U.K. must take back U.K. born isis fighters. Should we?

OP

Original post by proton & neutron

No doubt there are children who get involved knowing full well what they are doing but we still them as victims in virtually every other example of exploitation e.g. children in care who seek out a child grooming/prostitution rings because it provides them with access to more resources like money or even someone who shows them love e.g a pimp.

There is also a reason why we don’t allow child soldier to fight in war zones anymore (this in the UK has only happened in the last 15 years) even though I am sure you will find 14 year who are clearly more mature than some 18 year old because there is a very serious power balance issue between children and adults especially care givers.

Then since you need to be 16 to apply for your own passport and even then if that's your first passport you are going to need your parents help in practice to prove your a British citizen and there is also an interview too with an interviewer looking out for suspicious behaviour. As you can see other adults have to clearly be involved to put these ideas in these children head let alone help them get to Turkey and arrange transportation from there.

You criticised me for stating my opinion that these war bride (and victims of child marriage /sexual slavery) and their children would not be openly banished by the British government if they were white we would be looking at ways to bring these girls home. Then go on to call for the mass voluntary reputation of non white immigration which in the context of your replies on this thread immigrate means anyone in the UK who isn’t white and I can’t see why you have excluded white immigration.

I do understand there are concerns about immigration and I’m open to rational debate e.g lack of integration, crime or lack of investment in infrastructure.

The latter of which I would blame largely on the British government’s poor future planning:

a) the NHS crisis we have caused by the entirely predictable increase in old people as the baby boomer retired.
b) housing crisis caused by deliberately allowing and encouraging house prices to become detached from wages for short term political gain.
c) the unnecessary commercialisation of state School with academies and the opening of free schools in area which already had an excess of school places while particularly rural school in places like South Western England are underfunded.

Then even if you were to blame infrastructure problems on immigration since its legal immigration if we are going to blame anyone for it should be the government not the people who have immigrated here. Plus in the case of EU migration the British government has spent more time blaming the EU instead of using the powers it actually has to manage EU migration like not being 1 of the few countries to place transitional controls on new EU countries, have employers/job recruiters go to those countries and be shocked when those new members come to your country and if you compare the UK to Belgium it is quite clear the freedom on movement is conditional - in that you can only stay if you find a job within 3 month (its monitored in Belgium), can support yourself and your not a drain on that state’s social

It not about just being born here people generally consider people who have been brought up in the UK to be British at least culturally speaking just look at the victims of the Windrush scandal if they behaved like expats who regularly visited their place of birth and had passports that mess would never have happened.

Then I suspect you already know that just being born in the UK does not automatically result in British citizenship.

Then if your unsure what a British identity I am sure there some people from Northern Ireland who will fill you in.

“Uninhabited” - I like how you ignore the fact people were already living in the Americas before Europeans arrived and if it wasn’t for their help and hospitality its unlikely a permanent colony would have been succeeded especially if you consider the winters.
They didn’t try to peaceful co-exist with native Americans they actively disposed them of their land and moved them to reservations at best attempted a near ethnocide. Then if that wasn’t bad enough they didn’t want to fairly pay other to grow their labour-intensive cash crops to sell to Europe (a large part of what made permanent colonies feasible) themselves so they decided to twist Christianity to justify the enslaving of millions of Africans until industrialisation, the creation of a middle class and capitalism provided a better alternative in mechanisation and the fact an employer like a factory owner does not need to care about how you find food, housing or healthcare but it don’t change this mentality that allowed slavery.

Yes there is, immigration for the most part into western countries has being done in accordance with that countries laws and in many cases the government has actively encouraged people to immigrate. These people and there descendant for the most part integrate into the existing society.

While this clearly isn’t the case with white majority countries outside of Europe and you will find many of these immigrates (who in some cases moved as a whole village unit) went for the rumours of easy riches like gold or free land look up Homestead Acts and equivalent legislation.

Then are you saying you would support a group colonising an uninhabited part of this country who bring there own culture and have no interest in integrating into the existing society?

Don’t believe everything you read in the tabloids but do give some examples. Anyway if your talking about in work benefits like housing benefit that more of a symptoms of dysfunctional housing policy and a government unwilling to address the crisis of low wages in this country.

