And has now had his citizenship revoked . His parents say it feels like being kicked in the gut and that Sajid Javid is a coward. Wonder what their views are on his views on beheadings and how they define coward that doesn’t include a description of their son. Pair of idiots and as for the son ...

I'm uncomfortable with revoking his citizenship. Letts. Begum. Products of our society. So our responsibility.

How would you expect parents to behave?

Should any parent automatically disown their children?

Is it racist to dislike this guy and his ideology? I really can't work out whether it is or not.

thatdberight wrote: Products of our society. So our responsibility.

Nothing a Paveway IV wouldn’t sort out.

ClaretMoffitt wrote:Is it racist to dislike this guy and his ideology? I really can't work out whether it is or not.

He's a white Canadian only bloke now, so maybe.

Spijed wrote:How would you expect parents to behave?

Should any parent automatically disown their children?

If either of mine join ISIS they're on their own. But then I haven't spouted shite to them like this lad's father did so hopefully I've reduced the chances a little.

thatdberight wrote:If either of mine join ISIS they're on their own. But then I haven't spouted shite to them like this lad's father did so hopefully I've reduced the chances a little.

Was it his dad, or the imam at his local mosque ?

GodIsADeeJay81 wrote:Was it his dad, or the imam at his local mosque ?

His father, by his own admission, was an "armchair revolutionary".

thatdberight wrote:I'm uncomfortable with revoking his citizenship. Letts. Begum. Products of our society. So our responsibility.

I completely agree. And as a power wielded by a home secretary, it's arbitrary, and probably excessive. If it's something necessary to have, then at least it should be done with judicial oversight.

thatdberight wrote:His father, by his own admission, was an "armchair revolutionary".

Hmmmm a few of those on here too methinks

thatdberight wrote:His father, by his own admission, was an "armchair revolutionary".

But not a Muslim one, so to convert at 16 when he's apparently already got mental problems leaves him wide open for a bit of brainwashing by a radical imam etc.

AndrewJB wrote:I completely agree. And as a power wielded by a home secretary, it's arbitrary, and probably excessive. If it's something necessary to have, then at least it should be done with judicial oversight.

The bloke admitted that he was up for the idea of being a suicide bomber at one point...

thatdberight wrote:I'm uncomfortable with revoking his citizenship. Letts. Begum. Products of our society. So our responsibility.

So if we didn’t have any sort of immigration, and Islam was just something practiced on the other side of the world by people we didn’t know or come into social contact with, we wouldn’t have ANY responsibility? Anyone who is uncomfortable and unhappy with the lifestyle we live here in the “free” west, is welcome to leave. When they do and then preach death and destruction to our very lives should not be welcome here.

Anyone who can be radicalised so easily is a threat to our society and the way we live. Revoking his citizenship is absolutely the right thing to do. Rather that than saying “we missed an opportunity” a few years down the line after he’s done something horrific. How would you feel if he stayed and ended up bombing a sporting event killing hundreds? You’d all be crying about how it was obviously going to happen and some politician (Javed) should be sacked and face charges of incompetence.

I’m absolutely comfortable with revoking the citizenship of these two. I hope more follow. Well done to the govt minister responsible.

bobinho wrote:So if we didn’t have any sort of immigration, and Islam was just something practiced on the other side of the world by people we didn’t know or come into social contact with, we wouldn’t have ANY responsibility? Anyone who is uncomfortable and unhappy with the lifestyle we live here in the “free” west, is welcome to leave. When they do and then preach death and destruction to our very lives should not be welcome here.

Anyone who can be radicalised so easily is a threat to our society and the way we live. Revoking his citizenship is absolutely the right thing to do. Rather that than saying “we missed an opportunity” a few years down the line after he’s done something horrific. How would you feel if he stayed and ended up bombing a sporting event killing hundreds? You’d all be crying about how it was obviously going to happen and some politician (Javed) should be sacked and face charges of incompetence.

I’m absolutely comfortable with revoking the citizenship of these two. I hope more follow. Well done to the govt minister responsible.

