrote:

Fred Moletrousers wrote:

The fact is, of course, that Her Majesty did not invite Trump to visit the UK on a state visit; the invitation was offered in her name.

We have, thank God, a Head of State who is above politics and who has always, throughout her long reign,
followed to the letter the true conventions of a constitutional monarchy. The Prince of Wales may well be a very different kettle of fish in that he has a reputation for endlessly interfering in political matters with his infamous "black spider" missives, but Elizabeth the Second, by the grace of God, etc.,etc. is still our Queen, and as such is our legal Head of State.

The invitation was a political matter, taking into account not only political considerations but also considerations of trade (made more important by this country's wise decision to leave the demonstrably undemocratic and authoritarian European Union), economics and security.

It would have been proposed by the Cabinet Office with the approval of the Prime Minister; considered by a committee of Her Majesty's Privy Council and presented for her approval with a recommendation of acceptance.

Trump, odious a character though he may be, is the democratically elected President of the United States (Quill, it is to my great regret that we cannot meet and argue this matter in a civilized and friendly manner as befits  two people with similar interests and academic qualifications) and as such is entitled to be afforded the honour of a full state visit to the United Kingdom.

Personally, I think that the invitation is premature and should have been delayed for at least six months,but I fully accept that the new US administration very publicly honoured the UK with their very prompt invitation to  Prime Minister May to Washington as the first international national leader to be received by Trump and that this had to be reciprocated in accordance with diplomatic convention.

As to the results of the UK internet "petition" calling for the cancellation of the invitation, this means absolutely nothing. Those who hate Trump, for whatever reason, are entitled in a free society to say so...but their freedom does not extend to controlling government policy.

And anyway, just how many of those who clicked on the petition were chanting their slogans and demonstrating in the streets when Islamic extremists murdered about 3,000 American citizens as an expression of their values and rights on 9/11?

Not sure how you are making a comparison to 9/11 a the President of the United States?
I do not recall there being a state visit for the Al-Qaeda Operatives that carried out 9/11?
If I recall most people were in shock and mourning, as it was such a tragic loss of life.
Trump has not killed anyone, "yet", this is about how he is going above the US law and what it has signed up to with refugees. Now if he wants to make the system have more security checks, that is fine, but to pick out 7 nations and place a temp ban on all citizens of those nations is flawed, prejudiced and ultimately going to send some people to their deaths.

Need I remind you of the British White Paper of 1939, that restricted Jewish immigration to the British Mandate of Palestine. Let alone Jewish restriction to the US and UK. Which fundamentally sentenced thousands of Jews to their death in Europe. Such measures past and present are born from a fear and prejudice. Its more likely that the US will be attacked by someone homegrown terrorist, let alone how its so easy for terrorists to go through the EU then on to the US. So putting up such a crowd pleaser, for which this ban was really about. Was to please his supporters. It has little ability to stop terrorism.

Now do we have an imbalance on how we view some leaders and countries in the West to how we view them in the East?
Absolutely?
Is it wrong?
Absolutely
Is it holding some nations to an unequal standard?
Absolutely

As already stated, I do not think we should ban him, but I do think people should protest him when he is hear to show rightly the UK does not support his intolerant views.

1. I was simply wondering, from a purely academic point of view, how many of those UK citizens now demonstrating against Trump's proposed state visit to the UK, were sufficiently moved by the actions of a minority of the religious faction responsible for the death of about 3,000 US citizens on 9/11 towards whom Trump's travel ban is supposedly directed to have taken to the streets in a similarly vocal manner.

2. The Al-Qaeda "operatives" to whom you refer had not, to my knowledge, been elected to the internationally recognised position of Head of State in order to qualify for an invitation to a formal UK state visit.

3. Whether Trump is, or is not," going above the US state law" is presumably a matter still to be determined by the US Supreme Court. Thus far, his action has simply been challenged by an appreciable number of individual States Attorneys.

4. The intentions and consequences of the "British White Paper of 1939" are of no relevance. Apart from the fact that a White Paper is simply a legislative proposal and not legislative decision, which comprises a Bill followed by an Act of Parliament, you are referring to an historic pre-WW2 measure the effect of which would have been rendered irrelevant by the events of the following six years.

Otherwise, I do not disagree with you.

Did not Obama ban all Iraq's from the USA in 2011?

Fred Moletrousers wrote:

Thorin wrote:



Not sure how you are making a comparison to 9/11 a the President of the United States?
I do not recall there being a state visit for the Al-Qaeda Operatives that carried out 9/11?
If I recall most people were in shock and mourning, as it was such a tragic loss of life.
Trump has not killed anyone, "yet", this is about how he is going above the US law and what it has signed up to with refugees. Now if he wants to make the system have more security checks, that is fine, but to pick out 7 nations and place a temp ban on all citizens of those nations is flawed, prejudiced and ultimately going to send some people to their deaths.

