UK ISIS/IS Fighters

2456710

Comments

  • finchy
    finchy Posts: 6,686
    I don't see why anyone would be surprised if the families didn't know. If you tell you're parents that you're off to fight in a bloody civil war, there's a very good chance they'll report you to the authorities to stop you going.
  • MichaelW
    MichaelW Posts: 2,164
    Hard cases make for bad law.
    If we legislate for this specific case, it will be a law on the books that can be applied to any and every case.
    French Foreign Legion?: your banned.
  • Daz555
    Daz555 Posts: 3,976
    I would drop these twats in the sea with a breeze block attached.

    However passing laws in the midst of such events is generally a terrible idea. We will end up with a shitty, poorly drafted law which will probably end up hurting the wrong people.
    You only need two tools: WD40 and Duck Tape.
    If it doesn't move and should, use the WD40.
    If it shouldn't move and does, use the tape.
  • DeVlaeminck
    DeVlaeminck Posts: 8,719
    Mark_P wrote:
    The Jews were more than happy enough to kill anyone who got in the way of establishing the Israeli state. They still are, as it happens. Just because they're the 'goodies', doesn't mean that their actions were a great deal different to the IS 'baddies'. Real life is a lot different to those Disney stories.

    Maybe but again we (the UK/West) weren't the main "enemy" of those trying to establish an Israeli state.

    These boys going out to fight for Islamic causes are an obvious danger if we allow them to return - it isn't just about judging what they've done out there it's about judging what they may do when they get back.
    [Castle Donington Ladies FC - going up in '22]
  • pblakeney
    pblakeney Posts: 25,597
    Apart from how confusing the situation is as outlined earlier here is my thoughts -

    Jihadists consider this to be a war and we are the enemy.
    Therefore they should be considered as enemies in war and treated as such.
    As far as the Jihadists are concerned, this is a continuation of the Crusades so anyone thinking of "not entering a prolonged campaign" is extremely naive. They are not interested in short term goals, only the end result.
    From the Jihadists point of view the war will not end until either all of the infidels, or all of the Jihadists are dead.

    That is the situation as I see it.
    The above may be fact, or fiction, I may be serious, I may be jesting.
    I am not sure. You have no chance.
    Veronese68 wrote:
    PB is the most sensible person on here.
  • ballysmate
    ballysmate Posts: 15,921
    As Goo says, there must be a recruiting network and organisation set up over here in the Muslim communities. There have to be members of that community that know what is going on.
    On the other hand people may well be quietly helping the security services. I hope so.
    Conservative Islam or I suppose any conservative religion has no place in a liberal democratic culture we in the west espouse.

    There is a dilemma for free thinking people who support the rights of people to build a society that takes away those very liberties that are treasured and allow free thought.
  • ballysmate
    ballysmate Posts: 15,921
    PBlakeney wrote:
    Apart from how confusing the situation is as outlined earlier here is my thoughts -

    Jihadists consider this to be a war and we are the enemy.
    Therefore they should be considered as enemies in war and treated as such.
    As far as the Jihadists are concerned, this is a continuation of the Crusades so anyone thinking of "not entering a prolonged campaign" is extremely naive. They are not interested in short term goals, only the end result.
    From the Jihadists point of view the war will not end until either all of the infidels, or all of the Jihadists are dead.

    That is the situation as I see it.

    Yes this is a war, a concept that so far hasn't been fully grasped. The goal is the destruction of our way of life. This is only the beginning, the death toll eventually will be huge.
  • bdu98252
    bdu98252 Posts: 171
    As I understand it if you leave Britain and engage in a civil war in another country or terrorist activities upon your return you will the arrested and go to trial for those acts. It is illegal to engage in civil war, political unrest and general terrorism in other countries for good reason. Only if the war is sanctioned by the government, deemed legal and forces are sent is what the military personnel do is seen as legal.

    Johnny twat head running around the desert killing civilians in the name of a religious belief is certainly not legal and is likely to result in a significant jail sentence. I would also doubt that the court would have to prove individual killings probably just a general view that they were there and the group they were with were carrying out these acts. Particularly if you align yourself with ISIS.
  • drlodge
    drlodge Posts: 4,826
    Daz555 wrote:
    I would drop these twats in the sea with a breeze block attached.

