Wife of ISIS fighter wants to return to the UK

imposter2.0

No difference. Once again though, you seem to be having particular difficulty in actually naming these ‘terrorist sympathisers’..

Matthewfalle

Coopster the 1st wrote:

Now Jihadi Jack wants to return to the UK.

Awks for the terrorist sympathisers on here...

nah - that one is simple: he'll be banged up the minute he touches down.

completely different kettle of fish.

robert88

verylonglegs wrote:

Rolf F wrote:

Imposter wrote:

Coopster the 1st wrote:

So your plan to allow the UK face of ISIS back into the country which risks allowing her to radicalise more people in this country and risks in the UK that presents. Additionally, also removing the huge deterrent that you will be disowned by the UK if you decide to join up with a terrorist organisation.

If she manages to suicide bomb somewhere in the UK, (remember she only has to be lucky once) the terrorist sympathisers like yourself will blame those who should have been watching over her, not those who facilitated her repatriation back into the UK.

You've really not though of the consequences of your views!

Simply put, she is too much of a risk to UK society. While I despise the Syrian regime, their authorities can deal with her as their law allows

Got to say - paranoid delusional jingoistic 'patriots' like you are far more of a risk to 'UK society' than this young, groomed, radicalised teenage mother are ever likely to be...

Could we arrange a swap - Begum for Coopster? Admittedly it would deradicalize Cake Stop a bit but I'm sure we can cope.

Syria has suffered enough don't you think...and now you want to inflict Coopster on them? You're a sick individual.

Coopster as a weapon or apparatus of torture? There's an idea! Don't tell the enemy :shock:

bianchimoon

Coopster the 1st wrote:

Now Jihadi Jack wants to return to the UK.

Awks for the terrorist sympathisers on here...

You reported me for for joking about the number of your brain cells, calling members of this forum terrorist sympathisers is immeasurably worse but I wouldn’t dream of reporting you for it. Try and remember that next time you don’t like what someone says or disagrees with your point of view.

Matthewfalle

wasted words bianchi - s/he's too busy ranting about immigrants, how s/he is being robbed of brexit and da'esh to understand them. s/he doesn't even understand the situation s/he's ranting about on here, let alone anything else.

bianchimoon

Matthewfalle wrote:

wasted words bianchi - s/he's too busy ranting about immigrants, how s/he is being robbed of brexit and da'esh to understand them. s/he doesn't even understand the situation s/he's ranting about on here, let alone anything else.

Probably MF, and as much an issue with lazy modding, for not reading the posts and acting on his spurious complaint

Matthewfalle

bianchimoon wrote:

Matthewfalle wrote:

wasted words bianchi - s/he's too busy ranting about immigrants, how s/he is being robbed of brexit and da'esh to understand them. s/he doesn't even understand the situation s/he's ranting about on here, let alone anything else.

Probably MF, and as much an issue with lazy modding, for not reading the posts and acting on his spurious complaint

nah - i think its just that he's a balloon head.

i personally think the level of modding is perfect at the mo' - we've sorted out any barneys by taking the p3ss, which is how it should be done.

there have been no utterly outrageous statements - just stuff you would from farage, yaxley lennon, the express and the heil. easily ignorable 4/10 on the right wing scale. just more of a case of people being not very bright and 6/10 on the racist scale - nothing we normal people can't real with.

the MFs are happy for it to proceed along these lines - drawing mods in will only cause for bans, warnings and schizer to the normal bods leaving the balloon heads to carry on.

bianchimoon

You misunderstand, or more likely I wasn’t clear, I received a mods warning for a joke, so a tad heavy handed modding
Am seriously thinking of reporting josh to himself IF I don’t receive a written apology and a ginsters cheese and onion pasty by way of compensation by 8pm...

Matthewfalle

bianchimoon wrote:

You misunderstand, I got a mods warning for a joke, so a tad heavy handed modding

seriously? you?

now i've had a few warnings over the times - generally being accused of trolling when just taking the pizz out of clubbies because they don't have a sense of humour - but you? you're like one of the more normal people on here (a stable genius some may say )

PhilipPirrip

Robert88 wrote:

verylonglegs wrote:

Rolf F wrote:

Imposter wrote:

Coopster the 1st wrote:

So your plan to allow the UK face of ISIS back into the country which risks allowing her to radicalise more people in this country and risks in the UK that presents. Additionally, also removing the huge deterrent that you will be disowned by the UK if you decide to join up with a terrorist organisation.

