What No Country? (1 Viewer)
- Thread starter Malaka
- Start date
pastythegreat
Well-Known Member
Yes, it is right. It's a shame it's only happened to a handful. What about the hundreds who have gone and fought for IS and returned and now live amongst us freely? They should now be found and given the same treatment too!
pastythegreat
Well-Known Member
And it's long overdue that the government/politicians started to 'granstand' against Islamist terror. Because up until now they've shown to of done fuck all. Apart from in some cases (Sadiq Kahn, Jeremy Corbyn) when they are sympathizing with them! All in the name of political correctness! It's fucking embarrassing!
In N.Ireland, when the IRA bombed somebody, they were called Catholic Irish, when a soldier was shot by the UDA they were called protestant. but if you call an IS terrorist an Islamist Muslim Your a racist!
Sent from my SM-G955F using Tapatalk
clint van damme
Well-Known Member
you do realise that the UK and it's allies were backing the Islamists in Syria don't you? Not sure about ISIS but definitely Al Nusra.
Personally I'd tell the Kurds to so what the fuck they like with them. Problem is we have to pussy foot around when dealing with the Kurds because we don't want to upset the Turks.
We should be giving the Kurds all the support they need, they've constantly done our dirty work, if the Turks don't like it they can fuck off.
I think the pair do have a citizenship somewhere as they held dual citizenship but I don't know where, like I say, let the Kurds deal with them.
shmmeee
Well-Known Member
NorthernWisdom
Well-Known Member
All those made up words it us.
fernandopartridge
Well-Known Member
What drivel
Captain Dart
Well-Known Member
You are inappropriately making light of their vile crimes.
chiefdave
Well-Known Member
What's the thinking behind revoking their citizenship before a trial? Had a quick google and all reports seem to use phrases such as alleged which would indication nothing has been proven.
Can only see two scenarios.
1) they're in a country with a justice system we believe is adequate so they could have a trial and if and when they are found guilty have their citizenship revoked.
2) they're in a country where there isn't an adequate justice system so by revoking their citizenship we have implicitly endorsed a corrupt system.
Can only see two scenarios.
1) they're in a country with a justice system we believe is adequate so they could have a trial and if and when they are found guilty have their citizenship revoked.
2) they're in a country where there isn't an adequate justice system so by revoking their citizenship we have implicitly endorsed a corrupt system.
pastythegreat
Well-Known Member
Sorry, I didn't realise you were a terrorist sympathiser.
Sent from my SM-G955F using Tapatalk
Sky Blue Pete
Well-Known Member
Its number 2 clearly
Sick Boy
Well-Known Member
Hahahaha!!
chiefdave
Well-Known Member
If they were clearly involved there will be a large amount of evidence so the better option is to ensure they have a fair trial and then the heaviest sentences possible.
Thats assuming you don't want their fate to act as a brilliant recruitment tool for the terrorists.
Astute
Well-Known Member
They were seen on videos. That is one of the reasons we knew who they are when it was all happening.
How about it putting off others that go away to murder thinking they can just come back to the UK without a problem?
chiefdave
Well-Known Member
So you're saying there's clear evidence. Why then is it a problem to follow due process and have a proper trial?
For that to happen you need those undertaking terrorist activities to be clear thinking people who are weighing up the pros and cons before deciding what path to take. Not sure the people we see going overseas to fight for IS fit that description.
Astute
Well-Known Member
Either you don't have a clue what has gone on or you are just plain sick.
They were clearly seen on video during beheadings. The beheading of totally innocent charity workers and similar.
You either need to check more on who you defend or if you are just being sick then go find someone else to wind up.
chiefdave
Well-Known Member
Not defending anyone. All I'm saying is whats the point of having a legal process if you're going to randomly, and illegally, abandon it?
I've already said in this thread I'm not familiar with this case but its obviously easier for you to throw around insults than present any relevant information.
Everything thats come up on Google that I've read has things like this: 'believed to have been part', 'allegedly' and puts them as part of the so-called 'Beatles' but is unable to identify which person is which. The US have said they should come to the UK and be tried, Amber Rudd has said the same. Not to mention making someone stateless is a breach of international law.
In no way shape or form am I defending them. I want them to have the severest possible punishment and act as a deterrent to others. To do that we need to follow the established legal process. Doing otherwise makes them poster boys for IS recruitment.
And while it might be an open and shut case here with clear evidence out in the open for everyone to see that doesn't mean that will be the case in the future. Who gets to decide who is guilty without trial and doesn't get to have their case follow due process? It would most likely be down to Rudd and Johnson, would you trust them to get any decision right?
Westendlad
Well-Known Member
Bullshit.....Every man and his dog knows what these cowardly scum did and they have no right to any legal process....Feed the fuckers to the pigs...
chiefdave
Well-Known Member
Except international law says they do have a right to legal process so if you want them to get their due punishment you follow the process and get it done otherwise they will just stay in limbo for years, probably decades, while the UN, US and UK argue over what is going to happen.
Follow the process and get them 'fed to the pigs' quickly. I would much prefer that to them being able to spin it out for years as someone has decided to start making things up as they go along.