    However passing laws in the midst of such events is generally a terrible idea. We will end up with a sh!tty, poorly drafted law which will probably end up hurting the wrong people.

    Breeze blocks are actually quite light - I think you mean concrete block :wink:
    WyndyMilla Massive Attack | Rourke 953 | Condor Italia 531 Pro | Boardman CX Pro | DT Swiss RR440 Tubeless Wheels
    Find me on Strava
  • nathancom
    nathancom Posts: 1,567
    Ballysmate wrote:
    PBlakeney wrote:
    Apart from how confusing the situation is as outlined earlier here is my thoughts -

    Jihadists consider this to be a war and we are the enemy.
    Therefore they should be considered as enemies in war and treated as such.
    As far as the Jihadists are concerned, this is a continuation of the Crusades so anyone thinking of "not entering a prolonged campaign" is extremely naive. They are not interested in short term goals, only the end result.
    From the Jihadists point of view the war will not end until either all of the infidels, or all of the Jihadists are dead.

    That is the situation as I see it.

    Yes this is a war, a concept that so far hasn't been fully grasped. The goal is the destruction of our way of life. This is only the beginning, the death toll eventually will be huge.
    Why did the West not have this issue until we went in invading Middle Eastern counties, carving them up, forcing disparate groups into ahistorical nation states and generally screwing up the entire region. This is a mess of our own making and will end when we leave the area to organise itself politically. Just as the Russians found in Afghanistan, the various ethnic groups dislike being invaded more than they dislike each other. We can treat it as a existential war with jihadists if we like but that isn't going to end very fast or very well.
  • pblakeney
    pblakeney Posts: 25,597
    nathancom wrote:
    Why did the West not have this issue until we went in invading Middle Eastern counties, carving them up, forcing disparate groups into ahistorical nation states and generally screwing up the entire region. This is a mess of our own making and will end when we leave the area to organise itself politically. Just as the Russians found in Afghanistan, the various ethnic groups dislike being invaded more than they dislike each other. We can treat it as a existential war with jihadists if we like but that isn't going to end very fast or very well.
    Admittedly, it has been quiet since the end of the Second World War but there was a long history prior to that.
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Islam_and_war
    Strangely enough it was the period after "we went in invading Middle Eastern counties, carving them up, forcing disparate groups into ahistorical nation states and generally screwing up the entire region" that it was peaceful for a few decades.

    I do agree with the end of your last sentence.
    The above may be fact, or fiction, I may be serious, I may be jesting.
    I am not sure. You have no chance.
    Veronese68 wrote:
    PB is the most sensible person on here.
  • ballysmate
    ballysmate Posts: 15,921
    The West invading Middle East countries was a mistake. As unpalatable as it sounds, our best interests would have been served by supporting the tyrants like Saddam and Assad who ruled with an iron fist, thereby keeping the people under a yoke.
    I am not saying people should live under a yoke or be oppressed, but our naive meddling has had unforeseen ramifications.
    A naive one size fits all democracy wasn't the answer.
  • pblakeney
    pblakeney Posts: 25,597
    Ballysmate wrote:
    The West invading Middle East countries was a mistake. As unpalatable as it sounds, our best interests would have been served by supporting the tyrants like Saddam and Assad who ruled with an iron fist, thereby keeping the people under a yoke.
    I am not saying people should live under a yoke or be oppressed, but our naive meddling has had unforeseen ramifications.
    A naive one size fits all democracy wasn't the answer.
    Indeed.

    You have raised another question though. Has there ever been a time when the Middle East has had a fair and just leadership, and lived in peace? Genuine enquiry.
    The above may be fact, or fiction, I may be serious, I may be jesting.
    I am not sure. You have no chance.
    Veronese68 wrote:
    PB is the most sensible person on here.
  • nathancom
    nathancom Posts: 1,567
    PBlakeney wrote:
    nathancom wrote:
    Why did the West not have this issue until we went in invading Middle Eastern counties, carving them up, forcing disparate groups into ahistorical nation states and generally screwing up the entire region. This is a mess of our own making and will end when we leave the area to organise itself politically. Just as the Russians found in Afghanistan, the various ethnic groups dislike being invaded more than they dislike each other. We can treat it as a existential war with jihadists if we like but that isn't going to end very fast or very well.
    Admittedly, it has been quiet since the end of the Second World War but there was a long history prior to that.
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Islam_and_war
    Strangely enough it was the period after "we went in invading Middle Eastern counties, carving them up, forcing disparate groups into ahistorical nation states and generally screwing up the entire region" that it was peaceful for a few decades.

