Terrorist Attacks - WARNING: CONTAINS DISTRESSING IMAGES

[Lighthouse]

Woah, where did I say any of that was OK? Show me. There is nothing there that says anywhere that it's OK.

 

As a MOD I would expect less trolling from you, although from your posts I can see why Wes has been allowed to spread his hate on the Brexit thread.

 

I’m suggesting there may be a link between countries which have widespread homophobia, sexual abuse against teenage girls and a violent persecution of all who denounce Islam and a a fanatical Islamist group which throws gays off buildings, forces teenage girls to be their sex slaves and murders all who oppose Islam.

 

ISIS ideology came from somewhere and I doubt it was small villages in Cornwall.

 

As for the Brexit thread, I volunteer enough of my time trying to keep the nutters under control on the main board, so that we can all talk about Saints without trolling. I have neither the time nor the desire to wade through the Brexit thread. Unless you want to volunteer to mod (speak to Baj or Steve) you will have to take it as it is.

[van Hanegem]

No idea but the legal system, or lack of, in another country is not the issue. She's a woman who, until the home office revoked it, was a UK citizen. She has no other citizenship. No other country is obliged to give that to her. Thus revoking her citizenship has left her stateless. That's unlawful. She's a woman who should be allowed to return to the only country where she has had (and still should have) citizenship. Upon her return she should be dealt with in our legal system as a British citizen.

 

I agree that she's a British citizen, I was just wondering why authorities in Syria (and Iraq) are apparently not willing to judge these women or the fighters who are in the hands of the US military.

[Verbal]

You can be glib if you want, although I'm sure life in those countries is far from pleasant for homosexuals.

 

 

 

Well, there was the Saudi Prince murdered his servant in London and had to fight extradition to Saudi Arabia, because he would be executed for having sex with him.

Then there's the woman just released from prison in Pakistan, who fled the country in fear of her life because she was accused of blasphemy.

Then there was her lawyer who was murdered for simply offering her a fair defence and his killer who was hailed as a national hero.

Then there're the Iranian missiles with "Death to Israel, kill all infidels" written on the side.

Then there's the 13 year old Women being forced to cover up their hair and skin and basically being treated as subordinate baby factories by their husbands and fathers.

 

Any of this maybe sound a little bit ISIS'y?

 

It's 2019 and this is The Life of Brian being played out in real life.

 

Ah, that's nice - the Holy Trinity in one post: ignorance, Islamophobia and hypocrisy.

 

We're all ignorant of most things, but using ignorance as the underpinning of an argument just makes for a bad look. Just to take your points, such as they are, about Pakistan. Asia Bibi, a Christian who was imprisoned for blasphemy, suffered from false and malicious accusations made by fellow Muslim villagers. Her imprisonment was appalling, but she was freed by the Pakistani Supreme Court. This is hardly the action of an ISIS-style legal authority. She was prosecuted under a law which had remained in the legal code since the British introduced it during colonial rule. Her lawyer was not killed, and is alive and well. Two senior Pakistani politicians were killed, and the son of one of them kidnapped, for speaking up in her defence. These killings and abduction were carried out by extremists, who are representative of all of Pakistan in the same way that Shamima Begum is representative of all of Britain.

 

Pakistan may have hung homosexuals and others for being gay, etc., but I can't think of a single instance - do you have evidence for that? If you do, you'd better warn all of those openly transexual people you see in the streets of the major cities. (Google 'hijras', and discover how transexuals have been around since the Mughal royal courts, and how hijras are frequently invited to wedding ceremonies as good luck charms). I've personally met dozens of people in Pakistan who are gay. It's not the easiest life, but they do not live in fear of their lives. They cope with it the way all people do in Pakistan - they separate their public from private lives (and in ways you wouldn't believe).

 

The underlying hypocrisy here is the way you lump people and regimes together as being responsible for particular outrages or regime-types. You would never reduce Italians to avatars of Berlusconi or the neo-fascist Salvini. Chileans under Pinochet were not all murdering psychopaths. ISIS, though, WAS an organisation that required violence and obedience from top to bottom. There is precisely NO Islamic country that fits such a description, and it is utterly hypocritical and false to suggest that any of them do.