If she manages to suicide bomb somewhere in the UK, (remember she only has to be lucky once) the terrorist sympathisers like yourself will blame those who should have been watching over her, not those who facilitated her repatriation back into the UK.

You've really not though of the consequences of your views!

Simply put, she is too much of a risk to UK society. While I despise the Syrian regime, their authorities can deal with her as their law allows

Got to say - paranoid delusional jingoistic 'patriots' like you are far more of a risk to 'UK society' than this young, groomed, radicalised teenage mother are ever likely to be...

Could we arrange a swap - Begum for Coopster? Admittedly it would deradicalize Cake Stop a bit but I'm sure we can cope.

Syria has suffered enough don't you think...and now you want to inflict Coopster on them? You're a sick individual.

Coopster as a weapon or apparatus of torture? There's an idea! Don't tell the enemy :shock:

Like all gammon faces they are our home-grown WMDs, destroying the country from within without a bullet being shot with their isolationist and imperialistic views.

bianchimoon

Matthewfalle wrote:

bianchimoon wrote:

You misunderstand, I got a mods warning for a joke, so a tad heavy handed modding

seriously? you?

now i've had a few warnings over the times - generally being accused of trolling when just taking the pizz out of clubbies because they don't have a sense of humour - but you? you're like one of the more normal people on here (a stable genius some may say )

A bigly stable genius and full of covefe I iz

surrey_commuter

bianchimoon wrote:

You misunderstand, or more likely I wasn’t clear, I received a mods warning for a joke, so a tad heavy handed modding
Am seriously thinking of reporting josh to himself IF I don’t receive a written apology and a ginsters cheese and onion pasty by way of compensation by 8pm...

Couldn’t you have claimed it was not a joke and were merely making an observation.

Since when did ratting people out become socially acceptable?

Matthewfalle

Surrey Commuter wrote:

bianchimoon wrote:

You misunderstand, or more likely I wasn’t clear, I received a mods warning for a joke, so a tad heavy handed modding
Am seriously thinking of reporting josh to himself IF I don’t receive a written apology and a ginsters cheese and onion pasty by way of compensation by 8pm...

Couldn’t you have claimed it was not a joke and were merely making an observation.

Since when did ratting people out become socially acceptable?

some people on here seem to think that ratting out is acceptable and actually take what people say seriously instead of letting it wash over them. clubbies do this a lot because they are well serious people.

rjsterry

Surrey Commuter wrote:

bianchimoon wrote:

You misunderstand, or more likely I wasn’t clear, I received a mods warning for a joke, so a tad heavy handed modding
Am seriously thinking of reporting josh to himself IF I don’t receive a written apology and a ginsters cheese and onion pasty by way of compensation by 8pm...

Couldn’t you have claimed it was not a joke and were merely making an observation.

Since when did ratting people out become socially acceptable?

Maintain the omerta! No problem with people reporting stuff if they think someone has gone too far, but it is hilarious that someone so happy to chuck out the insults, has such a thin skin.

surrey_commuter

rjsterry wrote:

Surrey Commuter wrote:

bianchimoon wrote:

You misunderstand, or more likely I wasn’t clear, I received a mods warning for a joke, so a tad heavy handed modding
Am seriously thinking of reporting josh to himself IF I don’t receive a written apology and a ginsters cheese and onion pasty by way of compensation by 8pm...

Couldn’t you have claimed it was not a joke and were merely making an observation.

Since when did ratting people out become socially acceptable?

Maintain the omerta! No problem with people reporting stuff if they think someone has gone too far, but it is hilarious that someone so happy to chuck out the insults, has such a thin skin.

I think this place does a pretty good job of self-policing

morstar

bianchimoon wrote:

Coopster the 1st wrote:

Now Jihadi Jack wants to return to the UK.

Awks for the terrorist sympathisers on here...

You reported me for for joking about the number of your brain cells, calling members of this forum terrorist sympathisers is immeasurably worse but I wouldn’t dream of reporting you for it. Try and remember that next time you don’t like what someone says or disagrees with your point of view.

He reported you? What a snowflake! He told me I'd be better off dead. I didn't report that either, it's better in the public domain to be referenced if needs be.
Poor little thin skinned thing he is. And yet conversely sticks around. Odd.

