O/T I want to come home

Imploding Turtle · Post by **Imploding Turtle** » Wed Feb 20, 2019 4:50 pm

claretonthecoast1882 wrote:Did you grass on yourself ?

No. I was being held to a rule book that i refused to hold others to.

claretonthecoast1882 · Post by **claretonthecoast1882** » Wed Feb 20, 2019 4:51 pm

You little martyr

Imploding Turtle · Post by **Imploding Turtle** » Wed Feb 20, 2019 4:58 pm

And i didn't once have to blow my self up.

claretonthecoast1882 · Post by **claretonthecoast1882** » Wed Feb 20, 2019 5:01 pm

Sadly

Billy Balfour · Post by **Billy Balfour** » Wed Feb 20, 2019 5:22 pm

Bangladesh says no.

Shamima Begum is not a Bangladeshi citizen and there is “no question” of her being allowed into Bangladesh, the country’s ministry of foreign affairs has insisted, despite Britain’s move to strip the teenager of her UK citizenship.

Imploding Turtle · Post by **Imploding Turtle** » Wed Feb 20, 2019 5:23 pm

Billy Balfour wrote:Bangladesh says no.

Shamima Begum is not a Bangladeshi citizen and there is “no question” of her being allowed into Bangladesh, the country’s ministry of foreign affairs has insisted, despite Britain’s move to strip the teenager of her UK citizenship.

Imploding Turtle · Post by **Imploding Turtle** » Wed Feb 20, 2019 5:25 pm

claretonthecoast1882 wrote:Sadly

Interesting. You joke about me killing myself in a suicide bombing yet get terribly offended when i make dark jokes too. Hypocrite much?

Lancasterclaret · Post by **Lancasterclaret** » Wed Feb 20, 2019 5:30 pm

Its our problem to sort out, Sajid Javid going for votes shouldn't change that

Yeovil1951 · Post by **Yeovil1951** » Wed Feb 20, 2019 5:39 pm

Five years down the road we will be paying her a two or three mill in compo

bfcjg · Post by **bfcjg** » Wed Feb 20, 2019 5:49 pm

Yeovil1951 wrote:Five years down the road we will be paying her a two or three mill in compo

Only if Corbyn and Abbott are in power.

Imploding Turtle · Post by **Imploding Turtle** » Wed Feb 20, 2019 5:57 pm

Yeovil1951 wrote:Five years down the road we will be paying her a two or three mill in compo

Complete nonsense.

GodIsADeeJay81 · Post by **GodIsADeeJay81** » Wed Feb 20, 2019 6:26 pm

Ah well, let's get her back, put her on trial and when it's all over she will eventually be allowed back on the streets of a country she doesn't like to continue her diatrabe and no doubt encourage others to become fanatics.

What's the worst that can happen....?

It's not like we haven't been here before with released fanatics carrying on their campaign.

Lancasterclaret · Post by **Lancasterclaret** » Wed Feb 20, 2019 6:28 pm

So we don't even think that people can serve their sentences anymore and be rehabilitated anymore?

Wonderful.

What rule of law are we going to be ignoring next?

GodIsADeeJay81 · Post by **GodIsADeeJay81** » Wed Feb 20, 2019 6:29 pm

Yeovil1951 wrote:Five years down the road we will be paying her a two or three mill in compo

Won't be that much, unless she's found not guilty of anything at all.
If she's chucked in prison legally then we won't owe her anything.
If not then she can probably launch some sort of financial claim but it won't be millions.

The 17 released from Guantanamo bay got £20 million or so between them.
A few of them carried on with terrorist activities afterwards though.

GodIsADeeJay81 · Post by **GodIsADeeJay81** » Wed Feb 20, 2019 6:30 pm

Lancasterclaret wrote:So we don't even think that people can serve their sentences anymore and be rehabilitated anymore?

Wonderful.

What rule of law are we going to be ignoring next?

