ISI Fighter Shamima Begum Not allowed to return to the UK

You still don't read things properly do you?

If I never carried an AK47, I'm unlikely to have tested one don't you think?

Your responses are very indicative of a typical internet researcher these days, doing a selective examination of the information available, choosing only the bits of data that agree with or reinforce your supporting your standpoint.

The whole purpose in pointing out what I was allowed to do with regard to weaponry was to render your logic and the reason you provided as an accusation of terrorism as false. The detail is irrelevant, Like Begum I was allowed to carry weapons, I am not a terrorist, yet according to you, using your own logic, I am.

I have no feelings one way or another for Begum, in fact I would never associate with someone so stupid and easily led, but I do care for human rights and can easily recognise what is simply right and what is wrong.

As a matter of interest, where did you get the ISIS work instruction from? What ranks are allowed weapons, who has the authority to allow the carrying, in fact how does the ISIS military structure work?

Frankly some of the terrorists that have hit the media for UK crimes have been a few sandwiches short of a picnic, I suppose recruitment isn't easy, but if they provide people with an IQ even lower than a Brexit voter with weaponry, I would guess that anyone would qualify for one. Let's face it if you were in the business of procreating for the greater well being of mankind, wouldn't you want to arm your sprogdropper if she or the sprog might be at risk?

No, your inability to come up with any form of meaningful argument to support your numerous statements negates any sensible interaction.

You still don't understand do you?

I am not on "her" side.

I am on the side of what is fair, what is just and how I consider fellow human beings should be treated. Were I to side with any individual on the planet, the lady would be one of the last I would support for anything unless maybe as a nomination for the merits of sterilisation if someone with an AK47 and a penchant for religious extremism is what floats their boat.

The reason you state that I am on her side is purely and simply it is what you want to believe, nothing more.

I have pointed out the problem with your approach. It's not uncommon.

You have no idea where I'm coming from and I honestly don't think you ever will work it out.

I did try :-(

"I was allowed to carry an AK47"

"I have never carried an AK. I was allowed to carry other weapons"

I rapidly changing story does never reflect well Mr Mitty.

The train of logic here is stunningly incompetent. The detail is far from irrelevant.

I don't believe your story is true, but say it were. It would require a legal authorisation to possess firearms.

Somebody issued a firearms license is legally permitted to carry firearms, appropriate to the reason for being license. I would have no issue purchasing a long, range, high power, bolt action rifle. There are legal, and justifiable civilian reasons to carry such.

A terrorist organisation is not capable or granting legal authorisation. I'm baffled I have to point that out. Somebody, part of a terrorist organisation has no legal reason to posses a automatic assault weapon. Anyone carrying one as part of that organisation is a terrorist, and should be treated as such.

If you want to give ISIS credibility and a authoritative state that can issue firearms license. That's fine. But it cripples any complaint against the UKs actions. They would then be free to rescind her citizenship.

i guess your opinion is more relevant than some one who actually can effect the thing your arguing about 😉

ffs

its like trying to explain to a toddler that its bed time

I didn’t say ISIS is a state. I’m saying holding them up as a state with authoritative powers undermines the arguement that removing her British citizen would make her stateless.

Om not sure which part of that you are misunderstanding.

I understand exactly what you’re saying. It’s complicated, it’s just incorrect.

Models of car aren’t controlled. Any license, and you can drive any car you like.

Firearms are controlled. A firearms license or authorisation does not allow you to handle any firearm you like.

The UK’s MoD, does not use AK47s. I’m not sure how you’re not getting that. Thus permission to handle MoD weapons would not mean you had permission to handle AK47s, or anything you could find.

If you weren’t lying. You’d have known that. Pretty obvious stuff.

Not to mention somebody who has never used a firearm, and had no practical training, etc. Would not be allowed to pick up military weapons and have a pop.

it doesn't need to change britains breach of international law.

whoever is holding this british citizen will change it for them.

Whether you believe me or not is totally irrelevant.

