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

Dick phelan · 18-02-2019 8:44am

spurious wrote: »

I really hope I am never held to task over decisions I made when I was 15.

Well if you made a decision to join a disgusting evil terrorist group who behead people, burn people alive, Rape what they consider infidel women then yes i hope you would be, she isn't even sorry for what she did, take the baby and put it into care. then put her on trial and have her answer for her crimes.

volchitsa · 18-02-2019 9:17am

spurious wrote: »

I really hope I am never held to task over decisions I made when I was 15.

Her religion, the one she wanted (still wants, apparently) to enforce on everyone else using murder and barbarous punishments) holds that a 15 year old is an adult. She gets to pick and choose when she follows Islam, does she? Pity she didn't want to extend that right to Syrians in Syria.

Importantly too, it isn't just that she went there when she was 15, her main objection now to ISIS seems to be that they weren't Islamic enough.

malinheader · 18-02-2019 9:35am

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.

Ursus Horribilis · 18-02-2019 9:59am

Even though she was 15 when she left, she's now a 19 year old adult. 19 going on 40 after all she has been through. At the very least, she's someone the authorities would have to keep an eye on. We don't know what she capable of, online or offline.

realitykeeper · 18-02-2019 10:12am

I think they should allow her child to be adopted to a loving Christian family in the UK.

Boggles · 18-02-2019 10:24am

AllForIt wrote: »

I'm not getting the impression she was particularly 'groomed'.

She wanted it your honor?

It's a well worn defense by predators all right.

The law is clear, she was a child, she was groomed.

Your impression is moot.

She was a victim of crime, a crime that holds a sentence of up to life in prison and rightly so.

FTA69 · 18-02-2019 10:28am

Boggles wrote: »

She wanted it your honor?

It's a well worn defense by predators all right.

The law is clear, she was a child, she was groomed.

Your impression is moot.

She was a victim of crime, a crime that holds a sentence of up to life in prison and rightly so.

She was radicalised as a 15 year old. She’s an adult now who makes her own decisions and she’s totally unrepentant about ISIS’s program of genocide, rape and slavery.

Imagine some Loyalist paramilitary or whatever getting sentenced for shooting up a pub and saying he should be sympathised with cos he was radicalised as a teen.

Boggles · 18-02-2019 10:31am

FTA69 wrote: »

She was radicalised as a 15 year old.

Exactly, so what part of my post have you a problem with exactly?

malinheader · 18-02-2019 10:38am

Boggles wrote: »

Exactly, so what part of my post have you a problem with exactly?

The part where you didn't mention she is unrepentant and still doesn't accept what she done was wrong, severed heads didn't bother her and she would like that piece of s-it husband of hers to be released and hopefully some day be with her. Tell it as it is.

aloneforever99 · 18-02-2019 10:38am

Boggles wrote: »

She was a victim of crime, a crime that holds a sentence of up to life in prison and rightly so.

I don't know how more people don't see this.

Whatever crimes she has committed she should answer for, but her age is absolutely a mitigating factor.

After four years in a war zone and the loss of two children, she speaks in a very blase way about beheadings and murder, but I find it hard to believe that was her reaction at the time on arrival. Years of horror will desensitize most people to seeing it happen around them.

What's better for Britain? Having her exactly where they know where she is and can monitor her, or having her who knows where with who knows who giving them who knows what information?

She is a goldmine of information - on how she was recruited and why, on ISIS operations and internal workings. The only way to turn her from a threat into an asset is to bring her home, put her on trial and imprison her.

And the baby, of course, should be adopted out to a loving family and given a chance at life.

Boggles · 18-02-2019 10:43am

malinheader wrote: »

The part where you didn't mention she is unrepentant and still doesn't accept what she done was wrong, severed heads didn't bother her and she would like that piece of s-it husband of hers to be released and hopefully some day be with her. Tell it as it is.

Thanks for that unique insight, that hasn't been presented on the thread yet, AFAIK.

Still though, absolutely nothing to do with what I said my post.

FTA69 · 18-02-2019 10:56am

Boggles wrote: »

Exactly, so what part of my post have you a problem with exactly?

The part where you portray her solely as a victim of a crime as opposed to now being an adult with agency who is unrepentant about joining a genocidal organisation, “wasn’t fazed” by severed heads due to the fact “they were enemies of Islam” and also said she “saluted” those remaining to fight to the death.

She may once have been a naïve 15 year old girl, she isn’t one now and we need to stop treating her as one. The only reason her and other people like her are coming out of the woodwork is because it’s gone tits up for ISIS, not because they’re in any way repentant.

malinheader · 18-02-2019 10:57am

Boggles wrote: »

Thanks for that unique insight, that hasn't been presented on the thread yet, AFAIK.

