No I agree, but this is about security and terrorism. The issues you mention are one of the reasons I'm inclined towards an out vote. EU working migration which amounts to 48% of European Migration. I don't for a minute believe that exiting the EU will significantly prevent people coming to and from the UK who could be involved in terrorism against the UK.

I'm not ideologically wedded to staying in the EU or leaving it. Asylum is only a problem really because of the disparity in emigration and migration figures is heavily driven by EU migration.

In terms of terrorism, I don't believe that an EU exit will result in any real impact on terrorism - it might even make sharing information with EU countries and Security Services more problematic.

"One Nation Under God, has turned into One Nation Under the Influence of One Drug"
[Link]

It would be financially disastrous for the UK to not do business with the middle east, and problematic in terms of diplomacy, because that involves countries like Saudi Arabia, Kuwait, UAE etc on whom we have a significant resource and financial relationship and dependency.

The likely response of such a political move would be to see those countries and their nationals responding in kind, withdrawing investment, provision, oil supply and import trades.

Deportation becomes problematic if they've been granted asylum in the past, and most of the problem people are UK nationals or granted asylum from the country that wants them.

Internment - Rarely works. WWII the UK interned people that were a high risk or considered a risk - Meanwhile, the US found that German and Italian nationals were quite keen to fight for the US. Internment of the Japanese was a mistake, as it set back the US War Intelligence effort significantly.

Certain people, certainly, they're a threat. Provided they given POW status, that seems fair to me, in a war on terror. But its worth noting that Internment in NI actually worked to the benefit of the Republican and Loyalists, as it gave them a safe 'command and communication', as well as bring the IRA and Loyalists.

Problem when you intern people, is you're detaining them without trial, in a democracy and you often end up detaining the wrong people (Mosely in WWII would likely have encouraged British Union of Fascists to fight for the allies).

"One Nation Under God, has turned into One Nation Under the Influence of One Drug"
[Link]

I agree with all of this but what else could we do?

There will be no ideal solution.

Such as what?

"That was fun and to round off the day, I am off to steal a charity collection box and then desecrate a place of worship.” - Smokey, The Selhurst Arms, 26/02/02

I don't think that your first paragraph holds true - The UK experienced migration of Muslims from India and pakistan during the 70s and 80s, without any real problems, even into the 90s, the UK had little or any real problem in regard to Muslim terrorism or terrorist factions.

Post-2001 it changed, and there was definitely a big change following the invasion of Iraq. There is almost a situation where you have a generation of young Muslims, typically male, attracted by specifically Wahhabi based fundamentalism and extremists. I don't doubt that before that there were fundamentalist and extremist leaning or allied Muslims in the UK, but they weren't 'active against the UK and Europe'.

My feeling is that post 2001 we've become increasingly involved in the issues of the US in regards to its foreign policy in the middle east, which seems to be more directly linked to the conflict we are now experiencing.

Throughout the 90s, Al-Qaeda was engaged in a conflict with the US, based around its support of Saudi Arabia and to a lesser extent Israel whilst many of the 'extreme fundamentalists' in the UK seemed to be directed towards the Soviet-Afghan war and movements against regimes like Saudi, Jordan etc.

I think, 9/11 changed this, supporting the Afghan response of the US affected it, but that the 2003 invasion of Iraq essentially put the UK firmly onto the target list, as we drew closer to the US foreign policy in the middle east and becoming a direct participant in the war on terror

What is true, is that during the 90s, the UK had no real threat from Islamist groups, then after 2003 the number of arrests and conspiracies in the UK rocketed.

In terms of IS, it doesn't really surprise me that IS are attacking Western Countries, given that the we've been attacking IS. Its hard to say who started that - or that its wrong for the UK to actively target IS, we don't really have a choice in the matter - They have to be stopped. Those who travel to fight for IS should expect the full force of the law, and if they're active abroad against the UK, then everything they get.

But that will be meaningless, if we cannot address the issues with young Muslims that leads them to address their anger and frustration in society through violent means.

"One Nation Under God, has turned into One Nation Under the Influence of One Drug"
[Link]

Well, we could go back to the days where local councils had financial control over their housing stock AND policy making and make them follow Croydon's excellent example of how to manage and reinvest in it from the 60's and 70's which was very successful indeed, before the Tory Government of the 80's took that power away in order to pursue an impractical laissez-faire future with regard to providing a roof over peoples' heads.

MacMillan managed to build 300,000 social housing roofs in one year back in the 50's. That probably housed nearly 1,000,000 people. Add rent controls and the political will to do it then, certainly, within a few years of the plans being implemented pressure would have decreased.

Big chest and massive boobs

[Link]