 

You are at least consistent though. Your posts drip in racialised Islamophobia. Well done.

[Unbelievable Jeff]

Ah, that's nice - the Holy Trinity in one post: ignorance, Islamophobia and hypocrisy.

 

We're all ignorant of most things, but using ignorance as the underpinning of an argument just makes for a bad look. Just to take your points, such as they are, about Pakistan. Asia Bibi, a Christian who was imprisoned for blasphemy, suffered from false and malicious accusations made by fellow Muslim villagers. Her imprisonment was appalling, but she was freed by the Pakistani Supreme Court. This is hardly the action of an ISIS-style legal authority. She was prosecuted under a law which had remained in the legal code since the British introduced it during colonial rule. Her lawyer was not killed, and is alive and well. Two senior Pakistani politicians were killed, and the son of one of them kidnapped, for speaking up in her defence. These killings and abduction were carried out by extremists, who are representative of all of Pakistan in the same way that Shamima Begum is representative of all of Britain.

 

Pakistan may have hung homosexuals and others for being gay, etc., but I can't think of a single instance - do you have evidence for that? If you do, you'd better warn all of those openly transexual people you see in the streets of the major cities. (Google 'hijras', and discover how transexuals have been around since the Mughal royal courts, and how hijras are frequently invited to wedding ceremonies as good luck charms). I've personally met dozens of people in Pakistan who are gay. It's not the easiest life, but they do not live in fear of their lives. They cope with it the way all people do in Pakistan - they separate their public from private lives (and in ways you wouldn't believe).

 

The underlying hypocrisy here is the way you lump people and regimes together as being responsible for particular outrages or regime-types. You would never reduce Italians to avatars of Berlusconi or the neo-fascist Salvini. Chileans under Pinochet were not all murdering psychopaths. ISIS, though, WAS an organisation that required violence and obedience from top to bottom. There is precisely NO Islamic country that fits such a description, and it is utterly hypocritical and false to suggest that any of them do.

 

You are at least consistent though. Your posts drip in racialised Islamophobia. Well done.

 

I am seriously aghast with the attitudes on here.

[Lighthouse]

I really can't be arsed with that one Verbal, just a couple of points.

 

You said yourself "Her imprisonment was appalling" (that's her LEGAL imprisonment by the state) but apparently I'm the one who's ignorant and racist for mistaking a lawyer with two politicians who defended her.

 

By the way, this is the funeral of Mumtaz Qadri. The man who murdered one of the politicians who defended Asia Bibi

 

 

Just a small handful of extremists, nothing to worry about. I saw a similar gathering of people on Above Bar St, gathering in support of Begum. You're right, it's basically the same.

 

If you want to make a defence for countries which have the death penalty for 'crimes' such as homophobia and blasphemy (I never said they execute gays in Pakistan, I was talking about a SAUDI prince. SAUDI) then so be it. I personally think there might be a link to some of these attitudes and ISIS.

 

Not sure what point you're making re: Berlusconi. He isn't an avatar but assuming Italian elections are free and fair, it would seem his politics has a significant support.

[egg]

I agree that she's a British citizen, I was just wondering why authorities in Syria (and Iraq) are apparently not willing to judge these women or the fighters who are in the hands of the US military.

 

I suspect that they just want them gone, ans as she wants to go, they're content.

[ecuk268]

No idea but the legal system, or lack of, in another country is not the issue. She's a woman who, until the home office revoked it, was a UK citizen. She has no other citizenship. No other country is obliged to give that to her. Thus revoking her citizenship has left her stateless. That's unlawful. She's a woman who should be allowed to return to the only country where she has had (and still should have) citizenship. Upon her return she should be dealt with in our legal system as a British citizen.

 

This is all willy-waving by Sajid Javid.

 

He's got one eye on the Tory leadership and thinks that his tough-guy image will appeal to the old fogeys who make up the party membership.

 

It looks likely that the courts will eventually overturn his decision and she'll end up back here.

[egg]

This is all willy-waving by Sajid Javid.

 

He's got one eye on the Tory leadership and thinks that his tough-guy image will appeal to the old fogeys who make up the party membership.

 

It looks likely that the courts will eventually overturn his decision and she'll end up back here.

