nav[aria-label="Primary Navigation"] { padding: 0; & ul { list-style: none; width: 100%; display: flex; flex-direction: row; justify-content: start; align-items: start; gap: 30px; padding: 0; & li { margin: 0; } & ul li { list-style: none; } } }

Child Item

Gardaí contact Louth family after Irish woman is detained in Syria

biko

https://www.rte.ie/news/world/2019/0309/1035297-syria/
https://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/europe/irish-soldier-isis-syria-islamic-state-children-mother-a8815396.html

Another western convert turns out to get Islam all wrong and gets radicalised...

Gardaí say they are aware of a female member of the Defence Forces who became radicalised and travelled to Syria but there has been no contact with her since.

Lisa Smyth served as a private in the Defence Forces before transferring to the Air Corps

Find more posts tagged with

Quick Links

Comments

smartyfarts

Perifect wrote: »

Did anyone give an answer to why we should ban people who join isis but not people who join the British army? Remember, the British army killed thousands here, they bombed towns and cities, they set up a paedo home for them and high ranking politicians.

I know trolling when I see one. and I see a troll

Perifect

smartyfarts wrote: »

I know trolling when I see one. and I see a troll

Not a troll, you can't answer the question! It's hypocritical and must have some other reason behind it. What's the reason? Look at the post before mine:

"You can join a murderous terrorist organisation.

Go on a murder spree/support murder spree/spreed hatefulness.

Come home and put your feet up.

You’re golden."

Why pick out those who join isis only?

Varik

Perifect wrote: »

Did anyone give an answer to why we should ban people who join isis but not people who join the British army? Remember, the British army killed thousands here, they bombed towns and cities, they set up a paedo home for them and high ranking politicians.

No one's looking to maintain/get a trade deal with whatever left of the Islamic state.

mad muffin

Perifect wrote: »

Not a troll, you can't answer the question! It's hypocritical and must have some other reason behind it. What's the reason? Look at the post before mine:

"You can join a murderous terrorist organisation.

Go on a murder spree/support murder spree/spreed hatefulness.

Come home and put your feet up.

You’re golden."

Why pick out those who join isis only?

Hold my beer…

Britain is a legitimate regime. Operating or is seen to be operating within international laws and norms.

ISIS is not.

I hope that satisfies your thirst for knowledge.

Perifect

Varik wrote: »

No one's looking to maintain/get a trade deal with whatever left of the Islamic state.

It's all about the money?

Perifect

mad muffin wrote: »

Hold my beer…

Britain is a legitimate regime. Operating or is seen to be operating within international laws and norms.

ISIS is not.

I hope that satisfies your thirst for knowledge.

So that's fine then. isis just have to become a legitimate regime and you'll be ok with them killing whoever they want including in Ireland?

mad muffin

Perifect wrote: »

So that's fine then. isis just have to become a legitimate regime and you'll be ok with them killing whoever they want including in Ireland?

Sure… let’s go with that.

Perifect

mad muffin wrote: »

Sure… let’s go with that.

Not good is it? Having your hypocrisy pointed out.

Let's be honest about the reasons as to why people look at these cases differently.

mad muffin

Perifect wrote: »

Not good is it? Having your hypocrisy pointed out.

Let's be honest about the reasons as to why people look at these cases differently.

Hey why the hate? I’m with you now. They call me Abu Hamzza and I’m a real hallal kind of guy.

Down with the British! Boo-urns!

Perifect

mad muffin wrote: »

Hey why the hate? I’m with you now. They call me Abu Hamzza and I’m a real hallal kind of guy.

Down with the British! Boo-urns!

No hate.

Happy to educate you.

WinnyThePoo

I think its important to point put that she didn't just sign up to isis to fight against the West. Primarily isis are more concerned in killing other Muslims of different sects and creating their utopian caliphate.

I do wish these woman could be tried in Syria. Considering the absolute clusterfeck that country is going through. They may not have the resources.

I would like to know how she got from here to there though.

I do see here as a danger considering her army training.

jmreire

In my opinion ( for what ever it's worth...) Presently this discussion is purely academic. She is still in Syria ( as far as I know ) And it's a long long way from there to here.....IF her present captors discover that she took part in any military action, or even worse was involved in any way in the many atrocities that isis committed, then you can forget all about Lisa. They are not in a very forgiving mood over there at the moment, especially the Yazidi's. The English jhadi had to be moved to a different camp in order to protect her, so until Lisa arrive's back in Dublin, it still a very much up in the air for her. And don't forget, isis is not above killing anyone who they consider to be "Deserters".....maybe even more so now that the Caliphate has collapsed.

Manic Moran

Perifect wrote: »

So that's fine then. isis just have to become a legitimate regime and you'll be ok with them killing whoever they want including in Ireland?

I think you'll also find that the UK is one of Ireland's major trade and political partners, sharing much of Ireland's goals and ideology, and UK's successes or failures do have ramifications on Ireland and on the rather large number of Irish folk living there. In other words, quite a friendly foreign nation, and it has to be said, they have rather been limiting their killings of folks in the Republic over the last, oh, 90 years. Further, as a general rule, British forces follow the laws of war.

