Would Yusuf Islam be allowed in your country?

or under a Democratic US government?

from JoeUser Forums
Yusuf is Islam was promptly deported from the United States when it was learned he was en route to Washington with his daughter - who was allowed to stay...

the question has come up after a compatriot of mine questioned why I am so eager to support my current government - the Howard led coalition, yet I constanlty barage American policies. My compatriot questions my beleifs because our government is an ally and friend of the United States. I am happy with this arrangement - we can look out for each other, but that doesn't mean we have to agree with each other.

The Howard government has many policies I disagree with, but as a whole, the Liberal party support's my interests, and some of my political ideoligies - they are the closest thing I have to vote for, so I will support them. They are a centralist party, in line with my views, and Australia is still very much a socialist democracy - we enjoy many benefits that other countries don't, and we are not taxed disproportionately to our income, and standard of living.

Of course, I am a successful white male, so some may class me as a fascist pig - I protested several times against the war in Iraq, but my heart tells me, we would have gone under a labor government as well, albeit a bit more skeptically, we have to honour our relationship with the US, and Howard was convinced that this was in Australia's best interests - let's count this as a learning experience - next time he will know better - people make mistakes, that's why they have erasers on pencils.

I can support my government, because I know when I get sick, if I didn't have private health insurance I would still be reasonably well looked after, I can afford the piece of mind of private health care, so I pay for it. I know our govenrment is tolerant of privacies, and certainly multi-culturalism, so I will be happy to vote for them.

I guess the most important thing to me is that I know Yusuf Islam would be allowed into Australia, because we are a great and fair country, a Democracy is measured by it's people, and I think Aussies are alright... That's not to say American's aren't alright... American's are a proud people, but when the world I live in is negatively affected by that pride/arrogance, I write as a citizen of the world.

When it comes to mistakes Australian administrations have made - and there have been plenty, I swallow my pride... because I am so proud of my great country.

Will John Kerry be able to assume that mantle if the American voting public take more pride in America? or swallow some of it?

BAM!!!
international
19,462 views 43 replies
Reply #1 from JoeUser Forums Top
He got into America - hence he was deported... you dont have to live somewhere to be deported.

You are correct LW - I am supposing that he would be allowed into Australia, and I guess unless a politician states otherwise, thats all I will be doing... I wouldn't write such an article though unless I was 100% positive in my beleifs that he would be allowed into Australia... and England, and France, and Germany, and Russia, and Jamaica, and New Zealand... and last bu not least... CANADA!!!

You are curious why I think that? because in our country he is considered a Peace activists... we let peace activisits into our country - did you read the linked article, a nice international perspective.

BAM!!!
Reply #2 from JoeUser Forums Top

I don't think we made a mistake in this matter. Yusuf Islam would not have been allowed on the flight to the US in the first place had the United Airlines agents in Britain done their homework.


We have to take very seriously a man who has worked as a financial underwriter for terror organizations (not to mention the infamous fatwa support). Why would he support these organizations if he didn't support their aim? If I donated money to the Aryan nations, you would still rightly tie me to white supremacy, even if I *only* intended my money to go to support their schools.


The fact is, I liked Cat Stevens' music. I also liked OJ Simpson's running 30 years ago, as well as Robert Blake's acting.

Galactic Civilizations IV
Reply #3 from JoeUser Forums Top

because in our country he is considered a Peace activists...


One persons peace activist (or freedom fighter, whatever) is another persons terrorist. HIs support of Hamas may be considered in Muslim circles as supportive of peace (for the palestinians) but i doubt many israelis would feel the same way


Muggaz, you are obviously confused.  He is *not* considered a peace activist here.  He is tied to charities that support terrorist activities.  He is considered a terrorist threat, and that is why he was sent away.  He was on a "no fly" list that was not payed attention to in Britain, that is how he got on the plane.


The US does not have open borders.  We have always had strict policies that have become stricter since 9/11.  Main thing- we care about keeping our *citizens* safe.  We turn away all sorts of people.  If somebody is tied to any hateful activities, there is no reason to allow them into our country.


Your country had it's first 1/3 of modern life filled with importing convicts, obviously they are used to having free borders (Sorry, just couldn't resist that.....)


If you don't like how the US handles her borders, don't worry, you don't live here.  Why not send an invitation to Cat Stevens to visit your country?