The context of your comments I would guess a white heterosexual man who do not understand what its like to be discriminated against so is dismissive of the idea of discrimination and think measures to address it are a conspiracy again them.

I think those people (girls who approach pimps etc) are responsible their actions too, unless their survival is at stake . I don’t see the point of most if your next two paragraphs, sure the Adults in most of these teenage Isis recruits were probably complicit.

That’s not what I criticised you for, I said that you’re engaging in whataboutery. The fact is that 99% of isis recruits are non white. Now if white people did join an ‘extremist’ movement say a revolutionary
White nationalist outfit somewhere I think they will be treated the same by the press and probably the government too, if it was a significant security threat.

The reason I support the voluntary repatriation of non Europeans is because obviously I believe that race is real and that homogeneous societies are stronger/ better in a plurality of ways and multicultural/ multi ethnic ones (at least in a liberal democratic sense) make society worse.

I do not blame the immigrants themselves for immigration, no one does. It is indeed the politicians fault. This is a trick that liberals like to pull. I love polar bears, but if a thousand turned up on my town I’d probably want to know how and why they got here, and want them to be somewhere else. This wouldn’t make me anti polar bear. But I’d probably be anti whoever is responsible.

As I’ve said before: Sweden has high wages, excellent benefits, a growing economy and still began electing the alt right in droves. This is because they view their identity as being under threat and their leaders open antagonism toward them. Many of these government failures are deliberate.

‘If I told you there were a handful of wealthy people controlling the world you’d call me a socialist. If I told you who they were you’d call me a Nazi’

As to colonisation.

A lot of colonisation was of uninhabited land. But in any case, I mean in the sense that they built their own civilisation from the ground up. They didn’t start living in wigwams and claiming white representation in the Tribes inner circle.

So what you’re saying is that American Indians had been more xenophobic they’d probably be a lot more better off? How does that help your argument?😂

I never said that colonists wanted to coexist with the native savages. They didn’t.

Trade with the colonists only became a thing because the French wanted to screw with the British and then vice versa.

As to mass immigration being done lawfully, so what? So we’re witch trials, that doesn’t make it right. The only difference is that the witch trials were popular.

As to me supporting groups trying to occupy uninhabited parts of the west, obviously not. The difference is we can defend ourselves the native Americans couldn’t. So what? Why should I care? If the Native Americans could have stopped us coming they would have, and I wouldn’t blame them. We have a duty to protect and preserve our way of life, ethnicity and heritage.

Oh, I swear your point you said was that there was no such thing as white privilege. Sure there is. I know being a minority probably sucks. That’s why I don’t want me or my children to be one. If/ when whites were to become a minority (which judging by birth rates is a possibility in some countries) do you think today’s minorities are going to treat whites fairly or going to care about equal white representation?

(edited 5 years ago)

Reply 81

Zaratomaa

10

Original post by Davij038

The only ones I would deport would be certain dual citizens from s non Muslim country in the Middle East who have their own country just for them.

I would massively cut immigration and then look towards paying non white immigration to leaving, but not deporting ( so long as they are law- abiding).

Dudeeee the only reason most of us are here is bc this country messed up in our home countries first XD
Most of these 'certain dual citizens' are active, supportive, and healthy citizens in this country, and wanting them out is just disgusting.

Reply 82

BlueIndigoViolet

19

if a missile strike 'accidentally' hits their plane - we couldn't do anything and the threat would be neutralised?

Reply 83

proton & neutron

7

Original post by BlueIndigoViolet

if a missile strike 'accidentally' hits their plane - we couldn't do anything and the threat would be neutralised?

The other people on that fight and the people on the ground? Goodness do people think these things through. There is a reason we have trials and your blasé attitude to extrajudicial killings is alarming.

Reply 84

BlueIndigoViolet

19

Original post by proton & neutron

The other people on that fight and the people on the ground? Goodness do people think these things through. There is a reason we have trials and your blasé attitude to extrajudicial killings is alarming.

set her up on the plane? anyway, she got her citizenship revoked :woohoo:

one less terrorist walking about lol - she can rot as a housewife in a muslim household in bangladesh now :smile:

Reply 85

LambertJ

1

I suspect he may yet condescend to have his hands tied by existing (protocols written on the back of a back of a fag packet by Roy Jenkins one rainy Sunday afternoon in Hampstead) laws.