I haven't ignored any laws, not sure why you think I have.

Do I think she can be rehabilitated?
I'm fully prepared to deal with either outcome, but don't be overly surprised if she isn't because that's just as likely to happen.

dsr · Post by **dsr** » Wed Feb 20, 2019 7:54 pm

Lancasterclaret wrote:So we don't even think that people can serve their sentences anymore and be rehabilitated anymore?

Wonderful.

What rule of law are we going to be ignoring next?

There are 800 of them, and it's perfectly possible that every single one of them will be no threat and will have completely recanted their expressed desire to kill us all. Or as many of us as they can manage.

But do you believe that will happen? Or do you think it might be a good idea to spend fortunes on watching them all to see if just perhaps they haven't rehabilitated?

Lancasterclaret · Post by **Lancasterclaret** » Wed Feb 20, 2019 7:58 pm

How long a sentence do you think ISIS terrorists are going to receive Dsr?

They are going to be put away for a long time if they end up here.

And I thought we were talking about the radicalisation of a child and her one week old baby?

pureclaret · Post by **pureclaret** » Wed Feb 20, 2019 8:02 pm

Why dont we accept her back here with her kept in a detention/ rehabilitation centre whilst investigated. Her son can go to Holland and live there as he should have dutch citizen ship due to his father being dutch. or maybe she goes to Holland herself.

dsr · Post by **dsr** » Wed Feb 20, 2019 8:02 pm

Blackrod wrote:The family’s legal representative ( a joke imo) has likened her to a 1st World War soldier....

I suppose there is an analogy, but I'm surprised that her solicitor wants to pursue it. Because you can be sure that if any 15 year old in 1914 went off to fight for or otherwise support the German army, and then in 1918 (when he or she tried to return because Germany was losing and they thought conditions would be better in the UK) said that they didn't regret having gone, that they had no objection to seeing the mutilated bodies of British soldiers, and that she expected people would feel sorry for her ...

Imploding Turtle · Post by **Imploding Turtle** » Wed Feb 20, 2019 8:10 pm

GodIsADeeJay81 wrote:Won't be that much, unless she's found not guilty of anything at all.
If she's chucked in prison legally then we won't owe her anything.
If not then she can probably launch some sort of financial claim but it won't be millions.

The 17 released from Guantanamo bay got £20 million or so between them.
A few of them carried on with terrorist activities afterwards though.

I believe one of them committed terror offences. And i'm deliberately not using "continued" to commit terror offences since I don't know of any reason to believe he committed terror offences prior to being locked up for two-years without charge, and according to his wife was radicalised 10 years after his release. So i think it's misleading to say "a few of them carried on terrorist activities afterwards".

And yes, I have no doubt that if he was radicalised after his release as his wife says, that being locked up for teo years without charge probably made it easier to radicalise him. So i'm not at all surprised if more than a few Gitmo detainees who weren't terrorists prior to their detention went on to commit atrocities.

And to think there are people in this country who think we should create our own Gitmo for people the government has decided is "extreme".

dsr · Post by **dsr** » Wed Feb 20, 2019 8:12 pm

Lancasterclaret wrote:How long a sentence do you think ISIS terrorists are going to receive Dsr?

They are going to be put away for a long time if they end up here.

And I thought we were talking about the radicalisation of a child and her one week old baby?

She's 19. That's not childhood. And even if I accepted the implication that she was radicalised, rather than she turned to radicalism, then there comes a time when it is no longer possible to rely on a rotten childhood to excuse your own actions.

And they won't get a long sentence. It's virtually impossible to get a long sentence. Someone banned from driving, with three previous convictions for dangerous driving, drove at 55 mph in a 20 mph zone and ran over and killed an 11 year old boy; and left the scene of the accident. He got 6 years, which means 3. Life is dirt cheap in the courts, and as Begum presumably can't be proved to have actually killed anyone herself, she won't get a liong sentence.

