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

malinheader

end of the road wrote: »

that's an interesting development. when was this statement made and who within the british government or the relevant local authorities
or police forces made that statement?



i do . that is what my stance ultimately is



that's just speculation, especially in terms of her unborn child or further children should she have them. and even if it did turn out to be true, it is ultimately irrelevant. britain still remains responsible for dealing with it's gihadis. the tax payer nonsense argument has no validity. to me it just screams not having an argument as to why british gihadis shouldn't be sent back to where they came from so the authorities responsible for dealing with them actually have to take up that responsibility.



why should the syrians or kurds have to clean up britain's mess? not their job. it's britain's job to clean up it's mess.

British Labour mp Naz Shah apologises after retweeting and likeing a tweet saying Abuse victims should shut their mouths for the sake of diversity. 23 Aug 2017. Shocking.

Roger Hassenforder

end of the road wrote: »

i do . that is what my stance ultimately is
.

You've admitted shes a serious risk, yet you're only proposing to mitigate when eliminate is an option.

Roger Hassenforder

Galwayguy35 wrote: »

But yet you said earlier on the thread you wouldn't like her living next to you.

Gotta love the double standards
"I dont want her next door to me, you can put her over there beside them"

Pure NIMBYism/NOTE.

end of the road

TallGlass wrote: »

She's a criminal. A British criminal. Id go as far as saying let the US lock her up.

Your letting a live bomb come back into the EU.

as Candie pointed out it wasn't a criminal offense to be a member of isis when this woman left the uk as a child. i actually didn't realize that was the case and had thought britain had made it a criminal offense by then.

however lets say she has definitely committed crimes since then and is now very much a criminal, given as you pointed out yourself she is british, why should the US use it's resources to deal with
her?

TallGlass wrote: »

Yeah I did. She should be in a cell by herself day and night. Not some nice British prison. If America can find a way to get a lad from Ireland over due to Silk Road. I'm sure they'll find a way for this ****.

Either way. She's British. They can't revoke it. Next best thing is lock her up or red tape the **** out of her coming back or say shes from another country.

you didn't think it through. british prisons are not nice places. that is just daily mail rabbel rousing.

as i understand the only way the US can charge a foreign national is if they commit a crime directly against the US or within the US. as far as i know this british citizen hasn't done either of those.
she can very easily be in a cell by herself in britain as should she be tried and found guilty of a crime and imprisoned, there are facilities available to deal with prisoners deemed to be high risk. as she is british they can't say she is from another country because she isn't.

TallGlass wrote: »

Why do America want people from Ireland or Mexico in that case? They've broken US laws. If the Brits can't lock her up let the US do it.

unless she has broken US laws then it's not the job of the US to lock her up.

end of the road

malinheader wrote: »

British Labour mp Naz Shah apologises after retweeting and likeing a tweet saying Abuse victims should shut their mouths for the sake of diversity. 23 Aug 2017. Shocking.

to be fair that's very different to what your original post seems to implie. your original post seems to imply that a dictat had been issued by someone within officialdom that the population must forget about these scandles.
what really happened was an idiot tweated that opinion and an idiot mp liked and retweated it. don't get me wrong it's an absolutely shocking view to be expressing but it's in no way a mainstream view quite rightly.

Roger Hassenforder wrote: »

You've admitted shes a serious risk, yet you're only proposing to mitigate when eliminate is an option.

no i'm proposing to eliminate. the form of eliminating some people believe to be an option is not elimination but risk transfer and risk increase. that in my view is just not on.

malinheader

end of the road wrote: »

to be fair that's very different to what your original post seems to implie. your original post seems to imply that a dictat had been issued by someone within officialdom that the population must forget about these scandles.
what really happened was an idiot tweated that opinion and an idiot mp liked and retweated it. don't get me wrong it's an absolutely shocking view to be expressing but it's in no way a mainstream view quite rightly.



no i'm proposing to eliminate. the form of eliminating some people believe to be an option is not elimination but risk transfer and risk increase. that in my view is just not on.

I don't know if you know what happened in Rotherham or not.But the powers that be had known what was going on for a good while before it leaked out. It was tried to be kept quiet and brushed under the carpet by the powers that be for the reason I stated. So really do you think that tweet has no bearing. Sorry it shows me her true feelings. It was only taken down after she was made to.

Gatling

end of the road wrote: »

no i'm proposing to eliminate. the form of eliminating some people believe to be an option is not elimination but risk transfer and risk increase. that in my view is just not on.

How is returning her to the UK not increasing the threat she and her kind represent Vs total elimination threat met and dealt with permanently .

aloneforever99

Gatling wrote: »

How is returning her to the UK not increasing the threat she and her kind represent Vs total elimination threat met and dealt with permanently .

The UK doesn't have the death penalty so I don't see how that's an option?

scamalert

aloneforever99 wrote: »

The UK doesn't have the death penalty so I don't see how that's an option?

