ISIS people returning thread - no Lisa Smith talk (21/12/19)

Boggles

malinheader wrote: »

The part where you didn't mention she is unrepentant and still doesn't accept what she done was wrong, severed heads didn't bother her and she would like that piece of s-it husband of hers to be released and hopefully some day be with her. Tell it as it is.

Thanks for that unique insight, that hasn't been presented on the thread yet, AFAIK.

Still though, absolutely nothing to do with what I said my post.

FTA69

Boggles wrote: »

Exactly, so what part of my post have you a problem with exactly?

The part where you portray her solely as a victim of a crime as opposed to now being an adult with agency who is unrepentant about joining a genocidal organisation, “wasn’t fazed” by severed heads due to the fact “they were enemies of Islam” and also said she “saluted” those remaining to fight to the death.

She may once have been a naïve 15 year old girl, she isn’t one now and we need to stop treating her as one. The only reason her and other people like her are coming out of the woodwork is because it’s gone tits up for ISIS, not because they’re in any way repentant.

malinheader

Boggles wrote: »

Thanks for that unique insight, that hasn't been presented on the thread yet, AFAIK.

Still though, absolutely nothing to do with what I said my post.

Just to be clear here. So the majority of people who are willing to take her back would agree if she had been 18 say when she left yous would all be happy to let her stay where she is. This correct.

aloneforever99

malinheader wrote: »

Just to be clear here. So the majority of people who are willing to take her back would agree if she had been 18 say when she left yous would all be happy to let her stay where she is. This correct.

No, I think her age and any abuse she suffered should be taken into account, but either way she should be brought home:

a) so we know where she is and what she is doing
b) to account for whatever crimes she has committed
c) because she is not any other country's problem
d) because she could be a goldmine of information
e) because it is more dangerous for Britain not to

Plumbthedepths

It would be terrible if she had a fatal accident in the camp or while attempting to transit back to the UK. On the plus side she would get to meet Allah and the rest of her fallen comrades .

Boggles

FTA69 wrote: »

The part where you portray her solely as a victim of a crime .

It's not my opinion, you do know that?

She was a victim of crime, that is the law.

Again, that is not my opinion.

professore

Boggles wrote: »

She wanted it your honor?

It's a well worn defense by predators all right.

The law is clear, she was a child, she was groomed.

Your impression is moot.

She was a victim of crime, a crime that holds a sentence of up to life in prison and rightly so.

Are the male ISIS support crew of a similar age who didn't kill anyone directly but supported the operations just as she did equally victims? If not why not?

Double standards again...

Boggles

professore wrote: »

Are the male ISIS support crew of a similar age who didn't kill anyone directly but supported the operations equally victims? If not why not?

This isn't really hard.

A child is a child under the law.

There is no difference.

What are you struggling with?

malinheader

aloneforever99 wrote: »

No, I think her age and any abuse she suffered should be taken into account, but either way she should be brought home:

a) so we know where she is and what she is doing
b) to account for whatever crimes she has committed
c) because she is not any other country's problem
d) because she could be a goldmine of information
e) because it is more dangerous for Britain not to

A. Do we want to know.
B. Tax payers money again to keep her warm and fed and likely released early for good behaviour.
C.Im sure the other countries would have no problem dealing with them themselves if we're given the go ahead.
D. She will have no more intel than they already have make no mistake of that.
E. Don't understand this at all its been mentioned by a few on here and I am still lost at there thinking.

malinheader

Boggles wrote: »

This isn't really hard.

A child is a child under the law.

There is no difference.

What are you struggling with?

I'm struggling with the so called softy do gooders on here,who frankly I would see them also a threat to the ideals of the west and the safety of its people because they think that this crowd of nut jobs could be invited into communities to live in peace and harmony .we know this is not a reality

ohnonotgmail

malinheader wrote: »

Just to be clear here. So the majority of people who are willing to take her back would agree if she had been 18 say when she left yous would all be happy to let her stay where she is. This correct.

Wether or not britain or its citizens want to take her back is irrelevant. She has a right to return to the UK as a UK citizen. The home secretary could put a temporary block on her return but it would only be temporary. That does not mean the british government should help return home, i think they would be crazy if they did. And of course if she does return home she should be the target of a criminal investigation.

professore

Boggles wrote: »

This isn't really hard.

A child is a child under the law.

There is no difference.

What are you struggling with?

So a child, or rather a late teenager, can commit crimes with no consequences whatsoever... OK... She's already guilty of hate speech.

Gatling

malinheader wrote: »

E. Don't understand this at all its been mentioned by a few on here and I am still lost at there thinking.

Just shows the thinking a terrorist is just that a terrorist, on here the terrorist is the victim ,
She was groomed online - no evidence other than she said she seen videos .
Maybe people on here are highly qualified professional psychologists and know something the majority don't but she is far from a victim .

aloneforever99

malinheader wrote: »

A. Do we want to know.
B. Tax payers money again to keep her warm and fed and likely released early for good behaviour.
C.Im sure the other countries would have no problem dealing with them themselves if we're given the go ahead.
D. She will have no more intel than they already have make no mistake of that.
E. Don't understand this at all its been mentioned by a few on here and I am still lost at there thinking.

a) Yes. Obviously.
b) All criminals spells in prison are paid for by tax payers.
c) You're basing that on nothing
d) You're basing that on nothing and you're almost definitely wrong
e) It's pretty obvious, what bit is confusing you? ISIS members are better off in jail/ under surveillance than roaming free.

Boggles

malinheader wrote: »

I'm struggling with the so called softy do gooders on here

Jesus H. Christ.