You make a whole load of assumptions about my attitude to a whole pile of things there to get from A to Z quickly. But that's your right.

thatdberight wrote:His father, by his own admission, was an "armchair revolutionary".

Hehe. Like a few on here then

thatdberight wrote:You make a whole load of assumptions about my attitude to a whole pile of things there to get from A to Z quickly. But that's your right.

His right. Thats a good point. Rights are not a given in many societies - mainly communist or radical religious places so treasure it.

Stayingup wrote:Hehe. Like a few on here then

See post 11

thatdberight wrote:You make a whole load of assumptions about my attitude to a whole pile of things there to get from A to Z quickly. But that's your right.

Wrong. I asked a question, hoping to understand what you meant by "our responsibility". I then offered my opinion on why I think the govt are right in revoking their citizenship.

It may not be politically correct but what I’d do is say to him you have 2 options, let go your British citizenship, or keep your citizenship but on return to the uk you will be arrested, tried, and if found guilty sentenced to death.
Never going to happen but if you leave the country to go and join a terrorist organisation then why the hell should you be welcomed back like some sort of hero with open arms? Some of the liberal people in this country scare me sometimes. These people put everyone at massive risk.

bobinho wrote:So if we didn’t have any sort of immigration, and Islam was just something practiced on the other side of the world by people we didn’t know or come into social contact with, we wouldn’t have ANY responsibility? Anyone who is uncomfortable and unhappy with the lifestyle we live here in the “free” west, is welcome to leave. When they do and then preach death and destruction to our very lives should not be welcome here.

Anyone who can be radicalised so easily is a threat to our society and the way we live. Revoking his citizenship is absolutely the right thing to do. Rather that than saying “we missed an opportunity” a few years down the line after he’s done something horrific. How would you feel if he stayed and ended up bombing a sporting event killing hundreds? You’d all be crying about how it was obviously going to happen and some politician (Javed) should be sacked and face charges of incompetence.

I’m absolutely comfortable with revoking the citizenship of these two. I hope more follow. Well done to the govt minister responsible.

I don't think anyone thinks he should get away with what he's done. Just that saying "he's not British anymore, Canada can sort it out" is a cop out.

Your scenario assumes he wouldn't be in prison, on a terrorist watchlist, etc which seems unlikely

aggi wrote:I don't think anyone thinks he should get away with what he's done. Just that saying "he's not British anymore, Canada can sort it out" is a cop out.

Your scenario assumes he wouldn't be in prison, on a terrorist watchlist, etc which seems unlikely

Which all costs the taxpayers money. He went to Syria, hes paid the price. Frigging hilarious.

He made his bed so he should lay in it. Nobody to blame but himself although his parents should take a long
hard look at themselves.

GodIsADeeJay81 wrote:The bloke admitted that he was up for the idea of being a suicide bomber at one point...

I was referring to the power of a Home Secretary to take away a person’s citizenship rather than this specific incident. If taking away someone’s citizenship is something we as a country deem necessary, then there should be a judicial process about it, rather than being down to the discretion of the Home Secretary.

Since 2003 there have been 120 cases of this (no cases in the 30 years before when the law first came in), and most of those have been in 2017, and not all of them had to do with national security - so I’d say that’s a very disturbing trend, and one likely to increase under the present Home Secretary.

What this law is in fact is banishment, and for people who have lived here all their lives, and their families and friends, this could be grossly excessive if they’ve committed no crime and it is down to the whim of the government. This could happen to Boris Johnson or Priti Patel themselves, if Dianne Abbott were Home Secretary. Johnson was born in the US, and Patel is the child of immigrants (like Shamima Begum). Patel got sacked for consorting with the Israeli government, and Johnson could be accused of stoking racism. Right there reasons enough to describe such a move as “conducive to the public good”

Maybe someone should explain what a coward is to his dumb parents

AndrewJB wrote:I was referring to the power of a Home Secretary to take away a person’s citizenship rather than this specific incident. If taking away someone’s citizenship is something we as a country deem necessary, then there should be a judicial process about it, rather than being down to the discretion of the Home Secretary.