Imploding Turtle · Post by **Imploding Turtle** » Wed Feb 20, 2019 8:21 pm

dsr wrote:She's 19. That's not childhood. And even if I accepted the implication that she was radicalised, rather than she turned to radicalism, then there comes a time when it is no longer possible to rely on a rotten childhood to excuse your own actions.

And they won't get a long sentence. It's virtually impossible to get a long sentence. Someone banned from driving, with three previous convictions for dangerous driving, drove at 55 mph in a 20 mph zone and ran over and killed an 11 year old boy; and left the scene of the accident. He got 6 years, which means 3. Life is dirt cheap in the courts, and as Begum presumably can't be proved to have actually killed anyone herself, she won't get a liong sentence.

You're a Christian. Forgiveness is pretty important to you lot, i understand. So tell me, If she asked for our forgiveness, would you offer it? Not unconditionally, of course, she still has to earn it by atonement for what she's done, but if she asks for it would you offer it?

Lancasterclaret · Post by **Lancasterclaret** » Wed Feb 20, 2019 8:41 pm

So convicted terrorists will get little sentences because of a dangerous driving conviction you've heard about?

Got it.

Imploding Turtle · Post by **Imploding Turtle** » Wed Feb 20, 2019 8:46 pm

Lancasterclaret wrote:So convicted terrorists will get little sentences because of a dangerous driving conviction you've heard about?

Got it.

I kinda want to ask him what kind of sentence she should receive if there's no evidence that she killed or hurt anyone, but when I do it it's argumentative. You do it. Go on. I dare you.

Also, ask him about Alexander Blackman and what his opinion is about his sentence.

dsr · Post by **dsr** » Wed Feb 20, 2019 8:49 pm

Imploding Turtle wrote:You're a Christian. Forgiveness is pretty important to you lot, i understand. So tell me, If she asked for our forgiveness, would you offer it? Not unconditionally, of course, she still has to earn it by atonement for what she's done, but if she asks for it would you offer it?

Personally, yes. But if I was Home Secretary or anyone else in position to decide whether she could be trusted, I would say no, she can't.

Just as sex offenders can never be fully forgiven under the law because they can never be trusted again, I would say jihadists too can never be forgiven in law because they can't be trusted. (As I would also say, off topic, that people with three convictions for dangerous driving should never again be trusted with a car.)

dsr · Post by **dsr** » Wed Feb 20, 2019 8:51 pm

Lancasterclaret wrote:So convicted terrorists will get little sentences because of a dangerous driving conviction you've heard about?

Got it.

I doubt she could be convicted of terrorism. Where's the evidence? It's blindingly obvious that she supports terrorism, but there are hardly going to be witnesses from Syria pointing at anything specific she has done. Convicted terrorists will get long sentences, but convicted supporters of ISIL with no proof of activity in terrorism will not. But they still can't be trusted.

Imploding Turtle · Post by **Imploding Turtle** » Wed Feb 20, 2019 8:52 pm

dsr wrote:Personally, yes. But if I was Home Secretary or anyone else in position to decide whether she could be trusted, I would say no, she can't.

Just as sex offenders can never be fully forgiven under the law because they can never be trusted again, I would say jihadists too can never be forgiven in law because they can't be trusted. (As I would also say, off topic, that people with three convictions for dangerous driving should never again be trusted with a car.)

Have you even noticed that you're comparing Begum to people who had trials and were convicted of their crimes? I mean. How do we know we can't trust sex offenders with children if they don't receive a trial? Likewise bad drivers.

Anyway...

Imploding Turtle · Post by **Imploding Turtle** » Wed Feb 20, 2019 8:54 pm

dsr wrote:I doubt she could be convicted of terrorism. Where's the evidence? It's blindingly obvious that she supports terrorism, but there are hardly going to be witnesses from Syria pointing at anything specific she has done. Convicted terrorists will get long sentences, but convicted supporters of ISIL with no proof of activity in terrorism will not. But they still can't be trusted.

