Off Topic The Politics Thread

  • Please bear with us on the new site integration and fixing any known bugs over the coming days. If you can not log in please try resetting your password and check your spam box. If you have tried these steps and are still struggling email [email protected] with your username/registered email address
  • Log in now to remove adverts - no adverts at all to registered members!

Should the UK remain a part of the EU or leave?

  • Stay in

    Votes: 56 47.9%

  • Get out

    Votes: 61 52.1%
  • Total voters
    117
  • Poll closed .
Countries that do not accept Israeli passports[edit]
You must log in or register to see images

Countries (in green) that reject passports from Israel (blue). Countries that reject not only Israeli passports but also any passport which contain Israeli stamps or visas are in dark green.
Sixteen countries forbid admission to Israeli passport holders:

  • You must log in or register to see images
    Algeria[12]
  • You must log in or register to see images
    Bangladesh[13]
  • You must log in or register to see images
    Brunei[14]
  • You must log in or register to see images
    Iran[15][16]
  • You must log in or register to see images
    Iraq1[17]
  • You must log in or register to see images
    Kuwait[18]
  • You must log in or register to see images
    Lebanon[19]
  • You must log in or register to see images
    Libya[20]
1 – Except for Iraqi Kurdistan.
2 – Clearance permit needed from the Ministry of Home Affairs.
3 – Accepted for transit only; not allowed for admission.

In addition, Iran,[31] Kuwait,[32] Lebanon,[33] Libya,[34] Saudi Arabia,[35] Sudan,[36] Syria[37] and Yemen[38] do not allow entry to people with evidence of travel to Israel, or whose passports have either a used or an unused Israeli visa. As a consequence, many countries will allow for a second passport to be issued to citizens wishing to circumvent this restriction although the Israeli immigration services themselves have now mostly ceased to issue entry or exit stamps to foreign nationals.
 
According to wikipedia, there are 16 countries that Israeli law considers enemy states and they won't allow citizens to go to them without special permission.

There are also 16 countries that won't allow admission to Isaeli citizens.

Apparently the enemy state list was started in 1954 and consisted of 8 countries.

There's a lot more religion, history and politics behind this than the whim of a newly elected racist US president.
 
kiwiqpr said:
wheres the outrage
Click to expand...

It's what you expect from regimes like the ones listed hence no outrage. It's not what you expect from a country that has a Hollywood vision of itself that it likes to portray to the world and its own citizens that it is the land of the free and of opportunity. The Great American dream is dead.
.
 
No outrage but all those hypocrites can demonstrate against Trump's temporary ban. Where were they when Obama put a six-month ban on Iraq? Where were they when the Chinese President or some of those horrid leaders came for a visit? The ones with the worst human rights records.
Where were they when Obama bombed the Middle east every day of his 10-year presidency?
Where the demonstrations when Obama kept open the US torture Prisons (again for 10 years).
Or the fact that the countries with the Trump travel bans were Obama's idea but didn't implement it because of time.
Why are they not demonstrating against the countries banning Israelis?

Said before that Trump is a bit of a muppet and doesn't think through these ideas but a lot these protesters are really stupid hypocrites that seriously need to get a life.
 
KooPeeArr said:
According to wikipedia, there are 16 countries that Israeli law considers enemy states and they won't allow citizens to go to them without special permission.

There are also 16 countries that won't allow admission to Isaeli citizens.

Apparently the enemy state list was started in 1954 and consisted of 8 countries.

There's a lot more religion, history and politics behind this than the whim of a newly elected racist US president.
Click to expand...

Rubbish again from you. Go do some yoghurt knitting.
 
Telford Ranger said:
I'm don't think I'm being touchy but yet again hey ho. In the context of a debate "factual backgrounds" as you present them are irrelevant as stand alone arguments. We can all post "facts", pie-charts, graphs and God knows what else till Kingdom Come. It'd be boring. What is relevant is what you make of them, how you interpret them, how they impact your life and inform your opinions.

Are they wrong? Define wrong in the context of this debate then you tell me. This is your quoted source. If they're not wrong as I think you're defining it, it tells me that your original source is woefully out of date and from opposing 1 time in 50 we are now opposing 1 time in 8; based on your own source. Am I wrong?

(And it's irrelevant. One time is one time too many.)
Click to expand...

Not touchy at all! I was merely curious to know how many EU laws we have voted against and did a quick search. Just trying to shed some light after you described someone's misapprehension as a lie. It's not 'my own' source, just one I happened upon. As I have said, my interpretation of the fact revealed (I take it to be a fact, unless you know better) is that 56 occasions out of 2,592 votes is a pretty small number. Your interpretation is that one would be too many. We differ.

What would be more enlightening, is to know exactly what these 56 laws are and why we voted against. Any idea?
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: colognehornet
KooPeeArr said:
Are you saying that Trump isn't a racist? Go on, spell it out for a yoghurt knitter like me.
Click to expand...
I am just saying Obama has done worse than Trump. Yet because many people just dislike Trump, most because media coverage and leftist views, they think he is Satan. Yet as soon as I mention Obama you go quiet? Why is that?
Answers on a postcard
 
Stroller said:
Not touchy at all! I was merely curious to know how many EU laws we have voted against and did a quick search. Just trying to shed some light after you described someone's misapprehension as a lie. It's not 'my own' source, just one I happened upon. As I have said, my interpretation of the fact revealed (I take it to be a fact, unless you know better) is that 56 occasions out of 2,592 votes is a pretty small number. Your interpretation is that one would be too many. We differ.

What would be more enlightening, is to know exactly what these 56 laws are and why we voted against. Any idea?
Click to expand...
The 2% of laws which Britain voted against is actually a smaller number than for any other EU. state. Implying that Britain got its own way more than any other country.
Earlier I referred to Britain as having its democratic image tarnished by the Brexit campaign, which drew some responses on here. I should say that this was not because of the result, but rather the manner of the Brexit debate - the lack of real facts, on what should have been the biggest debate in recent history, not to mention the first political murder in modern British history. This was all followed closely by the media in other countries, included the quality (or lack of it) displayed on some Ukip posters. It was also remarked that political leaders normally give the populace a choice between preserving the status quo, on the one hand, and initiating a change which the government wants on the other. As it happened Cameron opened the way for a protest vote which engineered a situation where the government was forced to do something which it didn't want to do, and where there was nobody on the other side with any real plan - this all very definitely tarnished Britain's image abroad.
 
  • Like
Reactions: finglasqpr and QPR Oslo
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top Bottom
Back