Since 2003 there have been 120 cases of this (no cases in the 30 years before when the law first came in), and most of those have been in 2017, and not all of them had to do with national security - so I’d say that’s a very disturbing trend, and one likely to increase under the present Home Secretary.

What this law is in fact is banishment, and for people who have lived here all their lives, and their families and friends, this could be grossly excessive if they’ve committed no crime and it is down to the whim of the government. This could happen to Boris Johnson or Priti Patel themselves, if Dianne Abbott were Home Secretary. Johnson was born in the US, and Patel is the child of immigrants (like Shamima Begum). Patel got sacked for consorting with the Israeli government, and Johnson could be accused of stoking racism. Right there reasons enough to describe such a move as “conducive to the public good”

If I remember rightly the UK tried to chuck out the lad who stabbed his head teacher, he was British/Italian but it wasn't allowed because he's spent his whole life here and knew nothing about Italy, language etc.

Not all of the undesirables are successfully banned from the UK.

GodIsADeeJay81 wrote:If I remember rightly the UK tried to chuck out the lad who stabbed his head teacher, he was British/Italian but it wasn't allowed because he's spent his whole life here and knew nothing about Italy, language etc.

Not all of the undesirables are successfully banned from the UK.

Slightly different situation in my opinion.

.....

ClaretDiver wrote:Slightly different situation in my opinion.

Yes and no.

The government wanted him gone because they thought he was a threat to society, convicted murderer etc.

The government want terrorists gone because they're a threat to society.

Enough similarities I felt to warrant a mention, but I could be wrong.

Clarinetclaret wrote:Which all costs the taxpayers money. He went to Syria, hes paid the price. Frigging hilarious.

It does. But I'd prefer him to actually be held to account for his crimes rather than the UK just going not our problem anymore, someone else can sort it out.

aggi wrote:It does. But I'd prefer him to actually be held to account for his crimes rather than the UK just going not our problem anymore, someone else can sort it out.

As opposed to giving a bloke a load of money because he was thrown in Guantanamo Bay, for him to then carry on with terrorist activities?

Out of interest do we know how many successful attempts there have been to de-radicalize terrorists?

We've tried for a long time to keep the Irish happy and they just keep resurfacing every so often.

thatdberight wrote:I'm uncomfortable with revoking his citizenship. Letts. Begum. Products of our society. So our responsibility.

If they are, as you say,"Products of our society. So our responsibility". Why isn't everybody a fully paid up member of ISIS?

We all live in the same society......

RingoMcCartney wrote:If they are, as you say,"Products of our society. So our responsibility". Why isn't everybody a fully paid up member of ISIS?

We all live in the same society......

**New Idiot Level Unlocked**

Devils_Advocate wrote:**New Idiot Level Unlocked**

The post you commented on was a very reasonable argument in all fairness

aggi wrote:I don't think anyone thinks he should get away with what he's done. Just that saying "he's not British anymore, Canada can sort it out" is a cop out.

Your scenario assumes he wouldn't be in prison, on a terrorist watchlist, etc which seems unlikely

I’m hoping the Canadians revoke his citizenship as well. That way he can spend the rest of his miserable existence in a sh!thole sandpit wondering how brutally someone is going to end his life. He wanted to be there, so let him enjoy the whole experience.

BennyD wrote:I’m hoping the Canadians revoke his citizenship as well. That way he can spend the rest of his miserable existence in a sh!thole sandpit wondering how brutally someone is going to end his life. He wanted to be there, so let him enjoy the whole experience.

It's illegal to make someone stateless.

As illegal as going to fight for a terrorist organisation. The Canadians should say he is a Syrian national and wave him on his way.

BennyD wrote:As illegal as going to fight for a terrorist organisation. The Canadians should say he is a Syrian national and wave him on his way.

They can't, they're just annoyed because we sorted out our end before they thought to do the same

BennyD wrote:As illegal as going to fight for a terrorist organisation. The Canadians should say he is a Syrian national and wave him on his way.

Because Syria is ISIS? Because Syria created a society where this could happen? Because why? Because it's Syria's job to mop up our problem? Which clearly clueless reason will you give? I'm intrigued.