Need I remind you of the British White Paper of 1939, that restricted Jewish immigration to the British Mandate of Palestine. Let alone Jewish restriction to the US and UK. Which fundamentally sentenced thousands of Jews to their death in Europe. Such measures past and present are born from a fear and prejudice. Its more likely that the US will be attacked by someone homegrown terrorist, let alone how its so easy for terrorists to go through the EU then on to the US. So putting up such a crowd pleaser, for which this ban was really about. Was to please his supporters. It has little ability to stop terrorism.

Now do we have an imbalance on how we view some leaders and countries in the West to how we view them in the East?
Absolutely?
Is it wrong?
Absolutely
Is it holding some nations to an unequal standard?
Absolutely

As already stated, I do not think we should ban him, but I do think people should protest him when he is hear to show rightly the UK does not support his intolerant views.

1. I was simply wondering, from a purely academic point of view, how many of those UK citizens now demonstrating against Trump's proposed state visit to the UK, were sufficiently moved by the actions of a minority of the religious faction responsible for the death of about 3,000 US citizens on 9/11 towards whom Trump's travel ban is supposedly directed to have taken to the streets in a similarly vocal manner.

2. The Al-Qaeda "operatives" to whom you refer had not, to my knowledge, been elected to the internationally recognised position of Head of State in order to qualify for an invitation to a formal UK state visit.

3. Whether Trump is, or is not," going above the US state law" is presumably a matter still to be determined by the US Supreme Court.  Thus far, his action has simply been challenged by an appreciable number of individual States Attorneys.

4. The intentions and consequences of the "British White Paper of 1939" are of no relevance.  Apart from the fact that a White Paper is simply a legislative proposal and not legislative decision, which comprises a Bill followed by an Act of Parliament, you are referring to an historic pre-WW2 measure the effect of which would have been rendered irrelevant by the events of the following six years.

Otherwise, I do not disagree with you.

1) I still do not see any comparability to each situation. One is the attack of a terrorist organisation, led and orchestrated by Bin Laden. The other is over the prejudice ban by the leader of the most powerful nation in the world. Again the 9/11 attack brought about global mourning, just as the attack by by Anders Brevik brought on a nation mourning. How exactly are they even comparable to Trump visiting?

2) Exactly, so why on earth are you trying to compare two far removed events that have no comparability to?

3) Yes it will be.

4) I beg your pardon? No relevance? You mean the no relevance, where there is genocide going on in Syria? So, come again? To them make the worst apologist yet for the British white paper, which is regarded by many historians, as being born actually from antisemitism and did sentence hundreds of thousands of Jews in Europe to their death. As it restricted the Jewish migrations to the Mandate, whilst allowing unrestricted Arab migrations to the area. Of course the other apologist view given by some Brits on this is that it saved Jews from being murdered in the Mandate by Arabs. The effect of that paper was relevant for years after, because Russia for example was not invaded until 1941, that means two years, where Jews were restricted in Europe by the US and Britain from leaving. So please stop with that charade, that is the worst excuse ever. It is well recognized this decision by the British sentenced hundreds of thousands of Jews to their deaths. Placing a ban on all Syrian refugees, is basically doing the same, if they cannot leave Syria.

Fred M. wrote:Trump, odious a character though he may be, is the democratically elected President of the United States (Quill, it is to my great regret that we cannot meet and argue this matter in a civilized and friendly manner as befits two people with similar interests and academic qualifications) and as such is entitled to be afforded the honour of a full state visit to the United Kingdom.

A thoughtful post. Unfortunately, I have to disagree. Oh…and I really don’t care if y’all invite him over there, my objection to him is general.

The objection is not that of a sore loser. This century politically has been up and down, and I’ve lost before. No…go back to what I said to eddie:

Quill wrote:I think you are 180° wrong in that. Trump has created such division in America, normalized incivility and disregarded the laws and Constitution, that he has taken America to a place where most Americans don't want to be. Certain behaviors are not a double standard when someone has stolen your wallet and is holding a gun to your head.

This man is a first-class boor. Politically, uncivilly and legally, he has taken the nation waaay beyond any previous limits. This is a place where no American wants to be…hence, Trumps low, low approval rate in the first week of office.

But you are right…we would have to live with it, were it not that he lost. The electoral college is an unrepaired breach in our system. But, mostly, it hasn’t bothered us in the past. However, to lose by 10-million votes and then to allow Trump to tear down our civilization to the level of urination games in hotel rooms, call people sleazy names, speak of pussy-grabbing so cavalierly…it’s just too much. And I think we all realize that.