ISIS may not have killed many folks in Ireland, but they do seem to have done quite a number on many of Ireland's friends and partners. They also lack most of the same social morals and ideals Ireland has, and Ireland has very little interest in the success of IS. Their armed forces, as a general rule, do not follow the laws of war. And we'll bypass the question of how closely their domestic law enforcement processes follow the conventions on human rights.

I think it's quite fair to say that there is a viable and justifiable distinction between the two.

Richard Hillman

Seems like Al-Lisa did a glossy interview with the Indo a few years ago

https://webcache.googleusercontent.com/search?q=cache:CVhoRuK8B7MJ:https://www.independent.ie/lifestyle/lisas-story-sometimes-id-like-to-be-out-clubbing-but-i-wouldnt-want-to-offend-allah-26734813.html+&cd=1&hl=en&ct=clnk&gl=ie

Giveaway

Richard Hillman wrote: »

Seems like Al-Lisa did a glossy interview with the Indo a few years ago

https://webcache.googleusercontent.com/search?q=cache:CVhoRuK8B7MJ:https://www.independent.ie/lifestyle/lisas-story-sometimes-id-like-to-be-out-clubbing-but-i-wouldnt-want-to-offend-allah-26734813.html+&cd=1&hl=en&ct=clnk&gl=ie

Poster child joins ISis.
Karimah and her husband need to be questioned at the very least to confirm if they thought the husband she married was "suitable"

Giveaway

Richard Hillman wrote: »

Seems like Al-Lisa did a glossy interview with the Indo a few years ago

https://webcache.googleusercontent.com/search?q=cache:CVhoRuK8B7MJ:https://www.independent.ie/lifestyle/lisas-story-sometimes-id-like-to-be-out-clubbing-but-i-wouldnt-want-to-offend-allah-26734813.html+&cd=1&hl=en&ct=clnk&gl=ie

Poster child joins ISis.
Karimah and her husband need to be questioned at the very least to confirm if they thought the husband she married was "suitable"

Perifect

Manic Moran wrote: »

I think you'll also find that the UK is one of Ireland's major trade and political partners, sharing much of Ireland's goals and ideology, and UK's successes or failures do have ramifications on Ireland and on the rather large number of Irish folk living there. In other words, quite a friendly foreign nation, and it has to be said, they have rather been limiting their killings of folks in the Republic over the last, oh, 90 years. Further, as a general rule, British forces follow the laws of war.

ISIS may not have killed many folks in Ireland, but they do seem to have done quite a number on many of Ireland's friends and partners. They also lack most of the same social morals and ideals Ireland has, and Ireland has very little interest in the success of IS. Their armed forces, as a general rule, do not follow the laws of war. And we'll bypass the question of how closely their domestic law enforcement processes follow the conventions on human rights.

I think it's quite fair to say that there is a viable and justifiable distinction between the two.

This is actually hilarious and completely ill-informed. Do we trade with the British armed forces? Can we not ban Irish people who've joined the British army and continue trade? Also, this friendly nation have just had members of their government state that their armed forces "were fulfilling their duty in a dignified and appropriate way." This was when they were shooting innocent Irish people dead on our streets. You are also unaware of the Dublin and Monaghan bombings obviously.
I don't disagree that isis are horrendous. I've nothing against banning Irish people who join their forces. It's a fact however that they haven't done any harm in Ireland. So why should members of one mass murdering army be banned from Ireland while members of another mass murdering army be fine?

Giveaway

Perifect wrote: »

This is actually hilarious and completely ill-informed. Do we trade with the British armed forces? Can we not ban Irish people who've joined the British army and continue trade? Also, this friendly nation have just had members of their government state that their armed forces "were fulfilling their duty in a dignified and appropriate way." This was when they were shooting innocent Irish people dead on our streets. You are also unaware of the Dublin and Monaghan bombings obviously.
I don't disagree that isis are horrendous. I've nothing against banning Irish people who join their forces. It's a fact however that they haven't done any harm in Ireland. So why should members of one mass murdering army be banned from Ireland while members of another mass murdering army be fine?

Yes there have been British atrocities but the last time there were atrocities on the scale of ISiS were under Oliver Cromwell

Perifect

Giveaway wrote: »

Yes there have been British atrocities but the last time there were atrocities on the scale of ISiS were under Oliver Cromwell

British state forces were behind the biggest atrocity of the what was called the troubles. Should we not ban members of both? Or neither?

Odhinn

Giveaway wrote: »

Yes there have been British atrocities but the last time there were atrocities on the scale of ISiS were under Oliver Cromwell

1798. And the Famine. They were doing the "Cromwell" thing in Africa until the 1960's.

end of the road

ChikiChiki wrote: »

Set an example and make her stateless.

making someone stateless is illegal under international law and rightly so. it wouldn't set any example but show ultimate contempt for the rest of the world and show any country which does it as irresponsible. this has been mentioned already across similar threads. making people stateless puts the whole world at risk. it's not anyone else's job to have to deal with foreign terrorists apart from the country of origin of that terrorist.