    I do agree with the end of your last sentence.
    If you look through those events you can easily parallel equal or worse events carried out in the name of Christianity, or the pogroms against the Jews. Or otherwise you have jihads going on in West Africa when at the same time as the Belgians were trying to depopulate the Congo. Most of the events listed are also not conflicts with the West. Many are not even wars, they are executions on religious grounds etc.

    We did the same in many areas of the world, forcing warring tribes into nation states and then wondering why these countries dissolved into civil war and conflict. I remember growing up that it was quite a common opinion among people that Africans were just incapable of living peacefully on an almost racial basis, when in reality we screwed up all their social systems and corralled the inhabitants into homogenised urban groups.

    Europe wasn't that peaceful from 0yr-1945 either. I don't think there is anything inherently violent either in Islam or Arabs when compared to other religions or ethnic groups.
  • pblakeney
    pblakeney Posts: 25,597
    nathancom wrote:
    If you look through those events you can easily parallel equal or worse events carried out in the name of Christianity, or the pogroms against the Jews. Or otherwise you have jihads going on in West Africa when at the same time as the Belgians were trying to depopulate the Congo. Most of the events listed are also not conflicts with the West. Many are not even wars, they are executions on religious grounds etc.

    We did the same in many areas of the world, forcing warring tribes into nation states and then wondering why these countries dissolved into civil war and conflict. I remember growing up that it was quite a common opinion among people that Africans were just incapable of living peacefully on an almost racial basis, when in reality we screwed up all their social systems and corralled the inhabitants into homogenised urban groups.

    Europe wasn't that peaceful from 0yr-1945 either. I don't think there is anything inherently violent either in Islam or Arabs when compared to other religions or ethnic groups.
    Thank you for coherently raising what is my over riding point.
    Human beings are by nature not a peaceful creature. (Not all obviously, but significant enough numbers to affect the others).
    Twas ever thus and always shall be.
    I am enjoying the illusion of civilisation that I live in but I am aware that it is an illusion.
    The above may be fact, or fiction, I may be serious, I may be jesting.
    I am not sure. You have no chance.
    Veronese68 wrote:
    PB is the most sensible person on here.
  • mr_goo
    mr_goo Posts: 3,770
    Ballysmate wrote:
    The West invading Middle East countries was a mistake. As unpalatable as it sounds, our best interests would have been served by supporting the tyrants like Saddam and Assad who ruled with an iron fist, thereby keeping the people under a yoke.
    I am not saying people should live under a yoke or be oppressed, but our naive meddling has had unforeseen ramifications.
    A naive one size fits all democracy wasn't the answer.

    Quite agree.
    Whilst exceptionally uncomfortable as it may have been to deal with tyrants, they did at least keep some sort of status quo in the region. Not ideal I would say but better than the current situation.
    For the West to have stuck there meddling oars in to the region and try to encourage fledgling democracies was extremely naive. Democracy takes centuries to evolve, and is not always the ideal model for the various regions of the World. As we can clearly see at present.
    I do find it worrying that a couple of posts on here keep harking back to the despicable acts committed in the name of the Christian religions in the crusades. That was a damn long time ago. Some of the human race has moved on from that. Clearly some haven't and want to resurrect the crusades.
    Always be yourself, unless you can be Aaron Rodgers....Then always be Aaron Rodgers.
  • smoggysteve
    smoggysteve Posts: 2,909
    Mr Goo wrote:
    Ballysmate wrote:
    The West invading Middle East countries was a mistake. As unpalatable as it sounds, our best interests would have been served by supporting the tyrants like Saddam and Assad who ruled with an iron fist, thereby keeping the people under a yoke.
    I am not saying people should live under a yoke or be oppressed, but our naive meddling has had unforeseen ramifications.
    A naive one size fits all democracy wasn't the answer.