Thorin wrote:

Fred Moletrousers wrote:

1. I was simply wondering, from a purely academic point of view, how many of those UK citizens now demonstrating against Trump's proposed state visit to the UK, were sufficiently moved by the actions of a minority of the religious faction responsible for the death of about 3,000 US citizens on 9/11 towards whom Trump's travel ban is supposedly directed to have taken to the streets in a similarly vocal manner.

2. The Al-Qaeda "operatives" to whom you refer had not, to my knowledge, been elected to the internationally recognised position of Head of State in order to qualify for an invitation to a formal UK state visit.

3. Whether Trump is, or is not," going above the US state law" is presumably a matter still to be determined by the US Supreme Court.  Thus far, his action has simply been challenged by an appreciable number of individual States Attorneys.

4. The intentions and consequences of the "British White Paper of 1939" are of no relevance.  Apart from the fact that a White Paper is simply a legislative proposal and not legislative decision, which comprises a Bill followed by an Act of Parliament, you are referring to an historic pre-WW2 measure the effect of which would have been rendered irrelevant by the events of the following six years.

Otherwise, I do not disagree with you.

1) I still do not see any comparability to each situation. One is the attack of a terrorist organisation, led and orchestrated by Bin Laden. The other is over the prejudice ban by the leader of the most powerful nation in the world. Again the 9/11 attack brought about global mourning, just as the attack by by Anders Brevik brought on a nation mourning. How exactly are they even comparable to Trump visiting?

2) Exactly, so why on earth are you trying to compare two far removed events that have no comparability to?

3) Yes it will be.

4) I beg your pardon? No relevance? You mean the no relevance, where there is genocide going on in Syria? So, come again? To them make the worst apologist yet for the British white paper, which is regarded by many historians, as being born actually from antisemitism and did sentence hundreds of thousands of Jews in Europe to their death. As it restricted the Jewish migrations to the Mandate, whilst allowing unrestricted Arab migrations to the area. Of course the other apologist view given by some Brits on this is that it saved Jews from being murdered in the Mandate by Arabs. The effect of that paper was relevant for years after, because Russia for example was not invaded until 1941, that means two years, where Jews were restricted in Europe by the US and Britain from leaving. So please stop with that charade, that is the worst excuse ever. It is well recognized this decision by the British sentenced hundreds of thousands of Jews to their deaths. Placing a ban on all Syrian refugees, is basically doing the same, if they cannot leave Syria.

1. If you fail to accept that Trump's knee-jerk "travel ban" decision is influenced at least in part on the events of 9/ll, then it is pointless arguing the matter further.

2. You raised the issue of a State Visit to the UK for Al-Qaeda Operatives, not I. I wasn't "trying to compare it"; I was explaining why it was not constitutionally feasible.

3. We appear to agree on something.

4. A "White Paper" is not the same as primary legislation; it is simply the second and definitive stage of a consultation procedure which precedes a Parliamentary vote on an Act of Parliament. Whether it was "born of antiSemitism or not is debatable as (a) Britain was acting under the provisions of a League of Nations Mandate and would have had to seek higher authority than the the UK Parliament and (b) was overtaken by world events. To attempt to link that to the current situation in Syria is, to say the least, risible.

Original Quill wrote:

Fred M. wrote:Trump, odious a character though he may be, is the democratically elected President of the United States (Quill, it is to my great regret that we cannot meet and argue this matter in a civilized and friendly manner as befits two people with similar interests and academic qualifications) and as such is entitled to be afforded the honour of a full state visit to the United Kingdom.

A thoughtful post.  Unfortunately, I have to disagree.  Oh…and I really don’t care if y’all invite him over there, my objection to him is general.

The objection is not that of a sore loser.  This century politically has been up and down, and I’ve lost before.  No…go back to what I said to eddie:

Quill wrote:I think you are 180° wrong in that.  Trump has created such division in America, normalized incivility and disregarded the laws and Constitution, that he has taken America to a place where most Americans don't want to be.  Certain behaviors are not a double standard when someone has stolen your wallet and is holding a gun to your head.

This man is a first-class boor.  Politically, uncivilly and legally, he has taken the nation waaay beyond any previous limits.  This is a place where no American wants to be…hence, Trumps low, low approval rate in the first week of office.  

But you are right…we would have to live with it, were it not that he lost.  The electoral college is an unrepaired breach in our system.  But, mostly, it hasn’t bothered us in the past.  However, to lose by 10-million votes and then to allow Trump to tear down our civilization to the level of urination games in hotel rooms, call people sleazy names, speak of pussy-grabbing so cavalierly…it’s just too much.  And I think we all realize that.