ChikiChiki wrote: »

Such endeavours cannot go unpunished and without strong action to deter furthur occurences.

breaking international law like you are suggesting isn't going to deterr anything. in fact, nothing will deterr those who are willing to join an extremist group as the ideaology in their mind is worth fighting for at any cost. so in that case such strong and illegal action would only be done to appeal to the daily mail brigade.

ChikiChiki wrote: »

ISIL are the most barbaric group known of our times. In 2015 when Lisa joined them, we were hearing about of the most horrific atricities they were commiting, examples being the sinjar massacre of thousands of innocent yazidis (2014) and gays being thrown of rooftops.

and yet people here want the countries who had the greatest proportion of victims of isis to have to clean up and deal with the mess.

Lollipops23 wrote: »

I'm generally a fairly leftwing liberal person (and my family work supporting refugees in France), but I think she should be left where she is. She abandoned the Irish value system when she supported ISIL. I don't care what her religion is, her support of a group who wants to wipe innocent people out for no reason is enough for me.

it might be enough for you but it's not enough generally. not even near it. she abandoned the irish value system? her problem but is ultimately irrelevant.
what is relevant is world security. leaving her where she is puts world security at risk. it puts syria at continued risk of isis re-grouping. those 2 issues are what matter because they can effect us all.

Manic Moran

This is actually hilarious and completely ill-informed. Do we trade with the British armed forces? Can we not ban Irish people who've joined the British army and continue trade?

You probably could, though I would also expect some form of repercussions from the UK government as a result. It's not the sort of treatment one hands out to friends and partners.

Perifect wrote: »

British state forces were behind the biggest atrocity of the what was called the troubles. Should we not ban members of both? Or neither?

Wasn't that nearly five decades ago? Is there even a single member of the British state forces today who were in the forces at the time? Were you even alive? I certainly wasn't. How far back are you willing to hold a grudge?

Credit Checker Moose

Armchair republicans never let go of grudges.

Galwayguy35

This Ali Selim bucko was on the news this evening saying himself and his buddies should be consulted if and when the ISIS groupies are coming back.

Maybe he should stick to praying to allah and let the Guards handle that side of things.

mad muffin

The British?! THE BRITISH?! Who gives a flying fook about the fooking British.

Today. Right now. Isis wants to kill you. Would kill you.

I know not of any fooking British government want to kill me as of this typing.

I know not of any Irish citizens who want to go over tho Britain to kill people who are not Sunni.

So give it a rest about the fooking British. And if you must, open a thread about British atrocities over the centuries.

Perifect

Manic Moran wrote: »

You probably could, though I would also expect some form of repercussions from the UK government as a result. It's not the sort of treatment one hands out to friends and partners.

Wasn't that nearly five decades ago? Is there even a single member of the British state forces today who were in the forces at the time? Were you even alive? I certainly wasn't. How far back are you willing to hold a grudge?

Friends and partners don't shoot innocents dead on our streets!

The British armed forces colluded with loyalists to murder more recently than 50 years ago. Even today they can't admit the wrongs they have done and want to deny the families of the victim's justice. They don't sound that friendly really. Also, you want to block isis members because of the evils they've committed elsewhere. The British armed forces have committed many evils and we don't have to go back 50 years for that. How many civilians were killed in the illegal wars Britain partook in within the last two decades?

You have to take a good look at yourself in the mirror. You have double standards. One mass murdering army is ok with you, the other not so. Sort out your morals.

Perifect

Credit Checker Moose wrote: »

Armchair republicans never let go of grudges.

West Brits never admit to British brutality.

malinheader

mad muffin wrote: »

The British?! THE BRITISH?! Who gives a flying fook about the fooking British.

Today. Right now. Isis wants to kill you. Would kill you.

I know not of any fooking British government want to kill me as of this typing.

I know not of any Irish citizens who want to go over tho Britain to kill people who are not Sunni.

So give it a rest about the fooking British. And if you must open a thread about British atrocities over the centuries.

Its called deflecting. Usually when someone sympathises with something they know is wrong.

Perifect

mad muffin wrote: »

The British?! THE BRITISH?! Who gives a flying fook about the fooking British.

Today. Right now. Isis wants to kill you. Would kill you.

I know not of any fooking British government want to kill me as of this typing.

I know not of any Irish citizens who want to go over tho Britain to kill people who are not Sunni.

So give it a rest about the fooking British. And if you must, open a thread about British atrocities over the centuries.

I'm just pointing out the hypocrisy, the obvious double standards. You should be against all of it or none of it.

Perifect

malinheader wrote: »

Its called deflecting. Usually when someone sympathises with something they know is wrong.

isis are pure evil, no sympathies here at all. Either call for all murderous armies to be banned or call for none of them to be banned. Show some consistency.