I don't even know the names of most of the weapons I handled. I modified a Mauser 30mm, I tested its firing rate and velocity using an Opus electromagnetic detection setup using a base length of four and six meters. That was on a firing range next to a train track with chain link fencing that was not grounded and thus retransmitted the noise from the trains contact arcing during the tests which screwed both velocity and rate of fire data. I sorted that with a storage oscilloscope, a Nicolet using a bubble memory cartridge back in the lab. I tested an Aden and an MG50. I partook in jollies where we had quite an audience to watch Some device loaned to Israel perform. Loads of barrels, I took photos of the installation, but don't even recall the name. I rarely saw it fire, I watched the audience instead. They traveled miles to watch it perform but the most entertaining thing was watching them I found. There was a lot of smoke though which was a bit more than the other guns they came to watch produced.

I hated the products I dealt with and doubt that I would have remained in the job when the Iraq war started.

My opinion of Begums status will not matter in the slightest. I have no intention of contacting my UK MP about her and just think is a shame that her human rights are being trampled on.

No one's opinion on this forum will change her status, do you not appreciate that?

This is pretty obvious I would have thought, why do you think you need to explain?

lol every thing is irrelevant to you but the truth , and i dont think anyone believes your fairytales

No, you still don't get it. It's nothing to do with guns or cars, it's simple logic.

Being allowed to do something is not a crime.

Being allowed to do something for Telegraph readers is guilt.

Being allowed dresses up a story to make it more exciting for the hack.

No wonder being a British post office manager warranted a jail term for so many :-(

The Mauser was 30mm

Why should I lie to you?

The vulcan had a lot of Barrels, it kept the punters happy. I had little interest in it, I was just one of the team for those trials. It would keep the number crunchers happy I suppose, but getting sensible data via instrumentation or even high speed camera techniques would be impractical.

I assume they were used on shipping or land based mounts. Somehow finding that One had a bit of wear in the barrels in an aircraft could be bad for the nerves.

For someone that is taken by the Telegraph, you seem remarkably keen on truth.

At what point did I ever mention the projjie size on the Vulcan? I could hardly recollect the name of the thing, in fact even the more interesting weapons, those that provided the most entertainment, I would have forgotten the make as soon as my work was completed. I have no idea what the make of the standard issue squaddie rifle thing was either. It was very plasticky. I recall handling them but not the reason for needing to.

The most interesting problem I had apart from the Mauser was with a 0.22 rimfire, a veritable toy, I'm clueless as to what make that was too. It was a rifle.

If you are one of those turned on by guns you may think details are important, they are not. Guns are tubes designed to guide nasty little projjies into blood vessels and bone destroying human bodies.

Do you need to read the Telegraph or anything else? You seem to find it perfectly acceptable to make your own little stories up.

So presumably the lack of evidence permitted for Begums "hearing" was a bit of a bonus, you and the Telegraph prefer your own?

The criminal offence is being an armed terrorist. Being armed illegally is the offence.

I’ve no idea why you have fixated on “allowed”, nor why you think that somehow mitigates guilt.

Nobody said being allowed to in isolation was a crime. The crime is the act of doing it.

The “allowed” is also evidence of her standing within ISIS, which is an offence. I can’t believe I had to explain after all these posts. Whoosh

when at any stage did I mention be telegraph? More lies. I’m simply pointing your Walter Mitty tales are nonsense.

You’ve never carried or had permission to carry an AK47. That is a fact. You didn’t test an AK47 for the MOD. As you subsequently admitted.

And the really relevant part. Anyone with permission to test firearms for the government/military, does so legally. That’s has no parallel with carrying assault rifles as part of a terrorist group. It in no way justify an armed terrorist, and suggest it is somehow mitigating is, the height of idiocy.

Being armed as part of ISIS is absolutely illegal. Trying to excuse it is pretty pathetic.

I don't read the garbage in the Telegraph”

“This is being reported on the Telegraph this morning”

Hmmm, sounds like you read the Telegraph this morning.

It has nothing to do with the wording in the Telegraph. She is judged on her crimes, not the words in a paper.

Whether the reporter said allowed to carry or carry has no bearing on her crime. Your entire argument is based on semantics of the phrase used, while turning a blind eye to her actions. Laughable.

But continue to present your alternate reality where there may not have been crime and Shamima works for the MoD