 

Yep, agree with all of that. He's pandering to the masses. On Judicial Review that decision will inevitably be overturned.

[hypochondriac]

Yep, agree with all of that. He's pandering to the masses. On Judicial Review that decision will inevitably be overturned.

 

Hopefully it will take an incredibly long time and someone will sort the problem for us in the meantime.

[egg]

Hopefully it will take an incredibly long time and someone will sort the problem for us in the meantime.

 

What does "hopefully...someone will sort the problem for us..."mean?

[hypochondriac]

What does "hopefully...someone will sort the problem for us..."mean?

It could mean a number of things. Maybe a Syrian Isis victim will fancy dishing up their own justice. And who would blame them?

[egg]

It could mean a number of things. Maybe a Syrian Isis victim will fancy dishing up their own justice. And who would blame them?

So wishing the kid dead. Classy.

[hypochondriac]

So wishing the kid dead. Classy.

Eh? You've just made that up!

[egg]

Eh? You've just made that up!

Errr, read your own words pal. Just in case you can't, I'll help.

 

You said: "hopefully...someone will sort the problem for us..."

 

Which you clarified to mean: "Maybe a Syrian Isis victim will fancy dishing up their own justice".

 

Unless you mean that "hopefully" an "Isis victim" version of justice means giving her a nice foot massage or something, you're clearly hoping (your wish, not mine) that the "justice" dished out is of the unpleasant kind.

 

Disgraceful.

Edited 28 February, 2019 by egg

[hypochondriac]

Errr, read your own words pal. Just in case you can't, I'll help.

 

You said: "hopefully...someone will sort the problem for us..."

 

Which you clarified to mean: "Maybe a Syrian Isis victim will fancy dishing up their own justice".

 

Unless you mean that "hopefully" an "Isis victim" version of justice means giving her a nice foot massage or something, you're clearly hoping (your wish, not mine) that the "justice" dished out is of the unpleasant kind.

 

Disgraceful.

I made no mention of any kid you fruit loop.

[Unbelievable Jeff]

I made no mention of any kid you fruit loop.

 

In what way could someone sort the problem in the meantime?

[hypochondriac]

In what way could someone sort the problem in the meantime?

There's a myriad of ways. I didn't have a specific one in mind. Either way, let's hope the child is rescued from her as quickly as possible so the chances of a new jihadi is reduced. In fact, if she manages to force her way back into Britain I'd make it a condition of entry that her child would be adopted elsewhere.

[egg]

I made no mention of any kid you fruit loop.

 

The young woman (who went there as a kid) you idiot, ie the one that normal people want punished, but you want killed.

[hypochondriac]

The young woman (who went there as a kid) you idiot, ie the one that normal people want punished, but you want killed.

A) she's not a kid she's an adult who has been part of an extremist death cult for four years and expresses no remorse. She was fully aware of what she was doing at the time and continues to be.

B) I didn't say I "wanted" her killed but if someone does finish her off I won't be shedding any tears. I'd be happy for her to face trial for her actions in Syria at some point if that was possible and that could conceivably mean the death penalty. If that happens I'll probably just pause and think of the people who were maimed or killed in the Manchester bombing rather than wasting any time on this individual who betrayed her country. This wouldn't even be a conversation if she was a male jihadi.

 

Let's remember "pal" you're the one on the side of an isis member here not me. Disgraceful.

Edited 1 March, 2019 by hypochondriac

[egg]

A) she's not a kid she's an adult who has been part of an extremist death cult for four years and expresses no remorse. She was fully aware of what she was doing at the time and continues to be.

B) I didn't say I "wanted" her killed but if someone does finish her off I won't be shedding any tears. I'd be happy for her to face trial for her actions in Syria at some point if that was possible and that could conceivably mean the death penalty. If that happens I'll probably just pause and think of the people who were maimed or killed in the Manchester bombing rather than wasting any time on this individual who betrayed her country. This wouldn't even be a conversation if she was a male jihadi.

 

Let's remember "pal" you're the one on the side of an isis member here not me. Disgraceful.

 

You're squirming mate, and rightly so. Your words, not mine, are that "hopefully" she suffers retribution at the hands of an Isis victim. I'm confident that there's only one honest interpretation of that. You can keep digging if you want but in your shoes I'd leave it.