Pross

Surrey Commuter wrote:

Imposter wrote:

Coopster the 1st wrote:

So your plan to allow the UK face of ISIS back into the country which risks allowing her to radicalise more people in this country and risks in the UK that presents. Additionally, also removing the huge deterrent that you will be disowned by the UK if you decide to join up with a terrorist organisation.

If she manages to suicide bomb somewhere in the UK, (remember she only has to be lucky once) the terrorist sympathisers like yourself will blame those who should have been watching over her, not those who facilitated her repatriation back into the UK.

You've really not though of the consequences of your views!

Simply put, she is too much of a risk to UK society. While I despise the Syrian regime, their authorities can deal with her as their law allows

Got to say - paranoid delusional jingoistic 'patriots' like you are far more of a risk to 'UK society' than this young, groomed, radicalised teenage mother are ever likely to be...

Now just imagine for one moment that he is not a moron but one of a large group of people wanting to reduce faith in the democratic process. Then demanding the Govt does something which is illegal and will get overturned is quite clever. Even better is that it will be overturned by a supra-national body so giving a new excuse to advocate isolationalism.

Or you get to know what is written on the beer mats in ‘spoons without going in

I've tried, I really have but just can't suspend disbelief enough to do this. I think it might be why I've never got science fiction or super hero films.

Ben6899

I reported the "terrorist sympathiser" comments. I'm not all that bothered really, but got out of the wrong side of the bed this morning.

Feeling better now after a bike ride and considering how angry poor little Coopster is on a continual basis. :-)

rjsterry

Surrey Commuter wrote:

rjsterry wrote:

Surrey Commuter wrote:

bianchimoon wrote:

You misunderstand, or more likely I wasn’t clear, I received a mods warning for a joke, so a tad heavy handed modding
Am seriously thinking of reporting josh to himself IF I don’t receive a written apology and a ginsters cheese and onion pasty by way of compensation by 8pm...

Couldn’t you have claimed it was not a joke and were merely making an observation.

Since when did ratting people out become socially acceptable?

Maintain the omerta! No problem with people reporting stuff if they think someone has gone too far, but it is hilarious that someone so happy to chuck out the insults, has such a thin skin.

I think this place does a pretty good job of self-policing

Agreed. One or two seem to forget where they are occasionally, though.

Matthewfalle

Ben6899 wrote:

I reported the "terrorist sympathiser" comments. I'm not all that bothered really, but got out of the wrong side of the bed this morning.

Feeling better now after a bike ride and considering how angry poor little Coopster is on a continual basis. :-)

it must be well tiring being as angry as s/he is all the time. I just couldn't do it.

it must use up all her/his energy/brain power.

Ben6899

I'm not sure there's that much to use up, tbh.

"He", btw. It's rare to find a woman lacking so much in self awareness.

mrfpb

I came close to reporting MF once for calling me a lycra wearing clubbie, which I consider a terrible slur But I thought the mods be prejudiced in that matter.

Matthewfalle

mrfpb wrote:

I came close to reporting MF once for calling me a lycra wearing clubbie, which I consider a terrible slur But I thought the mods be prejudiced in that matter.

i can understand why you would have taken umbrage and I do apologise - the slur of being a clubbie is bloody awful.

bloody clubbies.

rolf_f

morstar wrote:

bianchimoon wrote:

Coopster the 1st wrote:

Now Jihadi Jack wants to return to the UK.

Awks for the terrorist sympathisers on here...

You reported me for for joking about the number of your brain cells, calling members of this forum terrorist sympathisers is immeasurably worse but I wouldn’t dream of reporting you for it. Try and remember that next time you don’t like what someone says or disagrees with your point of view.

He reported you? What a snowflake! He told me I'd be better off dead. I didn't report that either, it's better in the public domain to be referenced if needs be.
Poor little thin skinned thing he is. And yet conversely sticks around. Odd.

He's Daesh - he's been sent in to try to destabilise BR. If you believed what he says, he could actually be Shamima Begum.

rick_chasey

Haaaaaaaaaaaaaaa.

bianchimoon

Rolf F wrote:

morstar wrote:

bianchimoon wrote:

Coopster the 1st wrote:

Now Jihadi Jack wants to return to the UK.

Awks for the terrorist sympathisers on here...

You reported me for for joking about the number of your brain cells, calling members of this forum terrorist sympathisers is immeasurably worse but I wouldn’t dream of reporting you for it. Try and remember that next time you don’t like what someone says or disagrees with your point of view.