Reply 86

Davij038

OP

13

Original post by Zaratomaa

Dudeeee the only reason most of us are here is bc this country messed up in our home countries first XD
Most of these 'certain dual citizens' are active, supportive, and healthy citizens in this country, and wanting them out is just disgusting.

The certain dual citizens I’m referring to are zionists, who use our governments to fight wars for their benefit. Without zionists we wouldnt have had these wars- these people profit from them and flood the west with refugees to weaken our countries. They use different means to destroy both Arabs and whites who they both hate and seek to control.

Reply 87

BlueIndigoViolet

19

Original post by Davij038

The certain dual citizens I’m referring to are zionists, who use our governments to fight wars for their benefit. Without zionists we wouldnt have had these wars- these people profit from them and flood the west with refugees to weaken our countries. They use different means to destroy both Arabs and whites who they both hate and seek to control.

Zionist? Yeah, here comes the muslim anti-semitism folks - still sour that they got their asses handed to them by Israel.

Reply 88

username2950448

20

Legally it's quite black-and-white.

I don't buy the argument that refusing to allow Begum to return would somehow send a signal to future wannabe-jihadis; to the contrary, this would clearly signal to jihadis that it's succeed or bust, making them less likely to surrender and more likely to fight to the death.

Also, not to justify her actions in the slightest but she was only 15 at the time.

Her continued lack of remorse is disgusting, but to single Begum out whilst dozens other British jihadis have returned and been prosecuted constitutes the rule of law bending to public pressure and is not what the U.K. should stand for.

I see no reason to treat her differently to the other jihadis that returned to Britain, her lack of remorse should be taken into account at the sentencing stage, but not to justify arbitrarily barring a British citizen from returning to the U.K. to face justice for her criminal activities.

(edited 5 years ago)

Reply 89

Libtardian

15

The jihadis are basically the equivalent of the BEF, they fought for British government against Assad and should technically be eligible for veterans benefits and backpay.

Reply 90

KingLoghorn

3

Original post by Davij038

https://www.theguardian.com/world/2019/feb/17/trump-is-right-uk-must-take-back-isis-fighters-ex-british-army-chief.

Basically there are 800 isis fighters who happened to be born in Europe, I imagine at least a hundred of these are ‘British’. There are also suspected hundreds of isis members that have already returned to the U.K.

The UK’s home sectretary (himself a Pakistan Muslim) has stated that heck would prevent the turn of some of these isis detainees from returning to U.K. Soil.

A leading ‘counter terrorism expert’ has said that not allowing isis members to return will fuel isis’s narrative and lead to more isis recruits.

https://www.google.co.uk/amp/s/amp.theguardian.com/uk-news/2019/feb/16/shamima-begum-isis-extremism-expert-criticises-sajid-javid

Do you think we should let these fighters back on the UK to face trial? If so why/ why not?

NO there is no way we should let them return to UK soil. They made the choice to join a terrorist organisation so let them stay there. Should we jeopardize our safety?

Reply 91

Vinny C

20

Original post by Wōden

"Oh dear! The transport ship that was bringing all the Jihadis back to the UK, has accidently struck an iceberg and sunk. No survivors."

Has been held up 20 yrs mid Atlantic due to Brexit. At least it has some uses.

(edited 5 years ago)

Reply 92

Vinny C

20

Original post by Davij038

I think those people (girls who approach pimps etc) are wealthy people controlling the world you’d call me a socialist. If I told you who they were you’d call me a Nazi’

As to colonisation.
A lot of colonisation was of uninhabited land. But in any case, I mean
?

No emancipation without repatriation!

(edited 5 years ago)

Reply 93

username1799249

19

Original post by KingLoghorn

NO there is no way we should let them return to UK soil. They made the choice to join a terrorist organisation so let them stay there. Should we jeopardize our safety?

We have no choice. We are obliged to take them. We live by the rule of law. If we choose to arbitrarily bend the rules then where do you draw the line?

Say close to your friends. Even closer to your enemies and all that.

Reply 94

Davij038

OP

13

Original post by Vinny C

No emancipation without repatriation!

Sure, how much would you consider a fair price? £400’000 per family?