 

As to my position, I've said only that a) the home office decision is unlawful which it is, and b) that she should be allowed to return and be dealt with (ie punished lawfully as opposed to being killed by someone seeking revenge). I'm not sure how that makes me an Isis sympathiser.

[aintforever]

You're squirming mate, and rightly so. Your words, not mine, are that "hopefully" she suffers retribution at the hands of an Isis victim. I'm confident that there's only one honest interpretation of that. You can keep digging if you want but in your shoes I'd leave it.

 

As to my position, I've said only that a) the home office decision is unlawful which it is, and b) that she should be allowed to return and be dealt with (ie punished lawfully as opposed to being killed by someone seeking revenge). I'm not sure how that makes me an Isis sympathiser.

 

If I though she would face any sort of appropriate punishment I would welcome her back with open arms. I think we all know if she gets convicted of anything she will get a soft as sh!te sentence and be out spreading her poisonous ideology or maybe planning attacks in no time at all.

 

The decision will probably get overturned but hopefully it will take years. A few winters in a tent over there is better than anything our system will hand out over here.

[hypochondriac]

You're squirming mate, and rightly so. Your words, not mine, are that "hopefully" she suffers retribution at the hands of an Isis victim. I'm confident that there's only one honest interpretation of that. You can keep digging if you want but in your shoes I'd leave it.

 

As to my position, I've said only that a) the home office decision is unlawful which it is, and b) that she should be allowed to return and be dealt with (ie punished lawfully as opposed to being killed by someone seeking revenge). I'm not sure how that makes me an Isis sympathiser.

 

Squirming? Give me a break. You're the one making yourself look foolish by inventing things I've said and doing the classic thing of reading what you want to be there because it fits the caricature in your head. I said that hopefully the problem would be sorted out before she managed to worm her way back into the country and I didn't specify in what way it would be sorted because there are all sorts of ways. I then gave one example of how it could be sorted and I said it wouldn't bother me if that occurred. She could be detained indefinitely in another country for all I care which would also sort the problem. For some bizarre reason you're now trying to distort what I actually said.

 

But sure you keep prattling on about honest interpretations. I'm happy for the UK government to do nothing to help her, I hope her life is as difficult as possible and that circumstances mean that she never makes it back to this country because I don't want her here. Let's remember this is the life she chose. I'd rather the media concentrated on victims of this barbaric regime than those who were part of it. She deserves no media attention and to be ignored.

Edited 1 March, 2019 by hypochondriac

[hypochondriac]

If I though she would face any sort of appropriate punishment I would welcome her back with open arms. I think we all know if she gets convicted of anything she will get a soft as sh!te sentence and be out spreading her poisonous ideology or maybe planning attacks in no time at all.

 

The decision will probably get overturned but hopefully it will take years. A few winters in a tent over there is better than anything our system will hand out over here.

Quite right. The likes of "egg" veering dangerously close to the sort of views expressed in this tweet:

 

[Verbal]

Eh? You've just made that up!

 

No he didn't. It was a clear and obvious inference that could be drawn from your comments. And please look up the word 'inference'. Wasp-chewing bigots love to say 'I didn't exactly say that!' when it is not clearly said but is clearly implied. Readers of your comments are entitled to draw reasoned inferences.

 

You and the other racist Islamophobes on here, notably Lighthouse (who's been called out by a number of posters on here, not just me, all to no avail), seem incapable of seeing the problem as a legal one rather than one that edges into a peevish and base desire to enact revenge on a teenager.

 

The legitimacy of western liberal democratic values - British ones - depend hugely on the idea of the rule of law.

 

By the way, what in the hell is wrong with Tom Holland's post?!

[whelk]

No he didn't. It was a clear and obvious inference that could be drawn from your comments. And please look up the word 'inference'. Wasp-chewing bigots love to say 'I didn't exactly say that!' when it is not clearly said but is clearly implied. Readers of your comments are entitled to draw reasoned inferences.

 

You and the other racist Islamophobes on here, notably Lighthouse (who's been called out by a number of posters on here, not just me, all to no avail), seem incapable of seeing the problem as a legal one rather than one that edges into a peevish and base desire to enact revenge on a teenager.