He reported you? What a snowflake! He told me I'd be better off dead. I didn't report that either, it's better in the public domain to be referenced if needs be.
Poor little thin skinned thing he is. And yet conversely sticks around. Odd.

He's Daesh - he's been sent in to try to destabilise BR. If you believed what he says, he could actually be Shamima Begum.

Wonder if said person is reporting all of these comments and the mod can't keep up with the workload and have filed under CoopsterComplaints or maybe MrCoopedup has realised how the internet in particular and forums in general work?

slowbike

Surrey Commuter wrote:

Slowbike wrote:

So we have a 19yo girl (19 is still young) who ran away from home to join what she considered an ideal 4 years prior - in that time she's seen more death and destruction than anyone on here would like to see in their lifetimes.

She's lost 2 children and the 3rd will be at risk.

Let's look at the child first - born to a British Citizen (I believe she was "still" British at the time of the birth) - I assume that means the child is entitled to British Citizenship - the child has a family here in the UK - there is no reason I can see that the child shouldn't be returned. The child should not be deprived purely because of mistakes made by the mother.

As for the girl - knee jerk says "Stay where you are - you're not welcome here" - if you still sympathise with ISIS after everything you've been through then what good will come of you returning to the UK - but then I'm reminded of the Prodigal Son (no I'm not religious, but the law and morality in UK is based on Christianity) - whilst the girl may not be repentant, perhaps thats due to influences outside her control - returning to the UK - or at least returning to the western world where she could be de-radicalised may change that - if there's a small chance of that happening, shouldn't we (as a country) try it?

AFAWK, she's been a housewife - not making bombs or killing others - and whilst just being a housewife is supporting the terrorist regime, you have to look at the circumstances around how that came about - perhaps she's not culpable for getting into the situation she's found herself in.

Finally - think about if it was your child who had become a drug dealer - decided they'd had enough and wanted to stop being a drug dealer, but didn't regret any of it - the only way they could stop would be to move back in your home with you. You have other children in the house too.
What do you do? Point blank refuse? Or try and facilitate a return whilst minimising the risk to the rest of the household?

To adapt your analogy. Four years ago your daughter met a hippy, told you to FRO and moved into a squat. Now the squat has been bulldozed and the hippy has done one. Your daughter is still dealing drugs, still thinks you are a cvnt but wants to move back into the family home as if the last four years never happened. Oh and the hippy has knocked her up and you will have to pay to bring the baby up.

yup - tricky - but, she is still the daughter and has produced/is producing a grand child - of course, life would be much easier if she just said she was wrong and sorry - but sometimes kids can be stubborn - just like their parents ..

john80

Whilst the home secretary is pushing the bounds of the current law I would guess that with the exception of people that know her I doubt anyone is much interested in her current predicament as it was entirely foreseeable. She has lived her entire life in the UK. She appears to have attended a mainstream UK school. She comes from a family that went about its daily business presumably lawfully in the UK but she still decided to leave to fulfil a life of servitude within a terrorist organisation.

For 15 years she lived in the UK where a feminist agenda of equality is all around but yet chose to essentially marry someone she barely knew and live in a presumably sharia inspired way with essentially no equal rights. I think we have to look at the parents and others around her influencing her for some responsibility here. Maybe the parents should have a think about their world views and how this has assisted their daughters thinking. Maybe people should start to have some reflection on why these three girls came from the same school in the area of Bethnal Green where some well known extremists were allowed to spout hate and bigotry in an alternative language with little UK authority resistance.

We bring her back and the view seems to be that she should be de-radicalised. My guess is that this involves, housing, benefits, security and ongoing monitoring costs. Maybe she will be arrested at the border and her child will be put up for adoption incurring yet more cost. Maybe the kid can be looked after by the parents and his dad can have equal custody once let out of jail and maybe we can repeat history.

Take a step back and look into your local communities and think to yourself is there a more deserving candidate for the above service financial worth and if so would the money not rather be spent on that individual. For the same money how many assisted livings centres could we have to get the homeless back into society and off drugs for example. They might even thank us by not getting involved in the next holy war.