If we choose to abandon the justice system then their treatment will be a huge boost to IS recruitment.
Surely everyone would agree the outcome we don't want is them being able to stall for decades receiving no punishment and increasing the numbers being recruited by IS?
Westendlad
Well-Known Member
I promised i wouldn't have a drink tonight after yesterday ( why o why was i born in Cov..Why not Manchester/Liverpool) but you've rattled my cage. You really think that giving these traitors no legal rights will boost their recruitment then you're wrong.
pastythegreat
Well-Known Member
I don't understand how you think by revoking their British citizenship will boost IS recruitment? If anything, I think I'll will put people off thinking they can do the same thing and just come home and live a normal life.
I see it like this,
2 scenarios.
1, bring them home, give them a sentence (probably no more than 10 years) where they can sit in prison at the tax payers expense. Playing the PlayStation, hitting the gym, watching Holly and Phil, recruiting other Muslim inmates into IS. Then upon release, walk freely amongst us to blow up our children at a concert at any time he likes.
Or
2, Revoke his citizenship to the country he was born and bought up in. Split apart from all his family and friends. Even long after he regrets the decision to go away and join IS, he will have to live with his decision for the rest of his days.
What would dissuade you from going?
Sent from my SM-G955F using Tapatalk
chiefdave
Well-Known Member
Because the primary recruitment tool for IS is grievance against the west.
clint van damme
Well-Known Member
CD is right to be fair, the authorities have to do things correctly, they can't act on emotion as we are doing.
I've just heard on the radio that a 78 year old man has killed a burglar and has been arrested, my reaction was good, fair play to the old fella. But the authorities can't feel like that, they have to follow proper process.
I've just heard on the radio that a 78 year old man has killed a burglar and has been arrested, my reaction was good, fair play to the old fella. But the authorities can't feel like that, they have to follow proper process.
pastythegreat
Well-Known Member
And how's proper process working so far? How many of the recent terror attacks were carried out by people on the "watchlist"? Why? If they're on the watch list, get them banged up or get them deported. The proper way is getting inocent people killed!
Why when it comes to terror does political correctness get in the way? There should be no red tape when it comes to Terrorists, murderers or Peados/Rapists.
Sent from my SM-G955F using Tapatalk
Earlsdon_Skyblue1
Well-Known Member
There is a case of having a fair trial, I agree with that. I don't agree with what almost looks like some apologist behaviour though.
If they are found guilty then they should be banned from the UK for life and whatever other sanctions you want to give them.
If they are found guilty then they should be banned from the UK for life and whatever other sanctions you want to give them.
Astute
Well-Known Member
But you was asking hiw we knew they were guilty when it was a well known fact.
Astute
Well-Known Member
There is a process. Correct.
But 2 of them are scum committing and/or helping with murder under the name of Islam. And that is wrong as well. True muslims are peace loving.
The other one has killed scum. He didn't wake up in the middle of the night planning to murder someone. He didn't plan to get attacked in his own home.
The 78 year old should be treated well and with respect. The other two deserve the respect that they gave to the many people murdered by the so called 4 Beatles.....absolutely none.
chiefdave
Well-Known Member
You might want to read the thread again.
All I've said is you have to follow the process laid down by international law.
I haven't claimed there is or isn't any evidence, although I have said that every article I can find on this doesn't mention this evidence and the US State Department don't seem to even know which person is who of the Beatles.
You say there is clear evidence showing these two identifiable individuals beheading people - fine, I'll take your word for that. It will be a quick and easy trial with the maximum possible sentence. What's the problem with that?
Now if you're saying sentences are too lenient I would agree and that needs to change but that's a different argument.
Astute
Well-Known Member
Britons Accused of Being Islamic State ‘Beatles’ Call Beheadings ‘Regrettable’
ISIS "Beatles" who beheaded James Foley and Steven Sotloff could face a U.S. trial
Syrian forces capture two members of notorious ISIL beheading cell known as ‘The Beatles’
Slain American's mom reacts to capture of alleged ISIS executioners
From bottom link
The State Department has imposed sanctions on both men. They are believed to be linked to the British terrorist known as Jihadi John, the masked ISIS militant who appeared in several videos depicting the graphic beheadings of Western hostages. In addition to the Americans, Emwazi was seen in videos showing the murders of British aid workers David Haines and Alan Henning, Japanese journalist Kenji Goto and a number of other ISIS hostages.
ISIS "Beatles" who beheaded James Foley and Steven Sotloff could face a U.S. trial
Syrian forces capture two members of notorious ISIL beheading cell known as ‘The Beatles’
Slain American's mom reacts to capture of alleged ISIS executioners
From bottom link
The State Department has imposed sanctions on both men. They are believed to be linked to the British terrorist known as Jihadi John, the masked ISIS militant who appeared in several videos depicting the graphic beheadings of Western hostages. In addition to the Americans, Emwazi was seen in videos showing the murders of British aid workers David Haines and Alan Henning, Japanese journalist Kenji Goto and a number of other ISIS hostages.
chiefdave
Well-Known Member
You've just linked to four articles that back up what I've been saying and contradict your assertion that the accusations have been proven.
