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

Plumbthedepths

Not looking good for the 19 year old terrorist. The British PM wants her dealt with where she committed her crimes. Doubt Syria will be as kind to her as the UK would be. Ah well she may see Allah soon.

end of the road

malinheader wrote: »

Was thinking last night, if the scenario was to be be one of these holidaying terrorists claiming Irish citizenship and trying to get back into this country would there be as many people on here willing to take her back.

We all know our prisons have plenty of room, and all the new gardai stations opening around the country would make monitoring easy. Also the country has plenty of money to spend on security looking after these very very dangerous but jobs.

if they are an irish citizen then we have an obligation to take them back in yes.

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 we do.
b. irrelevant in terms of tax payers money and speculation in terms of being released early.
c. even if that is the case, britain or any other country do not get to dump their terrorists on other countries.
d. as may be but no harm in finding out anyway.

malinheader wrote: »

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

i'm not surprised you are struggling given nobody has ever said that.

scamalert wrote: »

have u seen the interview she said she watched some videos - unless shes a vegetable no one in their right head would fall for that, when asked did she do anything wrong she responded theres no evidence against her of any wrong doing she did repeat that several times - that alone suggests she most likely did some crazy $hit but will be hard to prove.Also seems grooming came from the father what about that as last read their going to get her to syria wonder is there any chance both of them could be charged.


good news is thou that defence minister said he will do anything in his powers to stop her from coming back into UK. Which includes refusal of entry and many more options.


Plus the muppet will need her passport and reading online seems these eejits usually give it away or burn it to show faith to ISIS, so if she has no passport they could easily refuse to issue one to her making it impossible to travel.


As from interview she said shes so far gone that no intervention will help her - so basically she wants to walk around with her baby as nothing happened back in uk.


and whats even worse if it happens it will cost millions to put her on surveillance, housing , welfare, medical care, most likely new identity.
for a trash bag like that.


when that money could be used for British single mothers instead who struggle not fckn terrorists.


As i guarantee if shes back there will be mass uprising on those in government that made it happen.

britain is a very rich country currently. therefore it can well afford the small costs of dealing with their terrorists, and help single mothers. the cost is an absolutely irrelevant and invalid argument in terms of whether britain should be taking back it's terrorists as per it's duty.

ohnonotgmail

Plumbthedepths wrote: »

Not looking good for the 19 year old terrorist. The British PM wants her dealt with where she committed her crimes. Doubt Syria will be as kind to her as the UK would be. Ah well she may see Allah soon.

what theresa may wants isn't terribly relevant.

end of the road

scamalert wrote: »

All paid in advance by British TAX payers to support terrorist for life.

that is no different to what happens for any other criminal.

scamalert wrote: »

She said herself shes beyond rehabilitation so stop taking pi$$ out of other people who give valid points, and you still ask for proof is she brainwashed.

she's not beyond being tried and imprisoned however.

scamalert wrote: »

shes in middle of nowhere and probably with no passport to legally pass any border, even if she does that would prove a point that she posses way larger threat.

which is why it's important she goes back to britain so she won't pose that threat.

malinheader

end of the road wrote: »

if they are an irish citizen then we have an obligation to take them back in yes.




a. yes we do.
b. irrelevant in terms of tax payers money and speculation in terms of being released early.
c. even if that is the case, britain or any other country do not get to dump their terrorists on other countries.
d. as may be but no harm in finding out anyway.



i'm not surprised you are struggling given nobody has ever said that.






britain is a very rich country currently. therefore it can well afford the small costs of dealing with their terrorists, and help single mothers. the cost is an absolutely irrelevant

and invalid argument in terms of whether britain should be taking back it's terrorists as per it's duty.

Britain is a very rich country that can well afford a small cost of looking after there terrorists. Fcuk me.
You didn't cost the children's hospital by any chance.

Plumbthedepths

ohnonotgmail wrote:

what theresa may wants isn't terribly relevant.

Depends what Assad looks for. He will be looking for some western friends again.

ohnonotgmail

Plumbthedepths wrote: »

Depends what Assad looks for. He will be looking for some western friends again.

She cant even convince her own party that she is in charge.

B-D-P--

I bet British forward to her coming back and joining the tax paying society, getting a 9 to 5, and not Margret cashing it!

aloneforever99

Those who are against bringing her back are primarily motivated by revenge. That's understandable, but it's not a good basis for making a decision. It's emotive, but it's not smart.

Britain is safer knowing where she is, what she is doing and who she is associating with.