Given she partake and admitted being in isis she should face Syrian law and punishment whatever it may be, country in which person commits crime takes responsibility to carry out sentencing as fit as they see. Brits in this case have no obligations and its not their issue to get involved.

And any country shes in should treat her as terrorist on their soil, thus this alone would prevent her getting anywhere close to EU let alone from the hole shes in now.

end of the road

malinheader wrote: »

I don't know if you know what happened in Rotherham or not.But the powers that be had known what was going on for a good while before it leaked out. It was tried to be kept quiet and brushed under the carpet by the powers that be for the reason I stated. So really do you think that tweet has no bearing. Sorry it shows me her true feelings. It was only taken down after she was made to.

i'm well aware of what happened in Rotherham and others. i would agree that the tweat does show the true feelings of this mp however ultimately it is not a view that is widely held thankfully and those who hold such a view are rightly condemned.

Gatling wrote: »

How is returning her to the UK not increasing the threat she and her kind represent Vs total elimination threat met and dealt with permanently .

because in the uk she will be tried and likely locked up. where she currently is, in a refugee camp, she is free to leave at any time and is free to potentially pose a threat. she is not going to be killed as some are hoping for.

aloneforever99

scamalert wrote: »

Given she partake and admitted being in isis she should face Syrian law and punishment whatever it may be, country in which person commits crime takes responsibility to carry out sentencing as fit as they see. Brits in this case have no obligations and its not their issue to get involved.

And any country shes in should treat her as terrorist on their soil.

What crimes has she committed?

As this thread has repeatedly pointed out, it wasn't a crime to join ISIS when she did. Additionally, she was a minor.

So, what crimes exactly would you like to see her tried for? And why would Lebanon be the one to prosecute them?

end of the road

scamalert wrote: »

Given she partake and admitted being in isis she should face Syrian law and punishment whatever it may be, country in which person commits crime takes responsibility to carry out sentencing as fit as they see. Brits in this case have no obligations and its not their issue to get involved.

And any country shes in should treat her as terrorist on their soil, thus this alone would prevent her getting anywhere close to EU let alone from the hole shes in now.

syria is still going through a war. they don't have the time or resources to be upholding law and order never mind dealing with a british citizen.
britain does have an obligation to take her back if she turns up so they do have at least 1 obligation. other countries won't want her either i'd imagine + unless there is proof of an actual crime against their country they can't and likely won't bother charging her.

hatrickpatrick

We really need to implement a legal sentence of permanent electronic tagging and monitoring for some criminals, including this kind of person. I'd apply the same thing to members of organised crime gangs who are convicted.

The Gardaí should be able to pull up a live map of where these people are at all times, so that at the very least, if anything goes down, they know who to investigate. I wouldn't see this as a violation of civil liberties since we'd be talking about doing this after the usual criminal trial and conviction, it'd just be another kind of sentence as an alternative to life imprisonment since we don't seem to do that properly in this country.

malinheader

end of the road wrote: »

i'm well aware of what happened in Rotherham and others. i would agree that the tweat does show the true feelings of this mp however ultimately it is not a view that is widely held thankfully and those who hold such a view are rightly condemned.

That's your opinion that this view is not widely held.
My opinion is different I think it is.
You asked me to state who said this I did.
I gave an example of how this had been done and carried out.
And still you don't want to acknowledge this happens alot all over Europe.

Gatling

end of the road wrote: »

because in the uk she will be tried and likely locked up. where she currently is, in a refugee camp, she is free to leave at any time and is free to potentially pose a threat. she is not going to be killed as some are hoping for.

She won't likely ever be prosecuted in the UK so she's free to carry on being a member of Isis and support attacks .

Elimination is the safest option all round

end of the road

malinheader wrote: »

end of the road wrote: »

i'm well aware of what happened in Rotherham and others. i would agree that the tweat does show the true feelings of this mp however ultimately it is not a view that is widely held thankfully and those who hold such a view are rightly condemned.

That's your opinion that this view is not widely held.
My opinion is different I think it is.
You asked me to state who said this I did.
I gave an example of how this had been done and carried out.
And still you don't want to acknowledge this happens alot all over Europe.

what gives you the impression that i don't want to acknowledge this happens a lot all over Europe?

aloneforever99

Gatling wrote: »

She won't likely ever be prosecuted in the UK so she's free to carry on being a member of Isis and support attacks .

Elimination is the safest option all round

So who should kill her, and on for what crimes? (Kill is what you mean when you say eliminate, let's speak plainly.)

Gatling

aloneforever99 wrote: »

So who should kill her, and on for what crimes? (Kill is what you mean when you say eliminate, let's speak plainly.)

She is a terrorist and part of a terror group who committed genocide in Syria and Iraq she should hang along with anyone else who is part of Isis .

It's that simple

scamalert

aloneforever99 wrote: »

So who should kill her, and on for what crimes? (Kill is what you mean when you say eliminate, let's speak plainly.)

once she gets interrogated properly and all questions answered i believe most middle east countries wont have issues with prosecuting her.