Reply #4 from JoeUser Forums Top
Muggaz:

What you have in this case is the lack of perspective the Bush Administration has on reality. First, he should be denied entry if and only if he presents a "terrorist" threat to the United States.

That should not mean: he has viewpoints opposing the Bush administration. Otherwise, throw John McCain and Pat Buchanan out too.

That should not mean: he has supported things that show him to be in support of groups we all don't agree with. Otherwise, many of the people who support a united Ireland or Palestinian independence should promptly be shown the other side of the Statue of Liberty.

That should not mean: he has used drugs. Otherwise, throw Mr. Bush out the door with everyone else.

So I ask the only relevant question again: Was this man a potential terrorist threat?
Reply #6 from JoeUser Forums Top
jesusstayscrunchy
Actually this is not another non-story. You may not think it but this is all tied to the BIG terriost threat picture. This is the way we will live for a long time. Yusal may not have been a DIRECT hands on terriost but he finacially back them. He may not of directly killed anyone but he has given terriost the money therefore the means to kill people. Don't be nieave ALL TERRIOST want American citizens dead. Just look at the last two beheadings. Those contractors were there rebuilding Iraq. They were not in the CIA/FBI/Military.
Reply #7 from JoeUser Forums Top
This the same Australia that kicks out boatloads of people trying to escape oppression?
Reply #8 from JoeUser Forums Top
Draginol:

I don't think Australia has any corner on that market. Do we want to talk about boats of Jews sent home in the 1930's from the U.S.?
Reply #9 from PolMach Forums Top
finacially back them


no concrete proof of that

ALL TERRIOST want American citizens dead.


Is Yusuf Islam a terrorist? We should have arrested him, then.

If they had actual proof that this guy supported Hamas, they would have arrested him. It's cirumstantial evidence. And I still maintain that there are plenty of other stories more worthwhile.
Reply #11 from JoeUser Forums Top
This the same Australia that kicks out boatloads of people trying to escape oppression?


...Sadly, yes. :/
Reply #12 from JoeUser Forums Top
I guess the most important thing to me is that I know Yusuf Islam would be allowed into Australia, because we are a great and fair country


So Australia condones religious intollerance and calling for the murder of an innocent man? Strange.

IN the US, we call that conspiracy to commit murder, but then that is one of those silly things we have laws for.
Reply #13 from JoeUser Forums Top
Let's talk about signs of the times: The initial rise of Islamic Fundamentalism and its anti-American sentiment during the America-last administration of Jimmy Carter, a Democrat.
The rise of al-Qaeda and anti-American terror under the America-last administration of WJ Clinton, another Democrat. Sad how Republican presidents (Reagan, Bush Jr) have, in the last 20 years, had to deal with the results of miscalculations and screw-ups, pertaining to the MidEast, of the Democrats who preceded them in office. In fact, if we wanted to go all the way back to the beginning, we could address the issue of Truman's (another democrat, natch) support of Palestine in the 40s and 50s, the basis for the whole Arab-Isreali conflict.
Reply #14 from PolMach Forums Top
Dude, Ronald Reagan BUILT Saddam Hussein and Osama bin Laden. I have several threads on the subject. Reagan gave money and weapons to Iraq -- and it was Reagan who took Iraq off the terrorist watch list -- and Carter who had put Iraq ON that list. It was Reagan who gave bin Laden money to fight the Soviets, allowing him to create the system of mujahedeen that became al-Qaeda. You want to fault Clinton and Carter, well, go ahead, they had their screwups, too. But don't play that little game of "Republicans do no wrong," because you just make yourself sound silly.
Reply #15 from JoeUser Forums Top
I didn't say that Republicans do no wrong....look at Nixon, for God's sake.
As for Reagan "Buliding Saddam and Osama", when the Reagan administration gave weapons, supplies and support to Iraq and the mujahaddin, they were, at the time, opposing enemies of the US. Iraq was in its war with Iran, and the Afghans were fighting the Soviet invaders.
Loyalties change quickly in this world, see, and you take your friends where you can find them, sadly enough. If those friends, in the future, become enemies and use those weapons and supplies against you, that's the breaks.
It's been established that Clinton did have some chance to squash Osama bin-Laden in the mid-90s, but chose to do nothing. It just seems that every critical miscalculation on the MidEast has been made by Democrat presidents.
Reply #16 from JoeUser Forums Top
Bush should be thrown out of our contry for his ties to terrorists.
Reply #17 from PolMach Forums Top
Would Yusal Islam be allowed in your country?