I certainly do. It doesn't stop me being a realist, though.

eddie wrote:Nope. He shouldnt  be banned. What, are countries now just going to follow a big mass-hysteria hate that seems to be sweeping the world, and start banning people from entering countries?

Isn't that what we dislike about him? Segregating people?
It's all a bit pathetic if you ask me.

A small group of professional cry baby socialist workers party twats do not dictate anything to anyone... no matter how much noise they make crying and throwing their toys around...

I agree with moley!

Fred Moletrousers wrote:

Thorin wrote:

1) I still do not see any comparability to each situation. One is the attack of a terrorist organisation, led and orchestrated by Bin Laden. The other is over the prejudice ban by the leader of the most powerful nation in the world. Again the 9/11 attack brought about global mourning, just as the attack by by Anders Brevik brought on a nation mourning. How exactly are they even comparable to Trump visiting?

2) Exactly, so why on earth are you trying to compare two far removed events that have no comparability to?

3) Yes it will be.

4) I beg your pardon? No relevance? You mean the no relevance, where there is genocide going on in Syria? So, come again? To them make the worst apologist yet for the British white paper, which is regarded by many historians, as being born actually from antisemitism and did sentence hundreds of thousands of Jews in Europe to their death. As it restricted the Jewish migrations to the Mandate, whilst allowing unrestricted Arab migrations to the area. Of course the other apologist view given by some Brits on this is that it saved Jews from being murdered in the Mandate by Arabs. The effect of that paper was relevant for years after, because Russia for example was not invaded until 1941, that means two years, where Jews were restricted in Europe by the US and Britain from leaving. So please stop with that charade, that is the worst excuse ever. It is well recognized this decision by the British sentenced hundreds of thousands of Jews to their deaths. Placing a ban on all Syrian refugees, is basically doing the same, if they cannot leave Syria.

1. If you fail to accept that Trump's knee-jerk "travel ban" decision is influenced at least in part on the events of 9/ll, then it is pointless arguing the matter further.

2. You raised the issue of a State Visit to the UK for Al-Qaeda Operatives, not I. I wasn't "trying to compare it"; I was explaining why it was not constitutionally feasible.

3. We appear to agree on something.

4. A "White Paper" is not the same as primary legislation; it is simply the second and definitive stage of a consultation procedure which precedes a Parliamentary vote on an Act of Parliament. Whether it was "born of antiSemitism or not is debatable as (a) Britain was acting under the provisions of a League of Nations Mandate and would have had to seek higher authority than the the UK Parliament and (b) was overtaken by world events. To attempt to link that to the current situation in Syria is, to say the least, risible.

1) Is it? based on what? Again you are trying to claim people should protest a terrorist murdering event, when often people mourn. Can you show me all the times the British public protested all the IRA bombings?

2) Which is why it renders your point 1 as not comparable.

3) No problem

4) Wrong, it was going against the provisions of the League of Nations Mandate and the League of Nations also stated this.

League of Nations
The supervising authority of the League of Nations, the Permanent Mandates Commission abstained unanimously from endorsing the White Paper, though four out of seven members thought the new policy was inconsistent with that mandate. The League of Nations commission held that the White Paper was in conflict with the terms of the Mandate as put forth in the past. The outbreak of the Second World War suspended any further deliberations.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/White_Paper_of_1939

Also:

Mainstream historians have always regarded England’s White Paper policy as severely unfavorable to the Jews. Prof. Henry L. Feingold has gone so far as to argue that a policy restricting immigration and land purchases only by Jews must have been “at least partly motivated by anti-Semitism.”

In recent years, however, several pro-Roosevelt authors have depicted the Allies’ Palestine policy in a new light. Robert Rosen, author of “Saving the Jews,” claims the White Paper “saved [the Jews of the Middle East] from the Holocaust,” because otherwise the Arab world supposedly would have revolted against the Allies and the Nazis would have captured the region and killed all the Jews living there. Richard Breitman and Alan Lichtman, authors of “FDR and the Jews,” claim that during the St. James conference, Roosevelt secretly pressured the British “on behalf of Jews.” Their source for that claim, however, turned out to be a paranoid Arab delegate to the conference.

But these revisionist accounts got it all wrong, and Prof. Feingold got it right. We now know from declassified British records that some senior British government officials did, in fact, harbor anti-Semitic sentiments. And we also know that President Roosevelt never seriously considered pressing the British on Palestine.