    Quite agree.
    Whilst exceptionally uncomfortable as it may have been to deal with tyrants, they did at least keep some sort of status quo in the region. Not ideal I would say but better than the current situation.
    For the West to have stuck there meddling oars in to the region and try to encourage fledgling democracies was extremely naive. Democracy takes centuries to evolve, and is not always the ideal model for the various regions of the World. As we can clearly see at present.
    I do find it worrying that a couple of posts on here keep harking back to the despicable acts committed in the name of the Christian religions in the crusades. That was a damn long time ago. Some of the human race has moved on from that. Clearly some haven't and want to resurrect the crusades.
    So while tyrants like Saddam Hussein and Assad were in power, who was it who bombed the World trade centre and a US ship in The Yemen? Just because it didn't creep into the mainstream news this uprising from the Middle East have being going on for a lot longer than some people care to remember. It didn't all begin with 9/11 and the invasion of Iraq/Afghanistan. This has been coming alot longer than that. All the conflicts in Iraq and Afghan did was accelerate it. When was there relative peace in Israel and Palestine? Certainly not in my lifetime
  • mr_goo
    mr_goo Posts: 3,770
    Mr Goo wrote:
    Ballysmate wrote:
    The West invading Middle East countries was a mistake. As unpalatable as it sounds, our best interests would have been served by supporting the tyrants like Saddam and Assad who ruled with an iron fist, thereby keeping the people under a yoke.
    I am not saying people should live under a yoke or be oppressed, but our naive meddling has had unforeseen ramifications.
    A naive one size fits all democracy wasn't the answer.

    Quite agree.
    Whilst exceptionally uncomfortable as it may have been to deal with tyrants, they did at least keep some sort of status quo in the region. Not ideal I would say but better than the current situation.
    For the West to have stuck there meddling oars in to the region and try to encourage fledgling democracies was extremely naive. Democracy takes centuries to evolve, and is not always the ideal model for the various regions of the World. As we can clearly see at present.
    I do find it worrying that a couple of posts on here keep harking back to the despicable acts committed in the name of the Christian religions in the crusades. That was a damn long time ago. Some of the human race has moved on from that. Clearly some haven't and want to resurrect the crusades.
    So while tyrants like Saddam Hussein and Assad were in power, who was it who bombed the World trade centre and a US ship in The Yemen? Just because it didn't creep into the mainstream news this uprising from the Middle East have being going on for a lot longer than some people care to remember. It didn't all begin with 9/11 and the invasion of Iraq/Afghanistan. This has been coming alot longer than that. All the conflicts in Iraq and Afghan did was accelerate it. When was there relative peace in Israel and Palestine? Certainly not in my lifetime

    This is also true. The Middle East situation could be likened to a volcanic explosion. The pressure has been building up over the decades of the 20th century with various incidents.
    Remember Black September and the Munich massacre. That was a Palestinian attack on Israeli athletes at the Olympics. Beyond many younger peoples' memories and quite probably many in their 20s and 30s have no knowledge of it. In the grand scale of things it seems but a minor incident, however it is all part of the big picture of the swirling firestorm of the Middle East.

    I remember travelling to Morocco and Tunisia nearly 30 years ago. Wandering around the streets of towns and hearing the call to prayer, it all seemed calm and quite romantic. All was peaceful. Islam seemed a peaceful religion. The trouble in the region was largely confined to the Israel/Palestine issue. I can only conclude that in the last 20-30 years everything has changed. How? Who? Where? and Why? Too many answers to this now to even make a coherent answer.
    Always be yourself, unless you can be Aaron Rodgers....Then always be Aaron Rodgers.
  • smoggysteve
    smoggysteve Posts: 2,909
    Mr Goo wrote:
    I can only conclude that in the last 20-30 years everything has changed. How? Who? Where? and Why? Too many answers to this now to even make a coherent answer.

    Think you are right there. Too many small contributory factors . Its not one big thing thats caused it. Technology and globalization have made it easier for groups with political motivated ideas to turn to terrorism.

    Another thing about a lot of the weapons the factions we are fighting against WE armed in the first place. The Taliban inherited the weapons given to the Mujahideen during the cold war against the Soviets.
  • mr_goo
    mr_goo Posts: 3,770
    Mr Goo wrote:
    I can only conclude that in the last 20-30 years everything has changed. How? Who? Where? and Why? Too many answers to this now to even make a coherent answer.