This crying wolf situation is because isis were kurbed down and she's exposed now, think even in middle east no one want's isis affiliate walking their streets.


UK needs do nothing, as shes out of their jurisdiction and even if she managed to get to embassy think any country could carry out sentence without waste and need to bring her into EU by turning in admitted terrorist to authorities wherever it may be. Shes not a kid and doesnt matter when she joined what matters is she holds ties and beliefs that's enough danger for anyone, and specially in western countries.

Roger Hassenforder

She is poison.
She doesnt have remorse, in her interview she says she doesnt have hope for the caliphate
She will continue to promote this vile ideology, and may inspire or encourage others to commit
'martyrdom' attacks on others.
The world is better off rid of these people.

aloneforever99

Gatling wrote: »

She is a terrorist and part of a terror group who committed genocide in Syria and Iraq she should hang along with anyone else who is part of Isis .

It's that simple

My questions were

1) Who should kill her? I don't see why Lebanon would hang a British woman for crimes committed in Syria. The UK doesn't have the death penalty, so who are you making responsible for this?

and

2) For what crimes? If she beheaded anyone, killed anyone, raped anyone, tortured anyone, those are crimes she is answerable for. If she aided and abetted, those are also crimes she may be prosecuted for. Due process is a thing, even for terrorists. That's how a democracy works, and it's what separates us from dictators and terrorists.

Your posts are very emotional, with little attention paid to law, rationality or practicality.

aloneforever99

aloneforever99 wrote: »

My questions were

1) Who should kill her? I don't see why Lebanon would hang a British woman for crimes committed in Syria. The UK doesn't have the death penalty, so who are you making responsible for this?

and

2) For what crimes? If she beheaded anyone, killed anyone, raped anyone, tortured anyone, those are crimes she is answerable for. If she aided and abetted, those are also crimes she may be prosecuted for. Due process is a thing, even for terrorists. That's how a democracy works, and it's what separates us from dictators and terrorists.

Your posts are very emotional, with little attention paid to law, rationality or practicality.

Membership of a terrorist group is a crime by itself.

aloneforever99

Deleted User wrote: »

Membership of a terrorist group is a crime by itself.

You are mistaken in this instance - at the point that she joined ISIS, membership of that organisation had not been made illegal. As such, she committed no crime by joining them. The law cannot be applied retrospectively.

Even if it were, would we describe execution without trial as a proportionate punishment? Again, a functioning justice system is one of those aspects of democracy that separates us from the likes of ISIS.

Gatling

aloneforever99 wrote: »

My questions were

1) Who should kill her? I don't see why Lebanon would hang a British woman for crimes committed in Syria.

Syrians or Kurds ( Assad has a thing for killings)

Gatling

Am I the only one to notice whenever certain posters trying to argue a nonpoint we get newly registered posters all over their posts and vice versa

end of the road

scamalert wrote: »

once she gets interrogated properly and all questions answered i believe most middle east countries wont have issues with prosecuting her.



This crying wolf situation is because isis were kurbed down and she's exposed now, think even in middle east no one want's isis affiliate walking their streets.


UK needs do nothing, as shes out of their jurisdiction and even if she managed to get to embassy think any country could carry out sentence without waste and need to bring her into EU by turning in admitted terrorist to authorities wherever it may be. Shes not a kid and doesnt matter when she joined what matters is she holds ties and beliefs that's enough danger for anyone, and specially in western countries.

a country can only carry out a sentence if someone is tried with carrying out a crime against or within that country. therefore a sentence can't be carried out by any country unless the sentencing country is sentencing someone who has carried out a crime against it or within it.

aloneforever99

Gatling wrote: »

Syrians or Kurds ( Assad has a thing for killings)

She's not in Syria, and there is no logical reason why Lebanon would deport her back there. If they are going to send her anywhere, it will be the UK.

aloneforever99

Gatling wrote: »

Am I the only one to notice whenever certain posters trying to argue a nonpoint we get newly registered posters all over their posts and vice versa

I'm not really a new poster. I had an account here a long time ago but stopped posting a couple of years ago. I set up a new account today to start a thread about something deeply personal that I don't want traced back to me IRL.

I think if you read through my posts today you'll see that I am a genuine poster who happens to hold a different view to you.

I am more than happy to debate you on any of your points, and I have been nothing but respectful. I would appreciate if you didn't cloud the debate by implying that my account is fake or something, let's just stick to the issue.

Gatling

Just to correct an assumption here.

This piece of crap is in a camp in northern Syria not Lebanon

So leave her to the Syrians or Kurds

aloneforever99

Gatling wrote: »

I know they usually aren't new ,



Well known too

To be clear, I don't post here under any other username, and I haven't since 2014/2015.

You have now posted twice implying something (I'm not sure what) about me, so why not spell out directly what you're saying because I haven't done anything but disagree with you and point out the logical fallacies in your point of view.

It's not my fault that you've decided to play the man and not the ball.