Its clear it was born from antisemitism, it went back on the Balfour agreement, where the Arabs had already been given 78% of the Mandate with Jordan. Where the Mandate allowed for Jewish settlement within the Mandate itself, signed in 1922, which is still valid to this day. Which is why the League of Nations was against the disgusting and appalling decision by the British Government. Which not only restricted Jewish refugees to the Mandate, but to the UK. Britain's appalling action is no different to Trump. It was based on fear and hate against a people, no matter how badly you put up some poor revisionist history.

http://conservativetribune.com/obamas-state-dept-refugees/


The 90 day ban is a pause so security and vetting can be strengthened.

But no mention of that by the cry babies and 5th columnists...

[quote="Thorin"]

Fred Moletrousers wrote:

1. If you fail to accept that Trump's knee-jerk "travel ban" decision is influenced at least in part on the events of 9/ll, then it is pointless arguing the matter further.

2. You raised the issue of a State Visit to the UK for Al-Qaeda Operatives, not I. I wasn't "trying to compare it"; I was explaining why it was not constitutionally feasible.

3. We appear to agree on something.

4. A "White Paper" is not the same as primary legislation; it is simply the second and definitive stage of a consultation procedure which precedes a Parliamentary vote on an Act of Parliament. Whether it was "born of antiSemitism or not is debatable as (a) Britain was acting under the provisions of a League of Nations Mandate and would have had to seek higher authority than the the UK Parliament and (b) was overtaken by world events. To attempt to link that to the current situation in Syria is, to say the least, risible.

1) Is it? based on what? Again you are trying to claim people should protest a terrorist murdering event, when often people mourn. Can you show me all the times the British public protested all the IRA bombings?

2) Which is why it renders your point 1 as not comparable.

3) No problem

4) Wrong, it was going against the provisions of the League of Nations Mandate and the League of Nations also stated this.

League of Nations
The supervising authority of the League of Nations, the Permanent Mandates Commission abstained unanimously from endorsing the White Paper, though four out of seven members thought the new policy was inconsistent with that mandate. The League of Nations commission held that the White Paper was in conflict with the terms of the Mandate as put forth in the past. The outbreak of the Second World War suspended any further deliberations.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/White_Paper_of_1939

Also:

Mainstream historians have always regarded England’s White Paper policy as severely unfavorable to the Jews. Prof. Henry L. Feingold has gone so far as to argue that a policy restricting immigration and land purchases only by Jews must have been “at least partly motivated by anti-Semitism.”

In recent years, however, several pro-Roosevelt authors have depicted the Allies’ Palestine policy in a new light. Robert Rosen, author of “Saving the Jews,” claims the White Paper “saved [the Jews of the Middle East] from the Holocaust,” because otherwise the Arab world supposedly would have revolted against the Allies and the Nazis would have captured the region and killed all the Jews living there. Richard Breitman and Alan Lichtman, authors of “FDR and the Jews,” claim that during the St. James conference, Roosevelt secretly pressured the British “on behalf of Jews.” Their source for that claim, however, turned out to be a paranoid Arab delegate to the conference.

But these revisionist accounts got it all wrong, and Prof. Feingold got it right. We now know from declassified British records that some senior British government officials did, in fact, harbor anti-Semitic sentiments. And we also know that President Roosevelt never seriously considered pressing the British on Palestine.

Its clear it was born from antisemitism, it went back on the Balfour agreement, where the Arabs had already been given 78% of the Mandate with Jordan. Where the Mandate allowed for Jewish settlement within the Mandate itself, signed in 1922, which is still valid to this day. Which is why the League of Nations was against the disgusting and appalling decision by the British Government. Which not only restricted Jewish refugees to the Mandate, but to the UK. Britain's appalling action is no different to Trump. It was based on fear and hate against a people, no matter how badly you put up some poor revisionist history.[/quote

Do re-address the subject when you have learned what a United Kingdom government White Paper actually is.

http://www.parliament.uk/site-information/glossary/white-paper/

Tommy Monk wrote:

http://conservativetribune.com/obamas-state-dept-refugees/


The 90 day ban is a pause so security and vetting can be strengthened.

But no mention of that by the cry babies and 5th columnists...

That is not a ban

As a result of the Kentucky case, the State Department stopped processing Iraq refugees for six months in 2011, federal officials told ABC News – even for many who had heroically helped U.S. forces as interpreters and intelligence assets.