Sorry I don't have a country of my own, I live in a country, but I have little to no say who is allowed in or not, would be nice to play that way, stand at the border here comes some Celebrity they think they are a big shot and such. You tell them NO GO AWAY you are not allowed here, and the have to turn around and with a poopy face crying about the mean old GX who won't let them go home. Though I think Yusif Islam has been in England long enough to be a citizen there.

I could also do that border trick to big corporate heads, oh the good times that could be had, letting Mexicans go behind right into the country, while I stop some big corporate exec, ah that would be nice and funny, hehehe

- GX
"I have no answers to your questions, but I can question your demands." - Motto Inspired by Laibach's WAT
Reply #18 from JoeUser Forums Top
This the same Australia that kicks out boatloads of people trying to escape oppression?


We dont kick them out immediately... every country has standard immigration procedures... in this particular instance - it is irrelavant.

If Yusuf Islam was as dangerous as it is suggested by deporting him - why didn't you seize the oppurtunity and bang him in Guantanamo? I am sure there a plenty of nice Orange jumpsuits his size?

BAM!!!
Reply #19 from PolMach Forums Top
Would Yusal Islam be allowed in your country?


I thought of a good one.

He can be allowed in, only if it keeps Johnny Depp out.
Reply #21 from PolMach Forums Top
Johnny Depp lives in France


He comes to the US for films and awards, so let's keep him out of the US period.
Reply #22 from JoeUser Forums Top
You didn't like Pirates of the Carribean?
Reply #23 from PolMach Forums Top
You didn't like Pirates of the Carribean?


No I don't like how Hollywood portrays pirates, for one they never seem to use an accurate flag.
The Jolly Roger never existed, it was a flag that no Pirates used.

It should have been rated Argh
For Pirates ye mateys.

- GX
Reply #24 from JoeUser Forums Top
It should have been rated Argh
For Pirates ye mateys


Ahhh . . . my seven year old's favorite joke!
Reply #25 from PolMach Forums Top
Argh matey this here be what ye seek, the flag of me fav-o-rit pirate cap'n, Cap'n Jack Rackham also known as Calico Jack, argh.


A little tid bit of info about me fav-o-rite cap'n:



John Rackham ('Calico Jack')
July 1718 to November 1720. English. Ships: William. Nicknamed 'Calico Jack' because he wore clothing made of calico (a white cloth imported from Calcutta, India), John Rackham was typical of many pirates whose sloops preyed on coastal shipping. Little is known of his origins, but by 1718 he had somehow made his way to New Providence Island. He served with Charles Vane, fleeing the Island when Vane escaped from Governor Rogers. By the spring of 1719 he was elected as quartermaster, and became Vane's deputy. Soon after a quarrel broke out among the crew, and Rackham replaced Vane as the Captain. Vane was put ashore and Rackham continued Vane's cruise in two sloops.
According to some accounts the vessels were both lost when a Jamaican based patrol sloop captured them while most of the crew were ashore. Rackham returned to New Providence, and in May 1719 he was granted a pardon by Governor Rogers as a part of Rogers' general pirate amnesty. It was there he met Anne Bonney, wife of James Bonney, and they became lovers. Law-abiding life ashore proved unpalatable, and in August 1719, with other former pirates, Rackham and Bonney stole a sloop named William, and returned to piracy. His crew included the female pirates Anne Bonney and Mary Reade. Based in Bahamian waters, he cruised between Bermuda and Hispaniola, capturing several ships and a number of profitable cargoes. He then sailed around Cuba attacking local craft before reaching the north coast of Jamaica. There his luck ran out. While at anchor off the western tip of the island, he was surprised by a sloop belonging to the Governor. Most of Rackham's nine male crew were drunk, but according to testimonies the women roused the men into action. The William cut her anchor cable and fled, but was overhauled by the Jamaican sloop during the night. The ships exchanged fire, and then Captain Barnet led a boarding party onto the deck of the pirate vessel. Bonney and Reade were the only members of the crew who offered any kind of resistance. Rackham himself was apparently too drunk to defend himself. The women were overcome, and the pirates were taken to Port Royal to stand trial. He was tried on November 27th and hanged the next day.