What do you think should happen to people who are released after a trial where the jury couldn't reach a conviction based on there being not enough evidence? Can they be trusted?

Lancasterclaret · Post by **Lancasterclaret** » Wed Feb 20, 2019 8:55 pm

Okay, I thought we were talking about the 800 actual fighters. if they end up here they will all go to prison for a long time. She on the other hand probably won't, but she's not going to free either.

I don't want her here, but I don't think its fair to dump her on another country just to placate the mob (mob rule based judiciary and governments are a seriously bad idea)

dsr · Post by **dsr** » Wed Feb 20, 2019 8:58 pm

Imploding Turtle wrote:Have you even noticed that you're comparing Begum to people who had trials and were convicted of their crimes? I mean. How do we know we can't trust sex offenders with children if they don't receive a trial? Likewise bad drivers.

Anyway...

True. But to be fair, if a man in a dirty mac was living next door leching through his windows when schoolchildren were passing by, I wouldn't need him to have a criminal conviction before deciding not to trust him. That's the point. You can't trust a jihadi who chose to go and support ISIL.

The murderous driver had three previous convictions, so he is a complete red herring.

dsr · Post by **dsr** » Wed Feb 20, 2019 9:00 pm

Imploding Turtle wrote:What do you think should happen to people who are released after a trial where the jury couldn't reach a conviction based on there being not enough evidence? Can they be trusted?

No, of course not. If the police believe that Freddy Kruger is a mass murderer, and he is acquitted due to lack of agreement by a jury, does that mean they don't watch him any more? Or should they keep watching him and try and stop him before he does it again?

Lancasterclaret · Post by **Lancasterclaret** » Wed Feb 20, 2019 9:00 pm

I don't think anyone trusts her.

She'll be interrogated and under suspicion for the rest of her life, as she should be.

Imploding Turtle · Post by **Imploding Turtle** » Wed Feb 20, 2019 9:04 pm

dsr wrote:No, of course not. If the police believe that Freddy Kruger is a mass murderer, and he is acquitted due to lack of agreement by a jury, does that mean they don't watch him any more? Or should they keep watching him and try and stop him before he does it again?

Exactly. The police will watch him. As they will watch Begum whether she's convicted or not. So why should Begum receive punishment because we can't trust her, but Mr. Kruger gets to enjoy freedom?

Cleveleys_claret · Post by **Cleveleys_claret** » Wed Feb 20, 2019 9:06 pm

What really concerns me about this is how she still wants to set up home with her ISIS fightef husband. So to me she still fully supports his actions.

Personally I think this will be the first major case of many as ISIS has virtually been toppled in their homelands so surely their next move would be to split up and start recruiting again in their respective countries and start the fight in our lands as they have lost the battle in theirs

Imploding Turtle · Post by **Imploding Turtle** » Wed Feb 20, 2019 9:07 pm

Lancasterclaret wrote:I don't think anyone trusts her.

She'll be interrogated and under suspicion for the rest of her life, as she should be.

And maybe she'll become a reformed terrorist like Maajid Nawaz. I hope so.

Spijed · Post by **Spijed** » Wed Feb 20, 2019 9:07 pm

Are those bombers released as part of the Good Friday agreement still under surveillance?

dsr · Post by **dsr** » Wed Feb 20, 2019 9:10 pm

Imploding Turtle wrote:Exactly. The police will watch him. As they will watch Begum whether she's convicted or not. So why should Begum receive punishment because we can't trust her, but Mr. Kruger gets to enjoy freedom?

Logistics. If we allow hundreds of jihadis freedom to roam, it's going to cost a lot of money to try and stop them killing people. Begum is only one, but the more of them we can stop (by legal means) the better.

bobinho · Post by **bobinho** » Wed Feb 20, 2019 9:12 pm

Yeah. Let’s hope it isn’t here tho...