 

The legitimacy of western liberal democratic values - British ones - depend hugely on the idea of the rule of law.

 

By the way, what in the hell is wrong with Tom Holland's post?!

 

It isn’t clearly a racist thing. People have low tolerance of scumbags and some have more anger and desire for vengeance; others have more forgiveness. Would have applied to IRA as well.

 

You think I am racist for not piling onto Liam Neeson over his comments so I think you are a bit of a witch finder.

 

With you on the rule of law though

[Verbal]

It isn’t clearly a racist thing. People have low tolerance of scumbags and some have more anger and desire for vengeance; others have more forgiveness. Would have applied to IRA as well.

 

You think I am racist for not piling onto Liam Neeson over his comments so I think you are a bit of a witch finder.

 

With you on the rule of law though

 

No, it's clearly racist. Compare the comments by the Anti-Muslamics on here regarding Shamima Begum with those about Jihadi Jack. I think you'll find that white, male, partly Canadian Jack gets a free ride while the evil brown schoolgirl attracts all the venom.

 

I hate Jihadists as much as anyone. Not least because a very good friend of mine - a Hindu - was kidnapped by one of them and spent six brutalising months in South Waziristan. I know what these people are like. They are vain, beyond stupid, and above all think they have a god-given right to cause untold damage to people and things, while maintaining their sanctimonious righteousness. Question them on scriptural matters and they know sweet fu ck all. Almost all of them have criminal backgrounds, and have discovered that their violent bullying can be sanctified by the simple expedient of being hyper-violent in the name of the cult.

 

I don't know what crimes Shamima Begum has committed. I bet she's committed a fair few that would make anyone's blood boil. Ditto, times ten, I suspect, for Jihadi Jack (his loyalty, in all likelihood, would have been tested - and I dread to think what that means). But the supposed difference between 'us and them' - Jihadists and believers in democratic, liberal, Magna Carta values of free speech and the rule of law - is that we're supposed to know that our personal feelings cannot ever be allowed to determine the legal fate of people accused of even the most heinous of crimes.

 

That's my objection to the ludicrous little baying mob on here. As for legal remedies, personally I'd rather the fate of those accused of crimes under the banner of ISIS be tried in the Hague, at the International Criminal Court. The Court has the ability to cross-reference large numbers of witness statements and evidence that a simple criminal case in the UK may not be able to do, especially now that the legal system has been thoroughly Graylinged. But the larger point is that ISIS is an international criminal enterprise - including the attempt genocide of the Yazidis - which should be treated the same way as the ethnic-cleansing killers of Tutsis, Rohingya and Bosnian and Kosovan Muslims.

[hypochondriac]

Hold on what free ride has jihadi Jack been given? He was laughed at because he gave some stupid answers to questions but the only reason shamima has been debated so much is because she's a female, because she was 15 and because she may have the legal right to have citizenship elsewhere and also because many were struck by how cold and unapologetic she was in her interview. There isn't even a debate about jihadi Jack being allowed back in and if shamima was male and wasn't 15 at the time she left she wouldn't have sparked so much conversation either. I don't see a load of bleeding hearts ringing radio shows and writing opi ion pieces crying about jihadi Jack and calling for his immediate return. I'd applaud the government for using any legal methods they can to make re-entering the country as difficult as possible for members of IS- no matter what their identity is- and I'm confident that's the majority stance of the public in this country Her skin colour has nothing to do with it and you make yourself look silly for suggesting it.

 

I'm happy for Britain to use every legal power they have to prevent her return and ultimately if that proves impossible, then we will have no choice but to prosecute her to the full extent of the law in this country but I agree an international criminal court would be a good place to handle the case.

Edited 1 March, 2019 by hypochondriac

[hypochondriac]

By the way I love the phrase "reasoned inference" which is basically just a way of saying that you can just decide for yourself what someone is saying rather than what they actually said. Unfortunately it's a common reason for the spread of fake news and is something you should avoid doing. I'd prefer if we just stick to what is actually written by people rather than whatever biased and uncharitable reading you can come up with.