He's committed atrocities in Syria and now he's facing Syrian justice. Fair play I say. If you wanna go to the other side of the world and act like a ****, you deserve to face the consequences.

Devils_Advocate wrote:**New Idiot Level Unlocked**

I know it's only Monday, but, congratulations! You've won the "Too quick to React , and Unthinking Post" of the week!

Fabulous effort! Well done!

Murger wrote:He's committed atrocities in Syria and now he's facing Syrian justice. Fair play I say. If you wanna go to the other side of the world and act like a ****, you deserve to face the consequences.

And he can only face this justice if he loses his British citizenship? You seem to be arguing about something different- where he should face justice.

GodIsADeeJay81 wrote:As opposed to giving a bloke a load of money because he was thrown in Guantanamo Bay, for him to then carry on with terrorist activities?

Out of interest do we know how many successful attempts there have been to de-radicalize terrorists?

We've tried for a long time to keep the Irish happy and they just keep resurfacing every so often.

General wisdom there is that the British government paid that compensation to keep a case out of court. That's the policy that needs sorting, the security services and government need to do their jobs properly. Not just palm it off.

In terms of Irish terrorism that's been pretty successful. When was the last time someone was bombed in the UK for instance.

thatdberight wrote:Because Syria is ISIS? Because Syria created a society where this could happen? Because why? Because it's Syria's job to mop up our problem? Which clearly clueless reason will you give? I'm intrigued.

I’m sure the Syrian authorities don’t have the same pinko lily-livered touchy-feely outlook that we do and would be willing to dispense summary justice without batting an eyelid. If he wants to go there and create carnage, then the relevant authority should do the same to him without anyone in ‘the West’ giving a tinkers toss as to what happened to him. Personally, I couldn’t care less what laws are broken to help him shuffle off this mortal coil if it means another terrorist is despatched to paradise.

ClaretMoffitt wrote:Is it racist to dislike this guy and his ideology? I really can't work out whether it is or not.

Have you actually studied this or are just sounding off?

BennyD wrote:I’m sure the Syrian authorities don’t have the same pinko lily-livered touchy-feely outlook that we do and would be willing to dispense summary justice without batting an eyelid. If he wants to go there and create carnage, then the relevant authority should do the same to him without anyone in ‘the West’ giving a tinkers toss as to what happened to him. Personally, I couldn’t care less what laws are broken to help him shuffle off this mortal coil if it means another terrorist is despatched to paradise.

Is that the same Syrian authorities that have been accused of mass genocide?

BennyD wrote:I’m sure the Syrian authorities don’t have the same pinko lily-livered touchy-feely outlook that we do.

So, and it may surprise you to find I don't much disagree with your assessment of our society, what gives us the right to make him someone else's problem? We've created the landscape for the likes of him and Begum so we have a f***ing nerve making the solution somebody else's problem.

Spijed wrote:Is that the same Syrian authorities that have been accused of mass genocide?

Yep. I think Benny is is saying we should be more like them and have less of a pinko lily-livered touchy-feely outlook.

ClaretMoffitt wrote:Is it racist to dislike this guy and his ideology? I really can't work out whether it is or not.

What is racism ? Having a general opinion about a certain race that’s derived from personal experiences?

We’re made to believe we can’t form our own opinion , forces to obey , forces to accept gay people , forces to agree with transgenders and that it’s right , forces to have our kids taught about it when they should just be concentrating on being kids .

We all follow like sheep .

I know most have read the book 1984 but for those that haven’t , it’s a good time to do so .

Untinted Glasses wrote:What is racism ? Having a general opinion about a certain race that’s derived from personal experiences?

We’re made to believe we can’t form our own opinion , forces to obey , forces to accept gay people , forces to agree with transgenders and that it’s right , forces to have our kids taught about it when they should just be concentrating on being kids .

We all follow like sheep .

I know most have read the book 1984 but for those that haven’t , it’s a good time to do so .

We teach kids about marriage, god, religion etc but you're against teaching kids to be happy with who they are or feel they are?
It isn't about forcing anything, it's about teaching tolerance etc.