Still though, absolutely nothing to do with what I said my post.

Just to be clear here. So the majority of people who are willing to take her back would agree if she had been 18 say when she left yous would all be happy to let her stay where she is. This correct.

aloneforever99 · 18-02-2019 11:00am

malinheader wrote: »

Just to be clear here. So the majority of people who are willing to take her back would agree if she had been 18 say when she left yous would all be happy to let her stay where she is. This correct.

No, I think her age and any abuse she suffered should be taken into account, but either way she should be brought home:

a) so we know where she is and what she is doing
b) to account for whatever crimes she has committed
c) because she is not any other country's problem
d) because she could be a goldmine of information
e) because it is more dangerous for Britain not to

Plumbthedepths · 18-02-2019 11:00am

It would be terrible if she had a fatal accident in the camp or while attempting to transit back to the UK. On the plus side she would get to meet Allah and the rest of her fallen comrades .

Boggles · 18-02-2019 11:07am

FTA69 wrote: »

The part where you portray her solely as a victim of a crime .

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.

professore · 18-02-2019 11:09am

Boggles wrote: »

She wanted it your honor?

It's a well worn defense by predators all right.

The law is clear, she was a child, she was groomed.

Your impression is moot.

She was a victim of crime, a crime that holds a sentence of up to life in prison and rightly so.

Are the male ISIS support crew of a similar age who didn't kill anyone directly but supported the operations just as she did equally victims? If not why not?

Double standards again...

Boggles · 18-02-2019 11:12am

professore wrote: »

Are the male ISIS support crew of a similar age who didn't kill anyone directly but supported the operations equally victims? If not why not?

This isn't really hard.

A child is a child under the law.

There is no difference.

What are you struggling with?

malinheader · 18-02-2019 11:16am

aloneforever99 wrote: »

No, I think her age and any abuse she suffered should be taken into account, but either way she should be brought home:

a) so we know where she is and what she is doing
b) to account for whatever crimes she has committed
c) because she is not any other country's problem
d) because she could be a goldmine of information
e) because it is more dangerous for Britain not to

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.

malinheader · 18-02-2019 11:21am

Boggles wrote: »

This isn't really hard.

A child is a child under the law.

There is no difference.

What are you struggling with?

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

ohnonotgmail · 18-02-2019 11:22am

malinheader wrote: »

Just to be clear here. So the majority of people who are willing to take her back would agree if she had been 18 say when she left yous would all be happy to let her stay where she is. This correct.

Wether or not britain or its citizens want to take her back is irrelevant. She has a right to return to the UK as a UK citizen. The home secretary could put a temporary block on her return but it would only be temporary. That does not mean the british government should help return home, i think they would be crazy if they did. And of course if she does return home she should be the target of a criminal investigation.

professore · 18-02-2019 11:24am

Boggles wrote: »

This isn't really hard.

A child is a child under the law.

There is no difference.

What are you struggling with?

So a child, or rather a late teenager, can commit crimes with no consequences whatsoever... OK... She's already guilty of hate speech.

Gatling · 18-02-2019 11:25am

malinheader wrote: »

E. Don't understand this at all its been mentioned by a few on here and I am still lost at there thinking.

Just shows the thinking a terrorist is just that a terrorist, on here the terrorist is the victim ,
She was groomed online - no evidence other than she said she seen videos .
Maybe people on here are highly qualified professional psychologists and know something the majority don't but she is far from a victim .

aloneforever99 · 18-02-2019 11:31am

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. Obviously.
b) All criminals spells in prison are paid for by tax payers.
c) You're basing that on nothing
d) You're basing that on nothing and you're almost definitely wrong
e) It's pretty obvious, what bit is confusing you? ISIS members are better off in jail/ under surveillance than roaming free.

Boggles · 18-02-2019 11:32am

malinheader wrote: »

I'm struggling with the so called softy do gooders on here

Jesus H. Christ.

Laws specifically created to protect children are made by "softy do gooders"?

Please tell me more. Have you a blog I can subscribe to?

aloneforever99 · 18-02-2019 11:33am

Gatling wrote: »

Just shows the thinking a terrorist is just that a terrorist, on here the terrorist is the victim ,
She was groomed online - no evidence other than she said she seen videos .
Maybe people on here are highly qualified professional psychologists and know something the majority don't but she is far from a victim .

Some people are capable of nuance.

It's possible to be both victim and perpetrator. In fact, it's quite common.

Boggles · 18-02-2019 11:33am

professore wrote: »

So a child, or rather a late teenager,

WTF is a "late teenager"?

She was 15, under the law that is a child.

Redefining it is as creepy as fook.

jmayo · 18-02-2019 11:35am

Boggles wrote: »

She wanted it your honor?