Edited 1 March, 2019 by hypochondriac

[Unbelievable Jeff]

There's a myriad of ways. I didn't have a specific one in mind. Either way, let's hope the child is rescued from her as quickly as possible so the chances of a new jihadi is reduced. In fact, if she manages to force her way back into Britain I'd make it a condition of entry that her child would be adopted elsewhere.

 

How though? I'm interested about the myriad of ways. Give me 3.

[hypochondriac]

How though? I'm interested about the myriad of ways. Give me 3.

1) she gets a disease and passes away before she is allowed back.

 

2) Syria recovers to a point where they have a proper government and express an interest in trying her themselves for crimes against their people.

 

3) Another country takes pity on poor Shamima and offers her asylum.

 

Obviously she could be killed or detained in a number of other ways but you only asked for three. Apologies if I wasn't clearer maybe I should have said someone or some thing.

[hypochondriac]

*waits for egg to reply with "you are hoping that a member of IS would contract an illness and die! You monster!

[Unbelievable Jeff]

1) she gets a disease and passes away before she is allowed back.

 

2) Syria recovers to a point where they have a proper government and express an interest in trying her themselves for crimes against their people.

 

3) Another country takes pity on poor Shamima and offers her asylum.

 

Obviously she could be killed or detained in a number of other ways but you only asked for three. Apologies if I wasn't clearer maybe I should have said someone or some thing.

 

OK, so 1 means she dies - so that fits into your "hopefully" box.

 

2. We all know that's not something at all realistic in the short to medium term - she may as well be abducted by aliens.

 

3. Yeah, good luck with that one.

 

Which one of these falls into the "...Syrian Isis victim will fancy dishing up their own justice" box? This is what I was talking in reference to.

[hypochondriac]

OK, so 1 means she dies - so that fits into your "hopefully" box.

 

2. We all know that's not something at all realistic in the short to medium term - she may as well be abducted by aliens.

 

3. Yeah, good luck with that one.

 

Which one of these falls into the "...Syrian Isis victim will fancy dishing up their own justice" box? This is what I was talking in reference to.

 

OK I didn't realise when you asked me to list 3 possibilities that you were then going to go through each fantasy scenario and discuss their relative merits and likelihoods. Might I suggest that is an entirely pointless exercise?

 

A Syrian Isis victim dishing out their own justice is also another possibility of course that could happen and whilst I'm not calling for that to happen, as I already said I won't be shedding any tears if it did. I'm struggling to understand what you're trying to get at here?

[egg]

*waits for egg to reply with "you are hoping that a member of IS would contract an illness and die! You monster!

 

No need pal, others have cottoned onto the fact that you're squirming. I'm quite happy to watch you keep digging.

[hypochondriac]

No need pal, others have cottoned onto the fact that you're squirming. I'm quite happy to watch you keep digging.

"others" being verbal and unbelievable Jeff! But go ahead, do the equivalent of sticking your fingers in your ears and seeing what you want to see if it makes you feel better.

 

Poor old shamima getting all that nasty "abuse" from British citizens. It's just plain old racism that they say uncharitable things about an IS member. You people are crazy.

[egg]

OK I didn't realise when you asked me to list 3 possibilities that you were then going to go through each fantasy scenario and discuss their relative merits and likelihoods. Might I suggest that is an entirely pointless exercise?

 

A Syrian Isis victim dishing out their own justice is also another possibility of course that could happen and whilst I'm not calling for that to happen, as I already said I won't be shedding any tears if it did. I'm struggling to understand what you're trying to get at here?

 

I have spelled it out - the inference from your comments were clear. Why not just be honest and say what it's clear that you meant, IE that you hope that an ISIS survivor either kills her or harms her, rather than your pathetic attempt to back pedal?

[hypochondriac]

I have spelled it out - the inference from your comments were clear. Why not just be honest and say what it's clear that you meant, IE that you hope that an ISIS survivor either kills her or harms her, rather than your pathetic attempt to back pedal?