Suspect in Kentucky Discovered to Have Insurgent Past
An intelligence tip initially led the FBI to Waad Ramadan Alwan, 32, in 2009. The Iraqi had claimed to be a refugee who faced persecution back home -- a story that shattered when the FBI found his fingerprints on a cordless phone base that U.S. soldiers dug up in a gravel pile south of Bayji, Iraq on Sept. 1, 2005. The phone base had been wired to unexploded bombs buried in a nearby road.
An ABC News investigation of the flawed U.S. refugee screening system, which was overhauled two years ago, showed that Alwan was mistakenly allowed into the U.S. and resettled in the leafy southern town of Bowling Green, Kentucky, a city of 60,000 which is home to Western Kentucky University and near the Army's Fort Knox and Fort Campbell. Alwan and another Iraqi refugee, Mohanad Shareef Hammadi, 26, were resettled in Bowling Green even though both had been detained during the war by Iraqi authorities, according to federal prosecutors.
Most of the more than 70,000 Iraqi war refugees in the U.S. are law-abiding immigrants eager to start a new life in America, state and federal officials say.

Fred Moletrousers wrote:

Do re-address the subject when you have learned what a United Kingdom government White Paper actually is.

http://www.parliament.uk/site-information/glossary/white-paper/

Re-address what exactly?
You claimed it was within the Mandate and lied. It went against the Mandate.
I know what the white paper is, you are quite pathetically putting up misdirection
Clearly you are one of these poor apologists that never sees any wrong by the British.

Sorry I dont have time for poor revisionists who have nothing to back their stance

Either counter the facts I gave you or stop wasting my time, with things you know nothing about

Thanks

Here is a little history lesson for you

Yet despite all this country-making, and despite the Balfour Declaration, the British could not get around to creating a country called Israel.

Why not?

There was a clear British bias against the Jews as is readily apparent to anyone who has studied the series of White Papers issued by the British government in the 1920s and 1930s.

The reasons for this bias were:

• The British had to deal with the issue of an Arab majority living in what was left of Palestine. They came up with all kinds of partition plans all of which were rejected by the Arabs. (Not all Arabs were opposed; King Faisal of Iraq signed an agreement with Chaim Weizman calling for peace and cooperation.)
  
  
• Many members of the British government and military were clearly anti-Semitic and had a romantic/patronizing attitude toward the Arabs.
  
  
• The Arabs had oil and England needed oil. In the final analysis, the British had to take into consideration what was in their best interest. Looking after their strategic interests and placating tens of millions of Arabs was more important in their eyes than saving a few hundred thousand Jews, even though this went against the conditions of the mandate that they were granted in 1920.[1]
   
  
  

Meanwhile the poor Jews, not knowing that the British were going to back out of their promise, kept migrating to the land.     
The third migration or aliyah (1919-1923) brought 35,000 Jews to the land. The fourth aliyah (1924-1928) brought 80,000 Jews to the land. The fifth aliyah (1929-1939, as Hitler rose to power in Germany) brought 250,000 Jews to the land.

Arab Riots
The Arabs made it clear that they were not going to sit still for a Jewish state. In August of 1929, due to the instigation of the preachers in the mosques, a series of riots broke out in which many Jews were massacred.
The New York Times, in its history of Israel (Israel: from Ancient Times to the Modern Nation, pp. 38-39) writes of this time:

The riots of August, 1929, were ignited in Jerusalem over a rumor spread by Arab leaders that Jews were going to destroy Al-Aqsa Mosque, Islam's third most holy shrine. Fighting soon spread throughout Palestine. The worst massacres were in Hebron, sacred to Jew and Muslim alike, where 67 Orthodox Jews ― men, women and children ― were slaughtered by Arabs and 50 more wounded. Pierre van Paassen, a reporter, described the horror that he witnessed by lamplight in a Jewish seminary in Hebron: 'The slain students in the yard, the dead men in the synagogue, slashed throats and mutilated bodies.' By the time order was restored 133 Jews had been killed, 399 wounded.

The 1930s saw more rioting and more massacres, especially in Jaffa and again in Hebron. In response, the British convened the Peel Commission which almost totally did away with the Balfour Declaration that had originally promised a Jewish homeland in Palestine on both sides of the River Jordan. In July of 1937, the Peel Commission issued a report which said that all the Jews should be confined to a tiny state that would include a sliver of land along the Mediterranean coast and a small piece in the north abutting the west side of the Lake Kineret (Sea of Galilee).

The Arabs greeted the Peel Commission recommendation with a revolt which lasted until 1939. The Arab Revolt was led by Haj Amin Husseini (c. 1893-1974), who was originally appointed as the Mufti of Jerusalem by the British. It is interesting to note that in addition to hundreds of Jews who were killed by Arabs, some 3,000 Arabs died in this revolt at the hands of other Arabs and at the hands of the British.
For all the British criticism of Israel today, at that time the British were not shy in their efforts to quell the rioting. They introduced the policy of housing demolition and used artillery to shell rebellious towns.