Reply 95

karl pilkington

20

no they can stay in Syria and get the death penalty

Reply 96

username4499936

7

Original post by Palmyra

Legally it's quite black-and-white.

I don't buy the argument that refusing to allow Begum to return would somehow send a signal to future wannabe-jihadis; to the contrary, this would clearly signal to jihadis that it's succeed or bust, making them less likely to surrender and more likely to fight to the death.

Also, not to justify her actions in the slightest but she was only 15 at the time.

Her continued lack of remorse is disgusting, but to single Begum out whilst dozens other British jihadis have returned and been prosecuted constitutes the rule of law bending to public pressure and is not what the U.K. should stand for.

I see no reason to treat her differently to the other jihadis that returned to Britain, her lack of remorse should be taken into account at the sentencing stage, but not to justify arbitrarily barring a British citizen from returning to the U.K. to face justice for her criminal activities.

You are right we shouldn't treat her any different.They should all have had their citizenship stripped.Certainly they shouldn't have been allowed in.These are known terrorists who have battlefield training.Few of them have been able to be prosecuted.This is quite literally a ticking time bomb and will blow up in our faces sooner or later.As for being 15 so what? Jamie Bulgers murderers were 10 and they still went to prison for a long time.She'd have to have been entirely oblivious to not know what Isis were about.At the end of the day she knew Isis were a group who murdered people, she knew what they were about and she chose to join them anyway.If she were a 15 year old boy we wouldn't even be having this debate.Its only because she is a girl that people see her as a victim.She was not a victim here at all.

Reply 97

username2950448

20

Original post by AJ126

You are right we shouldn't treat her any different.They should all have had their citizenship stripped.Certainly they shouldn't have been allowed in.These are known terrorists who have battlefield training.Few of them have been able to be prosecuted.This is quite literally a ticking time bomb and will blow up in our faces sooner or later.As for being 15 so what? Jamie Bulgers murderers were 10 and they still went to prison for a long time.She'd have to have been entirely oblivious to not know what Isis were about.At the end of the day she knew Isis were a group who murdered people, she knew what they were about and she chose to join them anyway.If she were a 15 year old boy we wouldn't even be having this debate.Its only because she is a girl that people see her as a victim.She was not a victim here at all.

1) It's too late for that, now you'd have to deport them - to where?
2) Where is the evidence that Begum received "battlefield training"? The women were mostly just there to raise families and bear children, not to do the fighting.
3) Yes James Bulgers' murderers were sentenced - as should Begum be, glad we agree.
4) Yes she ought to have known the crimes of ISIS, hence why she should be prosecuted for joining a terrorist organisation.
5) Wanting the U.K. to follow its legal obligations and wanting Begum to be prosecuted for her crimes doesn't strike me as being caused by the belief that Begum is a victim here.

Reply 98

ChaoticButterfly

20

Yes. They are responsibility and the poeple over there who have been fighitng ISIS don't want a load of ex ISIS fighters and thier wives hanging around.

Reply 99

username4499936

7

Original post by Palmyra

1) It's too late for that, now you'd have to deport them - to where?
2) Where is the evidence that Begum received "battlefield training"? The women were mostly just there to raise families and bear children, not to do the fighting.
3) Yes James Bulgers' murderers were sentenced - as should Begum be, glad we agree.
4) Yes she ought to have known the crimes of ISIS, hence why she should be prosecuted for joining a terrorist organisation.
5) Wanting the U.K. to follow its legal obligations and wanting Begum to be prosecuted for her crimes doesn't strike me as being caused by the belief that Begum is a victim here.

She's a 2nd generation immigrant.Living here is a privilege granted to her parents and her.Its not a right.Its a privilege we as a country afford her because we are decent people.We are not required to accept all the world's needy to live here and as such we can choose who we allow to live here.I would strongly suggest that people who watch videos of people being burned alive or beheaded or stoned and think "I've got to get me some of that" are not people we want living here.We are entirely within our rights to rescind the privilege given to her.If the law doesn't agree with that then I would argue that perhaps the law is wrong and requires updating.Its ridiculous that we can't prevent known terrorists coming back here.

U.K. must take back U.K. born isis fighters. Should we?

Quick Reply

Related discussions

Latest

Trending

Trending

Articles for you