It is generally thought between 600 and 800 returning jihadis are now on the streets of Britain.

If only one of them carries out some sort of attack here, it wasn’t worth letting them all back. One attack proves the decision to allow them to come back was wrong.

I would’ve preferred none of them were allowed back, than have the constant worry.

Imploding Turtle · Post by **Imploding Turtle** » Wed Feb 20, 2019 9:18 pm

dsr wrote:Logistics. If we allow hundreds of jihadis freedom to roam, it's going to cost a lot of money to try and stop them killing people. Begum is only one, but the more of them we can stop (by legal means) the better.

I don't think logistics is a good enough reason. It would be a great recruitment tool for extremists if we started persecuting Muslims we decided were too extreme to allow to be free, but not have enough evidence to do anything about through the courts. The recruiters would be playing the game in easy mode if we gave them that kind of an injustice to point to, especially considering how much Muslims despise perceived injustices.

Imploding Turtle · Post by **Imploding Turtle** » Wed Feb 20, 2019 9:19 pm

bobinho wrote:Yeah. Let’s hope it isn’t here tho...

It is generally thought between 600 and 800 returning jihadis are now on the streets of Britain.

If only one of them carries out some sort of attack here, it wasn’t worth letting them all back. One attack proves the decision to allow them to come back was wrong.

I would’ve preferred none of them were allowed back, than have the constant worry.

Why weren't they prosecuted?

GodIsADeeJay81 · Post by **GodIsADeeJay81** » Wed Feb 20, 2019 9:24 pm

They don't appear to have any issues with recruitment, with or without presumed persecution by British authorities.
Being blinded by an ancient religion with an imaginary friend can do that to people I suppose.

GodIsADeeJay81 · Post by **GodIsADeeJay81** » Wed Feb 20, 2019 9:24 pm

Imploding Turtle wrote:Why weren't they prosecuted?

All the witnesses to their alleged crimes in Syria appear to have lost their heads.

tiger76 · Post by **tiger76** » Wed Feb 20, 2019 9:26 pm

dsr wrote:True. But to be fair, if a man in a dirty mac was living next door leching through his windows when schoolchildren were passing by, I wouldn't need him to have a criminal conviction before deciding not to trust him. That's the point. You can't trust a jihadi who chose to go and support ISIL.

The murderous driver had three previous convictions, so he is a complete red herring.

If Shamima Beggum is allowed entry to the UK,which as Bangladesh don't want her is becoming more likely,then the UK security services are going to have a decision to make as to how much of a potential risk she poses,it's not the actions she might take herself but the influence she could have in encouraging other disillusioned Muslims.

The exact numbers of returning British nationals from Syria are hard to be certain of,but most mainstream media reports give a figure in the hundreds,the reality is that even with their best efforts it's just not possible for the powers that be to monitor every suspected threat,so they have to prioritise where to deploy their resources.

If Shamima goes on trial in the UK and is convicted,at some future date she will be released,can she be deradicalised let's hope so for her sake and more importantly ours.

Imploding Turtle · Post by **Imploding Turtle** » Wed Feb 20, 2019 9:38 pm

GodIsADeeJay81 wrote:All the witnesses to their alleged crimes in Syria appear to have lost their heads.

What crimes has she committed in Syria? You don't know. So why then would you claim that there are witnesses to crimes you have no idea have been committed? And THEN you've claimed those witnesses have been executed.

Complete ******* fantasy. But i bet you want her punished for those crimes too, right?

GodIsADeeJay81 · Post by **GodIsADeeJay81** » Wed Feb 20, 2019 9:47 pm

Imploding Turtle wrote:What crimes has she committed in Syria? You don't know. So why then would you claim that there are witnesses to crimes you have no idea have been committed? And THEN you've claimed those witnesses have been executed.

Complete ******* fantasy. But i bet you want her punished for those crimes too, right?