Laws specifically created to protect children are made by "softy do gooders"?

Please tell me more. Have you a blog I can subscribe to?

aloneforever99

Gatling wrote: »

Just shows the thinking a terrorist is just that a terrorist, on here the terrorist is the victim ,
She was groomed online - no evidence other than she said she seen videos .
Maybe people on here are highly qualified professional psychologists and know something the majority don't but she is far from a victim .

Some people are capable of nuance.

It's possible to be both victim and perpetrator. In fact, it's quite common.

Boggles

professore wrote: »

So a child, or rather a late teenager,

WTF is a "late teenager"?

She was 15, under the law that is a child.

Redefining it is as creepy as fook.

jmayo

Boggles wrote: »

She wanted it your honor?

It's a well worn defense by predators all right.

The law is clear, she was a child, she was groomed.

Your impression is moot.

She was a victim of crime, a crime that holds a sentence of up to life in prison and rightly so.

The western world is fooked if the loons are allowed have their way.


This woman, and yes she is now technically a woman, is very dangerous.
She may have been a minor when she left a few years ago, but lets face it she wasn't a kid.
She saw the worse of what ISIS did and yet she doesn't see anything wrong with it.

And some deluded fools think she should be brought back?

It's also marvellous how some are now concerned about her so called grooming, but were they so concerned about all the actual grooming of girls younger than her carried out in towns and cities throughout Britain.

aloneforever99 wrote: »

I don't know how more people don't see this.

Whatever crimes she has committed she should answer for, but her age is absolutely a mitigating factor.

After four years in a war zone and the loss of two children, she speaks in a very blase way about beheadings and murder, but I find it hard to believe that was her reaction at the time on arrival. Years of horror will desensitize most people to seeing it happen around them.

What's better for Britain? Having her exactly where they know where she is and can monitor her, or having her who knows where with who knows who giving them who knows what information?

She is a goldmine of information - on how she was recruited and why, on ISIS operations and internal workings. The only way to turn her from a threat into an asset is to bring her home, put her on trial and imprison her.

And then let her fundamentalise an entire prison?

Send her to one of those US sites that get information out of people and then who gives a feck.
She doesn't seem to have given a feck for all the victims of ISIS so fook her and the camel she rode in on.

She made her bed, and in fact through her complete lack of repentance, it is evident would be quite happy to still be in if things hadn't gone t*ts up for her friends.

By all accounts the Brits and French have already been "taking care" of some of their citizens who ran off to join ISIS and rightly so as they are enemies of their states and all the other decent right thinking citizens of their states.

malinheader

Boggles wrote: »

Jesus H. Christ.

Laws specifically created to protect children are made by "softy do gooders"?

Please tell me more. Have you a blog I can subscribe to?

Jesus h christ. Is right is she a child now or am I missing something here

malinheader

aloneforever99 wrote: »

a) Yes. Obviously.
b) All criminals spells in prison are paid for by tax payers.
c) You're basing that on nothing
d) You're basing that on nothing and you're almost definitely wrong
e) It's pretty obvious, what bit is confusing you? ISIS members are better off in jail/ under surveillance than roaming free.

e. ISIS members are better off dead.

Boggles

malinheader wrote: »

Jesus h christ. Is right is she a child now or am I missing something here

Who claimed she is a child now?

As for you missing something, I'd say definitely.

Boggles

jmayo wrote: »

This woman, and yes she is now technically a woman, is very dangerous.
She may have been a minor when she left a few years ago, but lets face it she wasn't a kid.

Under the law she was a child. It's defined in law. Our opinions are irrelevant.

So unless you advocating for a law change to allow 15 year olds be groomed, then I would love to hear your reasoning around it.

aloneforever99

malinheader wrote: »

e. ISIS members are better off dead.

You're entitled to hold that opinion, but it doesn't align with the law or Western values.

jmayo

Boggles wrote: »

Under the law she was a child. It's defined in law. Our opinions are irrelevant.

So unless you advocating for a law change to allow 15 year olds be groomed, then I would love to hear your reasoning around it.

Stop with the shyte.

1. Prove she was groomed ?
And something rather than her claim she watched some videos. :rolleyes:

2. and if it as you claim her fault, then why as an adult does she see no issue with what ISIS did ?

malinheader

Boggles wrote: »

Who claimed she is a child now?

As for you missing something, I'd say definitely.

Definitely think I might be missing something trying to convince people who are oblivious that these problems cannot be solved by the nicey nicey approach. Your a big part of the problems in Europe at the minute in my eyes.

malinheader

aloneforever99 wrote: »

You're entitled to hold that opinion, but it doesn't align with the law or Western values.

I know. That's the problem I'm trying to highlight.

aloneforever99

jmayo wrote: »

Stop with the shyte.

1. Prove she was groomed ?
And something rather than her claim she watched some videos. :rolleyes:

2. and if it as you claim her fault, then why as an adult does she see no issue with what ISIS did ?

1. How can we prove anything if we give her a bullet in the head with no attempt to find out?

2. Probably because she's spent four years in a cult.

aloneforever99

malinheader wrote: »

I know. That's the problem I'm trying to highlight.

So, your solution, without a hint of irony, is that we become more like ISIS?

malinheader

aloneforever99 wrote: »

So, your solution, without a hint of irony, is that we become more like ISIS?

What saw off there heads while filming on you tube. Definitely not.

aloneforever99

malinheader wrote: »

What saw off there heads while filming on you tube. Definitely not.

Execution without any kind of due process or trial is exactly the kind of thing they do. And that's what you're suggesting. Do you think you're different because you're suggesting a bullet rather than a beheading?