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

Baggly

Kivaro wrote: »

Hmmm.
And of course, you and you alone, will be the arbitrator on what comments are throwaway ...... especially if it does not align with your expressed views on this thread.

By the way, there will no need for you to threaten me "severely" for having the audacity to speak out on your partiality.

Go away out of that. I havent shut anyone down for discussing with me or holding an opposing view.

If you have read the thread you will know i have actioned OT posting and breaches of the forum charter; neither of which will be an issue going forward if everyone can add to the discussion and remain respectful.

Discussing mod actions or instructions is not part of the above, so if you have an issue with moderating, you are free to bring it to feedback or a cmod. In the meantime, get back on topic.

jam_mac_jam

Tea drinker wrote: »

First discussion I heard on this today on RTE R1 a woman in her first sentence compared Smith radical view to the alt right radical.
That's quite a sick view view in order to get a few virtue signals in.
The complete subjugation of all minorities, the keeping of slaves, the mass murder of minorities, burning people alive in cages, mass executions by slitting of throats on Libya beach, while pointing to EU, throwing gays from buildings etc etc.
The real enemy is the alt right? I think the person claiming all the above is on a par with alt right is the real danger.

Yeah, I completely agree with you. A more accurate comparison would be with the Nazis not the alt right. These people are pure evil and we should be very careful about taking them back. Especially a woman convert, how messed up do you have to be to go as a woman to ISIS held territory.

inforfun

The Dutch guy wants to go back to the Netherlands but will stay where he is as long as his "wife" isnt allowed to come with him.
She isnt welcome in the UK, neither in The Netherlands (for now, in the interviews on the state tv he is already being called "former IS" )

Meanwhile Iraq has told the Kurds they wouldnt mind if they want to extradite their IS prisoners to Iraq.

jam_mac_jam

Danzy wrote: »

The extreme right is dominated by Islam at this stage.

What?

Baggly

Danzy wrote: »

The extreme right is dominated by Islam at this stage.

ohnonotgmail wrote: »

Oh dear god.

Lads; are ye kidding me? 4 posts after a mod warning. Take a break from the thread for a day and think about that.

jmayo

Bannasidhe wrote: »

It's possible to have more than one enemy.

It is not 'virtue signalling' to say that Any/Every fundamentalist/totalitarian regime is a threat - be it's ideology religious or political.

Europe has suffered enough at the hands of the extreme right to now embrace is as some form of defense against extreme Islam.

Well no one would be turning to the right or indeed the extreme right, if the left was still interested in what was once their support base, i.e. normal working people, and not either trying to import millions of people from incompatible cultural backgrounds or paying more attention to gender identities than the affects of globalisation, uneducated immigrants adding to the cost of social care and competing for scarce resources with the less well off in society.

And then you have what used to pass for the centrists chasing after the left down the same rabbit hole.

People in likes of Calais voted overwhelmingly for Le Pen because they have been abandoned by all the others.

When no one is bothering to listen to you, you eventually turn to whoever is.

And it is a reason for trump, for Brexit and yet some are fooking incapable of grasping that fact.

Even in Ireland the huge increase in support for Peter Casey, not a very good candidate at all, should have been a wake up call for some.

Instead it has just been used as an excuse to label people as boggers, racists and parish idiots.

Make no mistake about it, unless the left and the centre cop to fook on, the next generation of right wing politicians will make the likes of Le Pen and Trump look like choir boys/choir girls.

Grayson

Boggles wrote: »

Haven't 100s if not 1000s all ready returned to those countries?

Around 400 into the UK alone. 40 were prosecuted.

They assess them and keep an eye on them. A lot are considered no risk at all. Which makes it weirder that a girl with a baby who was not a combatant was denied.

Zorya

It's a laugh really, what people are calling alt right, extreme right, totalitarian, nazis, etc etc. All views that are in any way hinting towards conservative or to the ''right'' of extreme progressive liberalism are combined together in one big indecipherable melange. The words are meaningless.

It used to be not so long ago that it was considered respectable and reasonable to have views on either the left or the right, to be liberal or conservative. People could tolerate difference of opinion. People could debate without losing their minds and sneering at others.

It is impossible now because -ironically - of the authoritarian left. Aut-Left? Maybe that should become a thing.
It is considered almost barbaric not to automatically align with left wing views now, so we have swathes of people who can only express themselves anonymously on discussion boards or in the comments sections of online newspapers, or quietly among their neighbours. Some do so angrily, without adequate thought, as a reflexive kickback to PC authoritarianism.