See the bit where I said their alleged crimes?

Just give your brain a chance to catch your mouth up.
I wasn't talking about her, it was about the other several hundred who are wandering about.

Imploding Turtle · Post by **Imploding Turtle** » Wed Feb 20, 2019 9:48 pm

GodIsADeeJay81 wrote:See the bit where I said their alleged crimes?

Just give your brain a chance to catch your mouth up.

OK. So what alleged crimes? And who were these witnesses? I just assumed you were making it up, but if you have allegations and witness names then i'm all ears.

GodIsADeeJay81 · Post by **GodIsADeeJay81** » Wed Feb 20, 2019 10:01 pm

Imploding Turtle wrote:OK. So what alleged crimes? And who were these witnesses? I just assumed you were making it up, but if you have allegations and witness names then i'm all ears.

What's the point in this chat now?

You're so excitable you can't be reasoned with at all, not even a little bit.

They went to join and lived in an Islamic caliphate that is proven to have executed anyone they felt like, they tortured, raped and murdered at will.
They're guilty of being part of that group and an accessory to those crimes.

You clearly don't see it as being an issue though and you'd rather we let them wander around freely.

You're correct in that we can't lock them all up, I understand that, but neither should they be completely free to wander around when it's very possible that they'll be still harbouring ill will to the UK because of some stupid backwards desert religion.

I have no issue with banning those who we can from this country, something you see to have an issue with because they won't get a trial

All we can hope now is that those who return here and have been desensitized to, and possibly encouraged to partake in, violence, murder and rape are able to reintegrate into society but we shall see how that works out for us.

But hey, so long as you're happy then that's all that really matters in this world, clearly.

I'm bored of watching you prattle on now, you're more interested in defending fundamentalists and their right to wander around this country freely and you won't have your mind changed about it.

Enjoy beating yourself into a frenzy about it.

Stayingup · Post by **Stayingup** » Wed Feb 20, 2019 10:01 pm

Lancasterclaret wrote:So we don't even think that people can serve their sentences anymore and be rehabilitated anymore?

Wonderful.

What rule of law are we going to be ignoring next?

I mean really why dont you stop being a little naive student and grow up. Its a real world out rhere.

Cleveleys_claret · Post by **Cleveleys_claret** » Wed Feb 20, 2019 10:02 pm

Imploding Turtle wrote:OK. So what alleged crimes? And who were these witnesses? I just assumed you were making it up, but if you have allegations and witness names then i'm all ears.

Oh come on IT. Sooner you are banned again the better. Such a sad individual. Bet you jerk off to pics of Diane Abbott

Stayingup · Post by **Stayingup** » Wed Feb 20, 2019 10:03 pm

GodIsADeeJay81 wrote:What's the point in this chat now?

You're so excitable you can't be reasoned with at all, not even a little bit.

They went to join and lived in an Islamic caliphate that is proven to have executed anyone they felt like, they tortured, raped and murdered at will.
They're guilty of being part of that group and an accessory to those crimes.

You clearly don't see it as being an issue though and you'd rather we let them wander around freely.

You're correct in that we can't lock them all up, I understand that, but neither should they be completely free to wander around when it's very possible that they'll be still harbouring ill will to the UK because of some stupid backwards desert religion.

I have no issue with banning those who we can from this country, something you see to have an issue with because they won't get a trial

All we can hope now is that those who return here and have been desensitized to, and possibly encouraged to partake in, violence, murder and rape are able to reintegrate into society but we shall see how that works out for us.

But hey, so long as you're happy then that's all that really matters in this world, clearly.

I'm bored of watching you prattle on now, you're more interested in defending fundamentalists and their right to wander around this country freely and you won't have your mind changed about it.

Enjoy beating yourself into a frenzy about it.

Why do you try to converse with this plonker? Your wasting your time hes not in touch with real world I wish he/she had writers cramp.