    Think you are right there. Too many small contributory factors . Its not one big thing thats caused it. Technology and globalization have made it easier for groups with political motivated ideas to turn to terrorism.

    Another thing about a lot of the weapons the factions we are fighting against WE armed in the first place. The Taliban inherited the weapons given to the Mujahideen during the cold war against the Soviets.

    The Taliban/Mujahideen issue is probably the tinder box that started the fire.
    Always be yourself, unless you can be Aaron Rodgers....Then always be Aaron Rodgers.
  • MichaelW
    MichaelW Posts: 2,164
    Mr Goo wrote:
    Should any UK national fighting in Syria or Iraq for ISIS/IS be permitted back into the UK?

    Let me answer this; in parts.
  • mr_goo
    mr_goo Posts: 3,770
    +100 for Boris.
    Says what all of us think but dare not to say. Shame our spineless PM and his poodle Dep' PM don't express their opinions in the same manner.

    However, Boris calling the British Jihadists 'wackos' seems slightly comedic. Should have said what they are 'Evil, Traitorous, Oxygen Thieving pieces of Shiite'.
    Always be yourself, unless you can be Aaron Rodgers....Then always be Aaron Rodgers.
  • jrduquemin
    jrduquemin Posts: 791
    sungod wrote:
    it it weren't for their oil and deep political connections, their paymasters in saudi arabia would long ago have been sanctioned, likewise the zionist extremists that have inflamed the region and cynically encouraged fundamentalist scum for decades

    unfortunately we're now seeing the result of the west's kowtowing to the various imaginary friend based countries in the region

    some tactically fused sand would result in fewer deaths and a happier world

    i appreciate that's not a yes/no answer, but that's because excluding them is not the answer, they are in love with death, fine, let them die, i'll push the button with less concern than crushing a cockroach

    I do like your description of 'tactically fused sand' :-)

    "It's time to turn them all to glass" is another of my favourites.

    To answer the question quickly, No, they should not be allowed to return to this country. If they hate this country so much, why did they come here in the first place?
    2010 Lynskey R230
    2013 Yeti SB66
  • monkimark
    monkimark Posts: 1,462
    Mr Goo wrote:
    +100 for Boris.
    Says what all of us think but dare not to say.

    Not all of us.
  • finchy
    finchy Posts: 6,686
    jrduquemin wrote:
    If they hate this country so much, why did they come here in the first place?

    Maybe they were born here?
  • crannman
    crannman Posts: 99
    it is very simple ......no
  • rick_chasey
    rick_chasey Posts: 72,244
    Places where European colonialists dominated the existing civilisation & rode roughshod over existing sectarian lines or created new ones - Middle East & Africa

    Go figure.
  • rick_chasey
    rick_chasey Posts: 72,244
    sungod wrote:
    it it weren't for their oil and deep political connections, their paymasters in saudi arabia would long ago have been sanctioned, likewise the zionist extremists that have inflamed the region and cynically encouraged fundamentalist scum for decades

    Err, Saudi back Sunni rebels but they don't back Isis.They arrest people recruiting for ISIS and publicly condemn them as a terrorist organisation.

    http://www.businessinsider.com/saudi-ar ... ers-2014-8

    http://newsinfo.inquirer.net/630899/sau ... lams-enemy
    http://www.arabnews.com/news/588971

    It'd be like being a republican in the northern ireland conflict but supporting the SDLP, not the IRA.
  • rick_chasey
    rick_chasey Posts: 72,244
    Mark_P wrote:
    Is everyone fighting for IS a criminal? I don't believe so. The scum that executed this journalist should get what's coming to him, preferably a drone's missile, in my view. But others have essentially fought against someone they view as a tyrant, and have been drawn on the crest of a wave into the formation of this protostate. At the end of the day, is it so different from the fighting that took place in the 1940s for a Jewish state in Palestine?

    Given the organisation is already responsible massacres of entire towns and have only been prevented from doing worse by force, I wouldn't really compare it to a more conventional war.

    They're an organisation that are genuinely bent on killing anyone that isn't their particular creed.

    If anyone works for ISIS, they're abetting massacre and attempted genocide.