It is giving rise to such ludicrous ambivalence - for example when Muslims in Birmingham object to LGBTQ education in schools, who will the Aut-Left support?

As for returning jihadis? I don't know what to do with them in truth. It seems terribly unfair to offload our terrorists on people like the Kurds, who have suffered more than enough in their history. Or to leave countries that have been bombed to rubble to deal with our mad men and women. So, overall I would say we have to take them back, put them on trial for crimes against humanity and incarcerate them as appropriate.

Roger Hassenforder

inforfun wrote: »

Meanwhile Iraq has told the Kurds they wouldnt mind if they want to extradite their IS prisoners to Iraq.

Fair play to the Iraqis.

Baggly

smartyfarts wrote: »

SNIP

DO NOT POST IN THIS THREAD AGAIN

jam_mac_jam

Grayson wrote: »

They assess them and keep an eye on them. A lot are considered no risk at all. Which makes it weirder that a girl with a baby who was not a combatant was denied.

The women who moved from western countries to ISIS held areas hold some very dangerous ideas, they are supporting an organisation that takes other women as sex slaves because they are the wrong religion, they throw gay people off buildings. They supported and helped this organisation torture and kill Syrian people. I am not sure compassion is what I would offer them.


No risk? Really?

Boggles

jmayo wrote: »

Well no one would be turning to the right or indeed the extreme right, if the left was still interested in what was once their support base, i.e. normal working people, and not either trying to import millions of people from incompatible cultural backgrounds or paying more attention to gender identities than the affects of globalisation, uneducated immigrants adding to the cost of social care and competing for scarce resources with the less well off in society.

I imagine you mean Germany or at least Germany is part of this?

The CDU are a centre right party.

They are turning to migrants not because they are turning there back on normal working people or they are gone soft and are trying to save the world.

They are doing it for pure selfish financial reasons.

It's very simple if the working pot of people falls, taxes go up, pensions go down.

Grayson

jam_mac_jam wrote: »

The women who moved from western countries to ISIS held areas hold some very dangerous ideas, they are supporting an organisation that takes other women as sex slaves because they are the wrong religion, they throw gay people off buildings. They supported and helped this organisation torture and kill Syrian people. I am not sure compassion is what I would offer them.


No risk? Really?

Yet others who went there did some of that stuff and were allowed to return. And this isn't about compassion, it's about rights. they allowed others back. Hundreds in fact. They've not proved that she is a threat or any more/less dangerous than the others who were allowed back. It appears arbitrary. It looks like the home secretary did this not because of any actual danger she posed but because he was courting the popular vote.

If she's committed any crimes in Syria then she should face trial there. Although it's doubtful she would get a fair trial there. If she committed any crimes back in the UK, then she should face trial there.

Plus there's the fact that if a Syrian moved to the UK and committed a crime, and then the Syrian government revoked their citizenship so they couldn't be deported to Syria after they finished their sentence, the UK government would have a conniption. And that goes for any country.

jmayo

Zorya wrote: »

It's a laugh really, what people are calling alt right, extreme right, totalitarian, nazis, etc etc. All views that are in any way hinting towards conservative or to the ''right'' of extreme progressive liberalism are combined together in one big indecipherable melange. The words are meaningless.

It used to be not so long ago that it was considered respectable and reasonable to have views on either the left or the right, to be liberal or conservative. People could tolerate difference of opinion. People could debate without losing their minds and sneering at others.

It is impossible now because -ironically - of the authoritarian left. Aut-Left? Maybe that should become a thing.
It is considered almost barbaric not to automatically align with left wing views now, so we have swathes of people who can only express themselves anonymously on discussion boards or in the comments sections of online newspapers, or quietly among their neighbours. Some do so angrily, without adequate thought, as a reflexive kickback to PC authoritarianism.

It is giving rise to such ludicrous ambivalence - for example when Muslims in Birmingham object to LGBTQ education in schools, who will the Aut-Left support?

As for returning jihadis? I don't know what to do with them in truth. It seems terribly unfair to offload our terrorists on people like the Kurds, who have suffered more than enough in their history. Or to leave countries that have been bombed to rubble to deal with our mad men and women. So, overall I would say we have to take them back, put them on trial for crimes against humanity and incarcerate them as appropriate.

A while back I came across something which shows how far we have come over the decades.
In the 1960s a labour government in UK published a paper on controlling immigration.
Basically they advised that it should be toughened up as it would have affects on working class areas and thus it's support base.