It's a well worn defense by predators all right.

The law is clear, she was a child, she was groomed.

Your impression is moot.

She was a victim of crime, a crime that holds a sentence of up to life in prison and rightly so.

The western world is fooked if the loons are allowed have their way.

This woman, and yes she is now technically a woman, is very dangerous.
She may have been a minor when she left a few years ago, but lets face it she wasn't a kid.
She saw the worse of what ISIS did and yet she doesn't see anything wrong with it.

And some deluded fools think she should be brought back?

It's also marvellous how some are now concerned about her so called grooming, but were they so concerned about all the actual grooming of girls younger than her carried out in towns and cities throughout Britain.

aloneforever99 wrote: »

I don't know how more people don't see this.

Whatever crimes she has committed she should answer for, but her age is absolutely a mitigating factor.

After four years in a war zone and the loss of two children, she speaks in a very blase way about beheadings and murder, but I find it hard to believe that was her reaction at the time on arrival. Years of horror will desensitize most people to seeing it happen around them.

What's better for Britain? Having her exactly where they know where she is and can monitor her, or having her who knows where with who knows who giving them who knows what information?

She is a goldmine of information - on how she was recruited and why, on ISIS operations and internal workings. The only way to turn her from a threat into an asset is to bring her home, put her on trial and imprison her.

And then let her fundamentalise an entire prison?

Send her to one of those US sites that get information out of people and then who gives a feck.
She doesn't seem to have given a feck for all the victims of ISIS so fook her and the camel she rode in on.

She made her bed, and in fact through her complete lack of repentance, it is evident would be quite happy to still be in if things hadn't gone t*ts up for her friends.

By all accounts the Brits and French have already been "taking care" of some of their citizens who ran off to join ISIS and rightly so as they are enemies of their states and all the other decent right thinking citizens of their states.

malinheader · 18-02-2019 11:35am

Boggles wrote: »

Jesus H. Christ.

Laws specifically created to protect children are made by "softy do gooders"?

Please tell me more. Have you a blog I can subscribe to?

Jesus h christ. Is right is she a child now or am I missing something here

malinheader · 18-02-2019 11:37am

aloneforever99 wrote: »

a) Yes. Obviously.
b) All criminals spells in prison are paid for by tax payers.
c) You're basing that on nothing
d) You're basing that on nothing and you're almost definitely wrong
e) It's pretty obvious, what bit is confusing you? ISIS members are better off in jail/ under surveillance than roaming free.

e. ISIS members are better off dead.

Boggles · 18-02-2019 11:37am

malinheader wrote: »

Jesus h christ. Is right is she a child now or am I missing something here

Who claimed she is a child now?

As for you missing something, I'd say definitely.

Boggles · 18-02-2019 11:41am

jmayo wrote: »

This woman, and yes she is now technically a woman, is very dangerous.
She may have been a minor when she left a few years ago, but lets face it she wasn't a kid.

Under the law she was a child. It's defined in law. Our opinions are irrelevant.

So unless you advocating for a law change to allow 15 year olds be groomed, then I would love to hear your reasoning around it.

aloneforever99 · 18-02-2019 11:45am

malinheader wrote: »

e. ISIS members are better off dead.

You're entitled to hold that opinion, but it doesn't align with the law or Western values.

jmayo · 18-02-2019 11:46am

Boggles wrote: »

Under the law she was a child. It's defined in law. Our opinions are irrelevant.

So unless you advocating for a law change to allow 15 year olds be groomed, then I would love to hear your reasoning around it.

Stop with the shyte.

1. Prove she was groomed ?
And something rather than her claim she watched some videos. :rolleyes:

2. and if it as you claim her fault, then why as an adult does she see no issue with what ISIS did ?

malinheader · 18-02-2019 11:47am

Boggles wrote: »

Who claimed she is a child now?

As for you missing something, I'd say definitely.

Definitely think I might be missing something trying to convince people who are oblivious that these problems cannot be solved by the nicey nicey approach. Your a big part of the problems in Europe at the minute in my eyes.

malinheader · 18-02-2019 11:48am

aloneforever99 wrote: »

You're entitled to hold that opinion, but it doesn't align with the law or Western values.

I know. That's the problem I'm trying to highlight.

aloneforever99 · 18-02-2019 11:49am

jmayo wrote: »

Stop with the shyte.

1. Prove she was groomed ?
And something rather than her claim she watched some videos. :rolleyes:

2. and if it as you claim her fault, then why as an adult does she see no issue with what ISIS did ?

1. How can we prove anything if we give her a bullet in the head with no attempt to find out?

2. Probably because she's spent four years in a cult.

aloneforever99 · 18-02-2019 11:49am

malinheader wrote: »

I know. That's the problem I'm trying to highlight.