I can imagine even the most retarded fighter can get through the security interview without openly confessing to their sins. Anyone who went to Syria to join ISIS is responsible for supporting a culture of atrocity against others that is on par with the early days of Nazis Germany before they industrialised the killings of Jews or the Japanese comfort women. So spare a thought for all those Yazidis women forced into sexual slavery and the genocide of the Yazidis when you are claiming bad treatment of a single UK citizen.

rolf_f

john80 wrote:

Whilst the home secretary is pushing the bounds of the current law I would guess that with the exception of people that know her I doubt anyone is much interested in her current predicament as it was entirely foreseeable. She has lived her entire life in the UK. She appears to have attended a mainstream UK school. She comes from a family that went about its daily business presumably lawfully in the UK but she still decided to leave to fulfil a life of servitude within a terrorist organisation.

For 15 years she lived in the UK where a feminist agenda of equality is all around but yet chose to essentially marry someone she barely knew and live in a presumably sharia inspired way with essentially no equal rights. I think we have to look at the parents and others around her influencing her for some responsibility here. Maybe the parents should have a think about their world views and how this has assisted their daughters thinking. Maybe people should start to have some reflection on why these three girls came from the same school in the area of Bethnal Green where some well known extremists were allowed to spout hate and bigotry in an alternative language with little UK authority resistance.

We bring her back and the view seems to be that she should be de-radicalised. My guess is that this involves, housing, benefits, security and ongoing monitoring costs. Maybe she will be arrested at the border and her child will be put up for adoption incurring yet more cost. Maybe the kid can be looked after by the parents and his dad can have equal custody once let out of jail and maybe we can repeat history.

Take a step back and look into your local communities and think to yourself is there a more deserving candidate for the above service financial worth and if so would the money not rather be spent on that individual. For the same money how many assisted livings centres could we have to get the homeless back into society and off drugs for example. They might even thank us by not getting involved in the next holy war.

I can imagine even the most retarded fighter can get through the security interview without openly confessing to their sins. Anyone who went to Syria to join ISIS is responsible for supporting a culture of atrocity against others that is on par with the early days of Nazis Germany before they industrialised the killings of Jews or the Japanese comfort women. So spare a thought for all those Yazidis women forced into sexual slavery and the genocide of the Yazidis when you are claiming bad treatment of a single UK citizen.

So, in summary, we should be able to choose who the law applies to? Or is this just an observation that sometimes the less deserving seem to get a better deal than the more deserving which is an understandable perspective but isn't really the point.

john80

Rolf F wrote:

john80 wrote:

Whilst the home secretary is pushing the bounds of the current law I would guess that with the exception of people that know her I doubt anyone is much interested in her current predicament as it was entirely foreseeable. She has lived her entire life in the UK. She appears to have attended a mainstream UK school. She comes from a family that went about its daily business presumably lawfully in the UK but she still decided to leave to fulfil a life of servitude within a terrorist organisation.

For 15 years she lived in the UK where a feminist agenda of equality is all around but yet chose to essentially marry someone she barely knew and live in a presumably sharia inspired way with essentially no equal rights. I think we have to look at the parents and others around her influencing her for some responsibility here. Maybe the parents should have a think about their world views and how this has assisted their daughters thinking. Maybe people should start to have some reflection on why these three girls came from the same school in the area of Bethnal Green where some well known extremists were allowed to spout hate and bigotry in an alternative language with little UK authority resistance.

We bring her back and the view seems to be that she should be de-radicalised. My guess is that this involves, housing, benefits, security and ongoing monitoring costs. Maybe she will be arrested at the border and her child will be put up for adoption incurring yet more cost. Maybe the kid can be looked after by the parents and his dad can have equal custody once let out of jail and maybe we can repeat history.

Take a step back and look into your local communities and think to yourself is there a more deserving candidate for the above service financial worth and if so would the money not rather be spent on that individual. For the same money how many assisted livings centres could we have to get the homeless back into society and off drugs for example. They might even thank us by not getting involved in the next holy war.

I can imagine even the most retarded fighter can get through the security interview without openly confessing to their sins. Anyone who went to Syria to join ISIS is responsible for supporting a culture of atrocity against others that is on par with the early days of Nazis Germany before they industrialised the killings of Jews or the Japanese comfort women. So spare a thought for all those Yazidis women forced into sexual slavery and the genocide of the Yazidis when you are claiming bad treatment of a single UK citizen.

So, in summary, we should be able to choose who the law applies to? Or is this just an observation that sometimes the less deserving seem to get a better deal than the more deserving which is an understandable perspective but isn't really the point.

The government has chosen a hard line approach to whether she is stateless or not as she technically has two nationalities that could be used. This is a perfectly valid use of the law from a government to suit the interests of the majority of the UK's population.