Now the laugh is if someone published that paper today they would be labelled nazis.

And the current so called labour party are so far removed from their former support base that they instead sanction members that actually draw attention to things like the majorily Pakistani linked child grooming and rape gangs operating in working class areas in British cities and towns.

jam_mac_jam

Grayson wrote: »

Yet others who went there did some of that stuff and were allowed to return. And this isn't about compassion, it's about rights. they allowed others back. Hundreds in fact. They've not proved that she is a threat or any more/less dangerous than the others who were allowed back. It appears arbitrary. It looks like the home secretary did this not because of any actual danger she posed but because he was courting the popular vote.

If she's committed any crimes in Syria then she should face trial there. Although it's doubtful she would get a fair trial there. If she committed any crimes back in the UK, then she should face trial there.

Plus there's the fact that if a Syrian moved to the UK and committed a crime, and then the Syrian government revoked their citizenship so they couldn't be deported to Syria after they finished their sentence, the UK government would have a conniption. And that goes for any country.

Just because they made a mistake on hundreds of others doesn't mean she should be allowed return. She was actively supporting an enemy army, its not the same as a Syrian committing a crime like robbing a car.
Its not the same situation so cannot be compared. Although I agree with you on the possible motives of the UK government.


I don't really mind if she is tried in Syria or the UK but I can see why they didn't allow her back. She choose to support a foreign enemy army.


If a Syrian left their country to fight on behalf of the IRA then I think we would understand if Syria took their citizenship.

Boggles

jam_mac_jam wrote: »

If a Syrian left their country to fight on behalf of the IRA then I think we would understand if Syria took their citizenship.

Assad would love if anyone fought against the British.

Letting him have access to any British returning ISIS member is probably the most dangerous scenario.

ToBeFrank123

From the sounds and looks of it, these ISIS women are brainwashed to the nth degree, worse than the men in many cases.

Until they show some kind of respect for the West and Western values, they can wallow in whatever sh*thole camp they are currently in.

Their hardcore ideology is positively stone age and is completely incompatible with western European values. So whenever they see fit to rejoin civilization they are welcome, but not until then. We don't need people prepared to use or condone violence to drag us all back to the stone age. No thank you.

Bataclan, Nice, Manchester, etc - all condoned by these thugs, men and women.

Boggles

ToBeFrank123 wrote: »

Their hardcore ideology is positively stone age and is completely incompatible with western European values.

The irony being they are largely a product of "Western European Values".

Western Values didn't all of a sudden think Mad Dog and Saddam were brutal men that needed removing.

Oil companies and the markets did, or the staple of our Western Values.

jam_mac_jam

Boggles wrote: »

Assad would love if anyone fought against the British.

Letting him have access to any British returning ISIS member is probably the most dangerous scenario.

Yeah probably a bad analogy.

jmayo

Boggles wrote: »

The irony being they are largely a product of "Western European Values".

Western Values didn't all of a sudden think Mad Dog and Saddam were brutal men that needed removing.

Oil companies and the markets did, or the staple of our Western Values.

That's a load of bullshyte and once again you are pulling the usual shyte of trying to blame the West somehow for the fooked up thinking of some people.

Yes the major Western powers and it's oil companies have gotten stuck into Middle East and invaded places like Iraq, destablished places like Syria, Libya.

But here is the rub the people in the West who are into blaming those same oil companies and those same Western governments are also the ones complaining when Assad or Gaddaffi are not being bombed to protect the poor people on the ground.

Also no matter what a Western oil company has gotten up to in Iraq, Libya or how many screwed up military interventions certain Western countries have performed, does not excuse someone from the West going off to join a bunch of cn**s that slaughter people (men, women and children) in the Middle East who don't happen to belong to their branch of islam.
And even worse those same c**ts actively encourage their followers in the West to slaughter innocent men, women and children.

You are basically excusing the actual attackers and supporters of the attacks at Manchester Arena, the Nice boardwalk, the Berlin market by claiming it is the West's fault.
Fair enough if the fookers want to go fight the West, then go off and take on the Americans, the British or their proxies, but don't fooking attack kids at a concert in Manchester or don't slaughter yazidis in Syria.
Don't support and engage in fooking gay people off roofs or turning young girls into sex slaves.

It is really fooked up thinking where one supposedly gets back at the evil west by slaughtering people with basically near enough the same beliefs who just happen to live over the road.