So, your solution, without a hint of irony, is that we become more like ISIS?

malinheader · 18-02-2019 11:51am

aloneforever99 wrote: »

So, your solution, without a hint of irony, is that we become more like ISIS?

What saw off there heads while filming on you tube. Definitely not.

aloneforever99 · 18-02-2019 11:52am

malinheader wrote: »

What saw off there heads while filming on you tube. Definitely not.

Execution without any kind of due process or trial is exactly the kind of thing they do. And that's what you're suggesting. Do you think you're different because you're suggesting a bullet rather than a beheading?

malinheader · 18-02-2019 11:57am

aloneforever99 wrote: »

Execution without any kind of due process or trial is exactly the kind of thing they do. And that's what you're suggesting. Do you think you're different because you're suggesting a bullet rather than a beheading?

Yes very. And don't forget I wouldn't film it either.

scamalert · 18-02-2019 12:00pm

Boggles wrote: »

Under the law she was a child. It's defined in law. Our opinions are irrelevant.

So unless you advocating for a law change to allow 15 year olds be groomed, then I would love to hear your reasoning around it.

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.

aloneforever99 · 18-02-2019 12:01pm

malinheader wrote: »

Yes very. And don't forget I wouldn't film it either.

Cool, I like Western values, the ones you think you're trying to protect while proposing the behaviour of a dictator, so I'll stick with a functioning justice system.

ohnonotgmail · 18-02-2019 12:02pm

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 defnce 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 protests on those who made it happen if not worse, as that is beyond acceptable.

it was the home secretary who said that and what little powers he has to prevent a british citizen entering the UK amount to only a temporary block.

scamalert · 18-02-2019 12:07pm

ohnonotgmail wrote: »

it was the home secretary who said that and what little powers he has to prevent a british citizen entering the UK amount to only a temporary block.

apparently quite a lot of options, as said she most likely doesn't have passport and that alone could be dragged out for ages until they gather all the evidence they need to prosecute her for life. Plus no chance of crossing any border legally.

ohnonotgmail · 18-02-2019 12:11pm

scamalert wrote: »

apparently quite a lot of options, as said she most likely doesn't have passport and that alone could be dragged out for ages until they gather all the evidence they need to prosecute her for life.

like i said, only temporary.

jmayo · 18-02-2019 12:20pm

aloneforever99 wrote: »

Execution without any kind of due process or trial is exactly the kind of thing they do. And that's what you're suggesting. Do you think you're different because you're suggesting a bullet rather than a beheading?

aloneforever99 wrote: »

Cool, I like Western values, the ones you think you're trying to protect while proposing the behaviour of a dictator, so I'll stick with a functioning justice system.

Do you know why we still have those Western values ?

To use a quote attributed to George Orwell ...
"We sleep safely in our beds because rough men stand ready in the night to visit violence on those who would harm us."

By all accounts he did actually say ...

...that pacifists cannot accept the statement "Those who 'abjure' violence can do so only because others are committing violence on their behalf.", despite it being "grossly obvious.

Western values have only ever been protected by actually getting down and very dirty with enemies that tried to subvert and destory those values.

Fighting ISIS is a dirty war and if you lose to them you just face death.
By extension they are probably not treated as normal POWs.

Think of it as being similar to the sumary justice often handed out to members of the SS by all Allied forces and not just the Soviets.

Gatling · 18-02-2019 12:22pm

aloneforever99 wrote: »

1. How can we prove anything if we give her a bullet in the head with no attempt to find out?

2. Probably because she's spent four years in a cult.

We already know she's a terrorist in a terrorist organisation she willing left the UK for a better life under said terrorist organisation .

Now what has to be proved -

aloneforever99 · 18-02-2019 12:37pm

Gatling wrote: »

We already know she's a terrorist in a terrorist organisation she willing left the UK for a better life under said terrorist organisation .

Now what has to be proved -

The previous poster had said "prove she was brainwashed". That's what I was replying to. At least try and follow the conversation if you're going to weigh in.

jmayo · 18-02-2019 12:45pm

aloneforever99 wrote: »

The previous poster had said "prove she was brainwashed". That's what I was replying to. At least try and follow the conversation if you're going to weigh in.

And what ?

There is a thing we used to call responsibility.

It doesn't matter if she took acid, read mein kampf or watched vidoes and spoke to fundamentalists.
She went out of her way to get to ISIS controlled area, married some fighter and stayed there until the ar** fell out of things and now wants to get home.

Why are you making excuses for her and trying your damnest to downplay her actions?

Would you be so forgiving if it was some ar**hole that acted out as a KKK or nazi?

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

Comments