 

Firstly I was talking to unbelievable Jeff not you, who up until this point hasn't tried to misrepresent me unlike yourself. I know what I meant thanks because I wrote it and you can pretend you know what my inference was all you like. I have been very clear that I hope she never gets back into this country, that I'm glad the government are doing what they can to legally make it as difficult as possible and if she does not return then that is a positive thing. I've said the same thing from the beginning and now for some reason you're describing it as backpeddling. If this woman got killed out in Syria then of course I'm not going to be upset about it. There are actually IS victims like the coptic Christians and young girls who were sold as sex slaves and slaughtered that deserve sympathy. Now go ahead and ignore what I've actually said and instead say what you think I've inferred, that's an incredibly healthy way to have a dialogue with someone whose opinion you disagree with...

[Unbelievable Jeff]

OK I didn't realise when you asked me to list 3 possibilities that you were then going to go through each fantasy scenario and discuss their relative merits and likelihoods. Might I suggest that is an entirely pointless exercise?

 

A Syrian Isis victim dishing out their own justice is also another possibility of course that could happen and whilst I'm not calling for that to happen, as I already said I won't be shedding any tears if it did. I'm struggling to understand what you're trying to get at here?

 

Unfortunately, there was only one way to interpret the following two, linked statements:

 

1. Hopefully it will take an incredibly long time and someone will sort the problem for us in the meantime.

 

2. It could mean a number of things. Maybe a Syrian Isis victim will fancy dishing up their own justice. And who would blame them?

 

Now, we've all made stupid statements on this site before, and you certainly wouldn't be the last, but you have to admit that outside of what you meant, it doesn't look good.

[hypochondriac]

Unfortunately, there was only one way to interpret the following two, linked statements:

 

1. Hopefully it will take an incredibly long time and someone will sort the problem for us in the meantime.

 

2. It could mean a number of things. Maybe a Syrian Isis victim will fancy dishing up their own justice. And who would blame them?

 

Now, we've all made stupid statements on this site before, and you certainly wouldn't be the last, but you have to admit that outside of what you meant, it doesn't look good.

 

Whilst I'm not calling for shamimas death, the upside to an IS victim sorting her out would mean that she would no longer be a problem. Just because I gave one example of what might happen to her- along with many other subsequent examples- does not mean that is what I am calling for.

 

Hopefully that clarification helps you to understand it better.

[Lighthouse]

No, it's clearly racist. Compare the comments by the Anti-Muslamics on here regarding Shamima Begum with those about Jihadi Jack. I think you'll find that white, male, partly Canadian Jack gets a free ride while the evil brown schoolgirl attracts all the venom.

 

I hate Jihadists as much as anyone. Not least because a very good friend of mine - a Hindu - was kidnapped by one of them and spent six brutalising months in South Waziristan. I know what these people are like. They are vain, beyond stupid, and above all think they have a god-given right to cause untold damage to people and things, while maintaining their sanctimonious righteousness. Question them on scriptural matters and they know sweet fu ck all. Almost all of them have criminal backgrounds, and have discovered that their violent bullying can be sanctified by the simple expedient of being hyper-violent in the name of the cult.

 

I don't know what crimes Shamima Begum has committed. I bet she's committed a fair few that would make anyone's blood boil. Ditto, times ten, I suspect, for Jihadi Jack (his loyalty, in all likelihood, would have been tested - and I dread to think what that means). But the supposed difference between 'us and them' - Jihadists and believers in democratic, liberal, Magna Carta values of free speech and the rule of law - is that we're supposed to know that our personal feelings cannot ever be allowed to determine the legal fate of people accused of even the most heinous of crimes.

 

That's my objection to the ludicrous little baying mob on here. As for legal remedies, personally I'd rather the fate of those accused of crimes under the banner of ISIS be tried in the Hague, at the International Criminal Court. The Court has the ability to cross-reference large numbers of witness statements and evidence that a simple criminal case in the UK may not be able to do, especially now that the legal system has been thoroughly Graylinged. But the larger point is that ISIS is an international criminal enterprise - including the attempt genocide of the Yazidis - which should be treated the same way as the ethnic-cleansing killers of Tutsis, Rohingya and Bosnian and Kosovan Muslims.

 

I was going to post something about your hilarious first paragraph but I actually find myself agreeing with this BIB. It is an international enterprise and if we could set up an international trial and indeed prison, the cost for which is shared internationally, it's probably the most humane and fair option. Would be a good place to send the Choudarys of this world, where they can't recruit other inmates.