The most rational choice is to bring her back to the UK, try her for crimes committed, interrogate her regularly for intel and on release keep an extremely close eye on her - sign on twice a week for the rest of her life at the local police station.

suicide_circus

maybe have a national register, like a sex offenders register, except for ISIS members. Available to the public. Sign on every week, curfew, ankle bracelet.

aloneforever99

suicide_circus wrote: »

maybe have a national register, like a sex offenders register, except for ISIS members. Available to the public. Sign on every week, curfew, ankle bracelet.

This makes sense.

Knowledge is power.

Left in the wilderness, we have no way of knowing what these people are up to.

malinheader

aloneforever99 wrote: »

Those who are against bringing her back are primarily motivated by revenge. That's understandable, but it's not a good basis for making a decision. It's emotive, but it's not smart.

Britain is safer knowing where she is, what she is doing and who she is associating with.

The most rational choice is to bring her back to the UK, try her for crimes committed, interrogate her regularly for intel and on release keep an extremely close eye on her - sign on twice a week for the rest of her life at the local police station.

And on release??? How long will she serve.

Gatling

malinheader wrote: »

And on release. How long will she serve.

Even better who say she has any information to hand up remember she said she was only a house wife and let's be straight here Isis don't exactly believe in women being anything but whores for them

malinheader

Gatling wrote: »

Even better who say she has any information to hand up remember she said she was only a house wife and let's be straight here Isis don't exactly believe in women being anything but whores for them

That's what I want to know, how do we find out how many and what crimes to try her for.?????

Plumbthedepths

aloneforever99 wrote:

Britain is safer knowing where she is, what she is doing and who she is associating with.

Knowing she is in a hole in Syria, with a round between her eyes is equally beneficial.

Boggles

volchitsa wrote: »

You said she was a victim of crime. What evidence do you have of that?

I imagine she was/is a victim of numerous crimes, grooming, child abduction, trafficking, sexual exploitation, etc.

It's still a live case, so ultimately it will be up to the Met to decide who to prosecute and on what basis, if they ever do.

Specifically who groomed these 3 girls?, I'd be sure it would be more than one. But specifically the police think this woman was responsible.

https://www.heraldscotland.com/news/13205229.police-scots-jihadi-bride-will-be-prosecuted-if-she-ever-returns-to-britain/

The Scottish woman who travelled to Syria to become a "jihadi bride" and recruited three London schoolgirls to the Islamic State terror group will be prosecuted if she ever returns to Britain, according to a senior Scotland Yard officer.

Aqsa Mahmood, 20, who is the daughter of a successful Glasgow businessman, is suspected of helping to recruit three London schoolgirls to the Islamic State terror group.

This didn't just happen over the weekend, this has been going on for 4 years.

The Home Office set up an inquiry on the back of it, which found failings surrounding the girls welfare.

Ignoring all that just basic bloody common sense would dictate that a child didn't just travel to the caliphate without outside help or influence.

volchitsa wrote: »

You also seemed to be saying that her being 15 meant she was automatically a victim and not a perpetrator,

Again, no. I didn't say that.

They can both, it wouldn't be unheard of for predators to use children to lure other children.

But all this is well established, particularly in how ISIS recruit.

ohnonotgmail

malinheader wrote: »

That's what I want to know, how do we find out how many and what crimes to try her for.?????

well you have to let her back into britain first

Gatling

malinheader wrote: »

That's what I want to know, how do we find out how many and what crimes to try her for.?????

According to people on this thread she was a child who was groomed - making her an innocent victim who's done no wrong (it's all someone's fault)

According to people on here she can't be charged for joining Isis because it wasn't illegal to be part of Isis at the time ,

According to people on here it's safer to bring her home then leave her to any justice the Kurds or Syrians want to dish out ,

According to people on here she's a goldmine full of information.

As we can see there is a bit of misinformation going intentionally or unintentionally

malinheader

ohnonotgmail wrote: »

well you have to let her back into britain first

And why is this. Is she going to tell us then.

ohnonotgmail

malinheader wrote: »

And why is this. Is she going to tell us then.

cant do much investigating when she is in a camp in syria.

malinheader

ohnonotgmail wrote: »

cant do much investigating when she is in a camp in syria.

Stop deflecting. Why do you need her in the UK to find out what she has or hasn't done.

Gatling

In an interview with the BBC, Shamima Begum, now 19, said the deaths of 22 innocent people in the terrorist attack on an Ariana Grande concert in 2017 were akin to the "women and children" being bombed in IS territory in Baghuz.


She told the broadcaster: "I do feel that it's wrong that innocent people did get killed.

"It's one thing to kill a soldier that is fighting you, it's self-defence, but to kill the people like women and children...

