Afghan Hunger strike in St.Patrick's Cathedral

Bottle_of_Smoke

The Corinthian wrote:

What moral grounds? Middle class, Politically Correct “I don’t know the facts but will go for the nice fuzzy solution that makes me feel good” moral grounds?

My personal moral grounds/ It's ridiculous to bring class & PCness into morals

I wouldn't want to be in their situation. Is that difficult to understand? I really don't see why you made that point when I added the bit about setting precedent. That's clearly stating I don't think that they should be allowed to stay based solely on their circumstances. Just in an ideal world with no repurcussions I'd happily let them stay.

Did you just want to say the “I don’t know the facts but will go for the nice fuzzy solution that makes me feel good” bit? Would have been appropriate & pretty funny if I'd only said the moral grounds bit. But I DIDNT so in future think before you post.

Be still my bleeding heart.

Actually then seems you dont do much thinking at all.

The Corinthian

Bottle_of_Smoke wrote:

My personal moral grounds/ It's ridiculous to bring class & PCness into morals

You have a very limited understanding of how morality and social mores are defined if you think that.

I wouldn't want to be in their situation. Is that difficult to understand? I really don't see why you made that point when I added the bit about setting precedent. That's clearly stating I don't think that they should be allowed to stay based solely on their circumstances. Just in an ideal world with no repurcussions I'd happily let them stay.

That you accept that such a precedent would not be desirable was noted, but I wasn’t addressing that, I was addressing your idealistic and misguided opinion.

You don’t understand the facts of the case. You have no knowledge of the validity of their claim. I’d add that you have no clue as to the recent spate of refugee hunger strikes that have been taking place in the EU and how this one was simply a copycat attempt to capitalise on their success.

No, you’ve based your opinion on an empathic gut feeling that’s you wouldn't want to be in their situation and not on the merits or demerits, regardless of your addendum on precedents. So spare me.

Bottle_of_Smoke

The Corinthian wrote:

You have a very limited understanding of how morality and social mores are defined if you think that.

OK I should have added "I think" to the start of that statement. I don't accept that someone of any class should be allowed any leeway when it comes to morals. When did I say anything about social morals? just because i said it's ridiculous doesn't mean I'm denying it happens. Why exactly do I have a very limited understanding of social morals based on what I posted?

That you accept that such a precedent would not be desirable was noted, but I wasn’t addressing that, I was addressing your idealistic and misguided opinion.

The fact that I accept it means it's pointless & retarded addressing my opinion. Why did you bother?

You don’t understand the facts of the case. You have no knowledge of the validity of their claim. I’d add that you have no clue as to the recent spate of refugee hunger strikes that have been taking place in the EU and how this one was simply a copycat attempt to capitalise on their success.

From what I said about them going through the legal system you really should have had the sense to realise that I'd only be happy with them staying if their claims were valid.

No, you’ve based your opinion on an empathic gut feeling that’s you wouldn't want to be in their situation and not on the merits or demerits, regardless of your addendum on precedents. So spare me.

My last point covers this quote too. Unless you need it in crayon.

sports

Hello,
Well it depends on the situation and how the process needs to be handled from all sides.If there is a problem within the handling of asylum process then needs to be dealth with as this problem may arise again.Canada has a system that new asylum sekers are kept in a hotel for 6 weeks to get all there information checked out.if not sufficient support information in regards to there validity to stay then individuals are shipped back out of the country.Something along those lines should be set up here as makes it more humane instead of people waiting months or maybe years to find out there legal situation.I wondered why the individulas didnt go to one of the mosques in Dublin to highlight there plight.
Herr Flick I have no time for but it also shows the failure by all the services in the state in dealing with this situation.say if this group were armed and had hostages how would it have been treated.

Hobbes

I see the usual stuff being spouted. Lets dispel some of it (please note I didn't agree with the hunger strike)...

1. There were only two there that had connections with the Taliban.

2. Not everyone hunger striking was an Asylum seeker, in fact one had even had thier asylum approved long before the hunger strike.

3. This "First safe country". Its total tosh. There is no such rule that they have to claim asylum in the first safe country they enter into. There is a rule they have to declare in the first EU country they enter into though.

Even so, those claiming it can you actually list out the route these Asylum seekers took? Until you can, stop making up crap.

4. This one cracks me up too that somehow you cannot enter Ireland without first going through an EU country. False as well. Did some of them do it though? Conjecture and nothing more.

5. Did it because it was a catholic church and "Didn't pay". Total tosh as well. They were well aware of the church as the church allowed them to stay and even dropped the charges after they peacefully removed themselves.

6. Suicide is against Islam. For that matter it is against most religons so makes you wonder why the Church let them stay there for so long.

The Corinthian

Bottle_of_Smoke wrote:

Why exactly do I have a very limited understanding of social morals based on what I posted?

Because you claimed it ridiculous to consider social background when discussing morality.

The fact that I accept it means it's pointless & retarded addressing my opinion. Why did you bother?

No I was addressing your idealistic and misguided opinion stated as fact.

From what I said about them going through the legal system you really should have had the sense to realise that I'd only be happy with them staying if their claims were valid.

That’s not what you said so don’t try to mislead. You claimed that they should in an idea World allowed to stay regardless.

My last point covers this quote too. Unless you need it in crayon.

Your last point was a falsehood.

The Corinthian

Hobbes wrote:

6. Suicide is against Islam.

Which is; suicide or martyrdom?

metrovelvet

Hobbes wrote:

1. There were only two there that had connections with the Taliban..

Only two? Oh well then....

Hobbes wrote:

2. Not everyone hunger striking was an Asylum seeker, in fact one had even had thier asylum approved long before the hunger strike. ..

Then what did they want to gain by hunger striking?

Hobbes wrote:

4. This one cracks me up too that somehow you cannot enter Ireland without first going through an EU country. False as well. Did some of them do it though? Conjecture and nothing more. ..

Does Aer Lingus have direct flights from Afghanistan?

Hobbes wrote:

5. Did it because it was a catholic church and "Didn't pay". Total tosh as well. They were well aware of the church as the church allowed them to stay and even dropped the charges after they peacefully removed themselves. ..

Its a Protestant church.

Hobbes wrote:

6. Suicide is against Islam. For that matter it is against most religons so makes you wonder why the Church let them stay there for so long.

To die by starvation would take much much longer. If they really wanted to die they wouldnt have accepted rehydration or hospitalisation.