The revolt was finally crushed and the Mufti fled first to Beirut and later to Europe, where he became an ally of Adolph Hitler, organizing a Bosnian S.S. unit to kill Jews in the Balkans. After the war he was captured but escaped. He was later involved in fomenting violence, including the assassination of King Abdullah of Jordan in 1951. He died in Beirut in 1974. (Faisal Husseini, who was the PLO's representatives in Jerusalem and who died of a heart attack 2001 was a relative of his.)

Death Sentence
The British did not keep the promise contained in the Balfour Declaration and neither did they keep the promise contained in the Peel Commission report.

They did enforce one aspect of the Peel Commission report ― that which limited Jewish migration to the land to only 12,000 a year for the next five years (1939-1943). By doing so the British doomed the Jews under the control of Nazis ― they would no longer be able to find refuge in their homeland.

They did this, knowing full well what the Germans were doing to the Jews ― this was after the Nuremberg Laws and Kristallnacht (see Part 60). And still the British closed an escape route that would have saved millions of Jewish lives.

The Jews were desperate and they tried to come illegally in a movement known as Aliyah Bet. In response, the British set up a blockade to keep them out.

Many Jews managed to circumvent the blockade and it is estimated that 115,000 Jews got through. But 115,000 is a very small number compared to the 6 million Jews who died in the Holocaust and who could not find refuge in the land of Israel


http://www.aish.com/jl/h/cc/48961161.html

Tommy Monk wrote:

http://conservativetribune.com/obamas-state-dept-refugees/


The 90 day ban is a pause so security and vetting can be strengthened.

But no mention of that by the cry babies and 5th columnists...

90 day pause so stronger/tighter security and vetting can be implemented is not a ban...


Try reading the link...

Tommy Monk wrote:

Tommy Monk wrote:

http://conservativetribune.com/obamas-state-dept-refugees/


The 90 day ban is a pause so security and vetting can be strengthened.

But no mention of that by the cry babies and 5th columnists...

90 day pause so stronger/tighter security and vetting can be implemented is not a ban...


Try reading the link...

I read the proper media link, not the conservative subjective view point

They never imposed a ban did they Tommy, because Iraqi's could still come to America

Ban means all Iraqi's

That was not the case. There was a flaw in the refugee process, which they worked to resolve

Thorin wrote:

Fred Moletrousers wrote:

Do re-address the subject when you have learned what a United Kingdom government White Paper actually is.

http://www.parliament.uk/site-information/glossary/white-paper/

Re-address what exactly?
You claimed it was within the Mandate and lied. It went against the Mandate.
I know what the white paper is, you are quite pathetically putting up misdirection
Clearly you are one of these poor apologists that never sees any wrong by the British.

Sorry I dont have time for poor revisionists who have nothing to back their stance

Either counter the facts I gave you or stop wasting my time, with things you know nothing about

Thanks

Do stop being silly.

As I have tried to explain to you, obviously without success, a White Paper is nothing more than a statement of government policy and intended future legislation.

On this occasion, for obvious reasons, it was not executed and could not, therefore have been submitted to the League of Nations for endorsement or otherwise. Quite how you interpret that as "a lie", "revisionist" or "apologist" God alone knows.

Fred Moletrousers wrote:

Syl wrote:I'm surprised the Queen invited him in the first place tbh.

The latest update is more than one million people have signed the petition to say he should be banned from coming here on a state visit.


http://www.mirror.co.uk/news/uk-news/sadiq-khan-demands-donald-trumps-9716177

"London Mayor Sadiq Khan - the first Muslim mayor of a major western city - has demanded Donald Trump’s state visit to the UK is cancelled.
He told Sky News: "I am quite clear, this ban is cruel, this ban is shameful, while this ban is in place we should not be rolling out the red carpet for President Trump.
"I don't think he should be coming on a state visit while the ban is in place, I couldn't be clearer."
He said the ban "flies in the face of the values" the US was built on.
He added: "I'm pleased that the Prime Minister has now said she and the Government do not agree with President Trump's policy, which will affect many British citizens who have dual nationality, including Londoners born in countries affected by the ban."

The fact is, of course, that Her Majesty did not invite Trump to visit the UK on a state visit; the invitation was offered in her name.

We have, thank God, a Head of State who is above politics and who has always, throughout her long reign,
followed to the letter the true conventions of a constitutional monarchy. The Prince of Wales may well be a very different kettle of fish in that he has a reputation for endlessly interfering in political matters with his infamous "black spider" missives, but Elizabeth the Second, by the grace of God, etc.,etc. is still our Queen, and as such is our legal Head of State.

The invitation was a political matter, taking into account not only political considerations but also considerations of trade (made more important by this country's wise decision to leave the demonstrably undemocratic and authoritarian European Union), economics and security.