Hacking the heads off Shia, yazidis, alawites really is sticking it to the yanks and Exxon. :rolleyes:

Boggles

jmayo wrote: »

That's a load of bullshyte and once again you are pulling the usual shyte of trying to blame the West somehow for the fooked up thinking of some people.

Blair himself has come out and said ISIS was a direct result of Iraq

I don't base my opinions on emotion lad, I suggest you take a breath, maybe have a read of some of the summary's of the Chilcot report.

Baggly

jmayo wrote: »

That's a load of bullshyte and once again you are pulling the usual shyte of trying to blame the West somehow for the fooked up thinking of some people.

Yes the major Western powers and it's oil companies have gotten stuck into Middle East and invaded places like Iraq, destablished places like Syria, Libya.

But here is the rub the people in the West who are into blaming those same oil companies and those same Western governments are also the ones complaining when Assad or Gaddaffi are not being bombed to protect the poor people on the ground.

Also no matter what a Western oil company has gotten up to in Iraq, Libya or how many screwed up military interventions certain Western countries have performed, does not excuse someone from the West going off to join a bunch of cn**s that slaughter people (men, women and children) in the Middle East who don't happen to belong to their branch of islam.
And even worse those same c**ts actively encourage their followers in the West to slaughter innocent men, women and children.

You are basically excusing the actual attackers and supporters of the attacks at Manchester Arena, the Nice boardwalk, the Berlin market by claiming it is the West's fault.
Fair enough if the fookers want to go fight the West, then go off and take on the Americans, the British or their proxies, but don't fooking attack kids at a concert in Manchester or don't slaughter yazidis in Syria.
Don't support and engage in fooking gay people off roofs or turning young girls into sex slaves.

It is really fooked up thinking where one supposedly gets back at the evil west by slaughtering people with basically near enough the same beliefs who just happen to live over the road.

Hacking the heads off Shia, yazidis, alawites really is sticking it to the yanks and Exxon. :rolleyes:

Mod

You are making interesting points, but you need to calm down please and show a little more respect for your fellow poster. Take a break from this thread for a day please.

ToBeFrank123

Boggles wrote: »

Blair himself has come out and said ISIS was a direct result of Iraq

I don't base my opinions on emotion lad, I suggest you take a breath, maybe have a read of some of the summary's of the Chilcot report.

If it wasn't for the Syrian Civil War, ISIS would have remained a small time group of no more than 1000 fighters in the deserts of Iraq rather than the 100,000 or so strong group they eventually became. These guys just love a political and government vacuam where the civilians are left defenceless. But once you put up any sort of fight to them, they cut and run including back to their home countries.

When there was no-one left to behead or rape they decided they had enough and wanted to return to the west. And its clear the women are as bad, they support sex slavery and the like. Dark Ages mindset at best.

ToBeFrank123

Its naïve to believe they will all return to a life of quiet suburbia. A fair number will remain a threat for years to come, and the question is how many more they will radicalize with their ideology, particularly among the impressionable young.

Boggles

ToBeFrank123 wrote: »

If it wasn't for the Syrian Civil War, ISIS would have remained a small time group of no more than 1000 fighters in the deserts of Iraq rather than the 100,000 or so strong group they eventually became

The full scale rise of ISIS coincided with the yanks pulling out of Iraq.

GinAndBitter

Never forget, all it took was 9 isis scumbags and 45 minutes to kill 130 innocent people in Paris in 2015.

malinheader

ToBeFrank123 wrote: »

Its naïve to believe they will all return to a life of quiet suburbia. A fair number will remain a threat for years to come, and the question is how many more they will radicalize with their ideology, particularly among the impressionable young.

Aye your right, if you sit to long on s playstation playing some of them games they reckon it can seriously affect how you act in society. Jesus h christ what way will these scum react after what they must of seen and SUPPORTED.

Roger Hassenforder

Boggles wrote: »

Blair himself has come out and said ISIS was a direct result of Iraq

I don't base my opinions on emotion lad, I suggest you take a breath, maybe have a read of some of the summary's of the Chilcot report.

Referencing a report that excoriated Blair, who you're using to support your argument.
All in the same post.

Interesting

malinheader

Boggles wrote: »

Sure it takes less than 5 seconds for a drone strike to do that.

That's a very interesting reply .

Boggles

Roger Hassenforder wrote: »

Referencing a report that excoriated Blair, who you're using to support your argument.
All in the same post.

Interesting

Thanks

malinheader wrote: »

That's a very interesting reply .

Thanks