[hypochondriac]

I was going to post something about your hilarious first paragraph but I actually find myself agreeing with this BIB. It is an international enterprise and if we could set up an international trial and indeed prison, the cost for which is shared internationally, it's probably the most humane and fair option. Would be a good place to send the Choudarys of this world, where they can't recruit other inmates.

Yes I think that's something we can all agree on.

[Verbal]

I was going to post something about your hilarious first paragraph but I actually find myself agreeing with this BIB. It is an international enterprise and if we could set up an international trial and indeed prison, the cost for which is shared internationally, it's probably the most humane and fair option. Would be a good place to send the Choudarys of this world, where they can't recruit other inmates.

 

 

Yes I think that's something we can all agree on.

 

Well I'm not having any of this. Fu ck off the pair of you.

[hypochondriac]

That's a first. Verbal made me laugh.

[whelk]

No, it's clearly racist. Compare the comments by the Anti-Muslamics on here regarding Shamima Begum with those about Jihadi Jack. I think you'll find that white, male, partly Canadian Jack gets a free ride while the evil brown schoolgirl attracts all the venom.

 

I hate Jihadists as much as anyone. Not least because a very good friend of mine - a Hindu - was kidnapped by one of them and spent six brutalising months in South Waziristan. I know what these people are like. They are vain, beyond stupid, and above all think they have a god-given right to cause untold damage to people and things, while maintaining their sanctimonious righteousness. Question them on scriptural matters and they know sweet fu ck all. Almost all of them have criminal backgrounds, and have discovered that their violent bullying can be sanctified by the simple expedient of being hyper-violent in the name of the cult.

 

I don't know what crimes Shamima Begum has committed. I bet she's committed a fair few that would make anyone's blood boil. Ditto, times ten, I suspect, for Jihadi Jack (his loyalty, in all likelihood, would have been tested - and I dread to think what that means). But the supposed difference between 'us and them' - Jihadists and believers in democratic, liberal, Magna Carta values of free speech and the rule of law - is that we're supposed to know that our personal feelings cannot ever be allowed to determine the legal fate of people accused of even the most heinous of crimes.

 

That's my objection to the ludicrous little baying mob on here. As for legal remedies, personally I'd rather the fate of those accused of crimes under the banner of ISIS be tried in the Hague, at the International Criminal Court. The Court has the ability to cross-reference large numbers of witness statements and evidence that a simple criminal case in the UK may not be able to do, especially now that the legal system has been thoroughly Graylinged. But the larger point is that ISIS is an international criminal enterprise - including the attempt genocide of the Yazidis - which should be treated the same way as the ethnic-cleansing killers of Tutsis, Rohingya and Bosnian and Kosovan Muslims.

 

Just been listening to Jon Ronson and what he was saying resonates on how everyone needs thing clearly as one side or another,

think we all have elements of being racist even if we don’t acknowledge or realise but just bandying it around left right and centre doesn’t forward your arguments

[Unbelievable Jeff]

http://news.sky.com/story/muslim-convert-jailed-for-planning-spectacular-terror-attack-on-oxford-street-11656885

 

I blame the parents and their religion.

[sadoldgit]

Sadly it appears that whilst Javid has been busy sucking up to the far right, the opportunity to save an innocent child’s life has been lost. Stamina Begum’s three week old baby as apparantly died of pneumonia. By his own admission the child was a British subject but he was quiet happy to leave the baby to suffer in a miserable environment where other children are dying every day. Perhaps the only positive to come out of this sorry tale is that it might deter more young girls from following in Begum’s footsteps but no matter of what you think of this misguided young women, at just 19 years old she has already had to pay a very high price for her life choices.

[sadoldgit]

Shamima Begum

[whelk]

A lot of sadness in the world. I’m afraid this one passes me by as something to get upset about.

[Unbelievable Jeff]

A lot of sadness in the world. I’m afraid this one passes me by as something to get upset about.

 

For her, I don't care. For the death of a 3 week old baby, it's ****ing tragic.

[hypochondriac]

How tragic that this evil woman had three children in this hell hole. She's responsible for these innocent children's deaths.