It would have been proposed by the Cabinet Office with the approval of the Prime Minister; considered by a committee of Her Majesty's Privy Council and presented for her approval with a recommendation of acceptance.

Trump, odious a character though he may be, is the democratically elected President of the United States (Quill, it is to my great regret that we cannot meet and argue this matter in a civilized and friendly manner as befits  two people with similar interests and academic qualifications) and as such is entitled to be afforded the honour of a full state visit to the United Kingdom.

Personally, I think that the invitation is premature and should have been delayed for at least six months,but I fully accept that the new US administration very publicly honoured the UK with their very prompt invitation to  Prime Minister May to Washington as the first international national leader to be received by Trump and that this had to be reciprocated in accordance with diplomatic convention.

As to the results of the UK internet "petition" calling for the cancellation of the invitation, this means absolutely nothing. Those who hate Trump, for whatever reason, are entitled in a free society to say so...but their freedom does not extend to controlling government policy.

And anyway, just how many of those who clicked on the petition were chanting their slogans and demonstrating in the streets when Islamic extremists murdered about 3,000 American citizens as an expression of their values and rights on 9/11?

Yes you are of course correct Mr F M....but he has been invited in her name, and a state visit will come complete with all the pomp and ceremony as all that indicates.
An official visit should have been more appropriate imo......we need to do business with the US, but do we really have to ko tow to such an odious man by giving him such a high invite?

Fred Moletrousers wrote:

Thorin wrote:


Re-address what exactly?
You claimed it was within the Mandate and lied. It went against the Mandate.
I know what the white paper is, you are quite pathetically putting up misdirection
Clearly you are one of these poor apologists that never sees any wrong by the British.

Sorry I dont have time for poor revisionists who have nothing to back their stance

Either counter the facts I gave you or stop wasting my time, with things you know nothing about

Thanks

Do stop being silly.

As I have tried to explain to you, obviously without success, a White Paper is nothing more than a statement of government policy and intended future legislation.

On this occasion, for obvious reasons, it was not executed and could not, therefore have been submitted to the League of Nations for endorsement or otherwise. Quite how you interpret that as "a lie", "revisionist" or "apologist" God alone knows.

Wrong again, its more than that, when the British actively restricted Jewish immigration and even instigated a blockade, see previous post.
It was abstained by the League of nations, yet more invented history by you.
Its complete revisionist history from you
So not being silly, I just wish you would stop posting up nonsense
Who is God? See more inventions.

Death Sentence
The British did not keep the promise contained in the Balfour Declaration and neither did they keep the promise contained in the Peel Commission report.

They did enforce one aspect of the Peel Commission report ― that which limited Jewish migration to the land to only 12,000 a year for the next five years (1939-1943). By doing so the British doomed the Jews under the control of Nazis ― they would no longer be able to find refuge in their homeland.

They did this, knowing full well what the Germans were doing to the Jews ― this was after the Nuremberg Laws and Kristallnacht (see Part 60). And still the British closed an escape route that would have saved millions of Jewish lives.

The Jews were desperate and they tried to come illegally in a movement known as Aliyah Bet. In response, the British set up a blockade to keep them out.

Many Jews managed to circumvent the blockade and it is estimated that 115,000 Jews got through. But 115,000 is a very small number compared to the 6 million Jews who died in the Holocaust and who could not find refuge in the land of Israel


http://www.aish.com/jl/h/cc/48961161.html

http://conservativetribune.com/obamas-state-dept-refugees/


The 90 day ban is a pause so security and vetting can be strengthened.

But no mention of that by the cry babies and 5th columnists...[/quote]


90 day pause so stronger/tighter security and vetting can be implemented is not a ban...


Try reading the link...

Reality! The poor old Queen will be repulsed Trump.

Tommy Monk wrote:

http://conservativetribune.com/obamas-state-dept-refugees/


The 90 day ban is a pause so security and vetting can be strengthened.

But no mention of that by the cry babies and 5th columnists...


90 day pause so stronger/tighter security and vetting can be implemented is not a ban...


Try reading the link...

I read the proper media link, not the conservative subjective view point

They never imposed a ban did they Tommy, because Iraqi's could still come to America

Ban means all Iraqi's, this was a stop in processing refugees

There was a flaw in the refugee process, which they worked to resolve

Not all from the countries listed are banned now either... was just on ITV News...


Try reading the link I gave for you to have a wider and more objective perspective...


The left wing media like to lie you know...!?

Tommy Monk wrote:Not all from the countries listed are banned now either... was just on ITV News...


Try reading the link I gave for you to have a wider and more objective perspective...


The left wing media like to lie you know...!?

You are regurgitating again

I have read the article from the media

You are just spamming the thread now.