"Just people like the women and children in Baghuz that are being killed right now unjustly, the bombings. It's a two-way thing really.

jmayo

aloneforever99 wrote: »

Those who are against bringing her back are primarily motivated by revenge. That's understandable, but it's not a good basis for making a decision. It's emotive, but it's not smart.

Britain is safer knowing where she is, what she is doing and who she is associating with.

The most rational choice is to bring her back to the UK, try her for crimes committed, interrogate her regularly for intel and on release keep an extremely close eye on her - sign on twice a week for the rest of her life at the local police station.

Are you pulling the pi** now.
It has been offically acknowledged that Britain has something like 23,000 jihadists that they need to watch and you think that they can add to that and shure everything will be ok. :rolleyes:

Ever notice how all these attacks are carried out by people already known to the security services ?

And we don't hear about all the attacks that are thwarted weekly by bthe security services across Europe.

suicide_circus wrote: »

maybe have a national register, like a sex offenders register, except for ISIS members. Available to the public. Sign on every week, curfew, ankle bracelet.

Yeah all well and good, but whatabout 85-year-old priest Jacques Hamel who had his throat slit whilst syaing mass in Normandy ?

One of his murderers was Algerian born teenager who had tried to reach Syria numerous times.
He had been imprisoned, but released by some lily livered well meaning judge.
Hell they could well be a poster around here with such a lax attitude to jihadists :rolleyes:

Anyhow the lad was given the following constraints when released
... "he was electronically tagged and a curfew was placed on him, requiring him to live at his parents' home, and to leave his house only between 08:30 to 12:30 and 14:00 to 18:00."

The teenager left his house to hack the head off an old priest saying mass in a nearby church and to critically wound another old man.

Tagging me ar**.

volchitsa

Boggles wrote: »

I imagine she was/is a victim of numerous crimes, grooming, child abduction, trafficking, sexual exploitation, etc.

It's still a live case, so ultimately it will be up to the Met to decide who to prosecute and on what basis, if they ever do.

Specifically who groomed these 3 girls?, I'd be sure it would be more than one. But specifically the police think this woman was responsible.

https://www.heraldscotland.com/news/13205229.police-scots-jihadi-bride-will-be-prosecuted-if-she-ever-returns-to-britain/

This didn't just happen over the weekend, this has been going on for 4 years.

The Home Office set up an inquiry on the back of it, which found failings surrounding the girls welfare.

Ignoring all that just basic bloody common sense would dictate that a child didn't just travel to the caliphate without outside help or influence.

Again, no. I didn't say that.

They can both, it wouldn't be unheard of for predators to use children to lure other children.

But all this is well established, particularly in how ISIS recruit.

So when you said this

Boggles wrote: »

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.

you actually meant that it was your opinion? Or even, apparently, your imagination?

And in fact you have no evidence at all for stuff you were claiming as fact just a few pages ago.

Okay.

(The fact that they had to have contacts to help them get out there does not automatically make them victims, you do get that, right?)

Hector Savage

BBC sympathising with this terrorist ****.
Shame on them.

malinheader

Hector Savage wrote: »

BBC sympathising with this terrorist ****.
Shame on them.

+1on that.

aloneforever99

malinheader wrote: »

+1on that.

There's a thanks button specifically to avoid useless posts like this.

malinheader

aloneforever99 wrote: »

There's a thanks button specifically to avoid useless posts like this.

Still waiting for you to answer my question to you from last page. Suit you better to try and do that.

aloneforever99

malinheader wrote: »

Still waiting for you to answer my question to you from last page. Suit you better to try and do that.

How long would she serve?

Yes, that was a very insightful question definitely worthy of an answer....

I don't actually know how long she will serve. It depends on what she is convicted of I'd imagine. What's your point?

tretorn

aloneforever99 wrote: »

Those who are against bringing her back are primarily motivated by revenge. That's understandable, but it's not a good basis for making a decision. It's emotive, but it's not smart.

Britain is safer knowing where she is, what she is doing and who she is associating with.

The most rational choice is to bring her back to the UK, try her for crimes committed, interrogate her regularly for intel and on release keep an extremely close eye on her - sign on twice a week for the rest of her life at the local police station.

But what crimes can you charge her with.

Was it illegal for British citizens to travel to Syria when herself and her pals took off.

As far as I understand there is no evidence whatsoever of her doing anything illegal and nor is there any evidence she incited anyone to commit terrorism.

She is a dangerous nutjob and has been radicalised but there are many thousands of young Muslims still living in Europe who think like her.

Thats why we need to be on our guard at all times and the security services need to be resourced properly so they are one step ahead of potential terrorists at all times.