These young girls travelling to Syria

[andya700]

Wow that is just a slinging match, some vile and disgusting comments on there.

It is an Indian publication, so I suppose it had the potential to get a little heated, but isn't it ironic given the Indian attitude towards women, and I mean that across all the faiths in the country.

 

[andya700]

Sam, I don't want to quote any of your posts directly, but I do regard the ex marine who died the other week fighting with the Peshmerga against ISIL as a "hero".
You see, ISIL are fighting against EVERYONE who disagrees with their very narrow fundamentalist views. They are killing Sunni and Shia Muslims, Christians, Azeris etc, just because the people refuse to convert to ISIL's branch of Wahhabi Islam.
Last week a young Britsh girl of Turkish descent was arrested because she tried to join a Kurdish Women's group to fight against ISIL, and yet the Met Police have said that the three girls who ran away to join ISIL will NOT be prosecuted if and when they return.
The reason why we are in this position today, is because of our interventions in Afghanistan, Iraq, Libya, Egypt and Syria, and I do not support any of those interventions because there was never any plan put into place to deal with the aftermath.
However, that being said, ISIL are the single most dangerous threat to everyone in the Middle East at the moment, and they wish to export their terror to us. They are a totally evil organisation who wish to destroy anything which they dislike or disagree with, and the terrorist attack in Tunisia yesterday was yet another horrific example of what they are capable of.

 

[Lindsay D]

Sam, my answer was within the context of this thread. And in that regard it still stands. However, picking up on your expansion of the role of mercenaries, I do understand the point you're making and if we are talking about individuals who fight simply for whoever will pay them the most, and if their actions are counter to our national security, then I would agree that they are no better than terrorists. But that is drifting off topic somewhat. With respect to IS and the departure of these girls, there are nevertheless facts to go on and no doubt more detailed facts will emerge with time.

You ask me if I cannot see how impressionable those girls were because they were watching 'Muslim countries getting battered their whole lives'. Actually no, as I understand it these girls are British citizens, living in Britain and raised in Britain. The fact they are of Muslim faith is not an open ended excuse in my view. If our nation is unpalatable to them then they can leave, which they did. Impressionable or not, that is an extreme act. We can suppose that they will be paying a terrible price for that decision - and they may well be realising that it wasn't so bad back home after all. If the story of these girls is being used to fuel 'right-wing anti-Muslim rantings' then that is an unfortunate consequence of what these girls (and others) have done. Of course this will give fodder to some quarters - and in so doing the decent Muslim folk are going to suffer. But I doubt those girls considered that, or even cared.

 

[viv1969]

You ask me if I cannot see how impressionable those girls were because they were watching 'Muslim countries getting battered their whole lives'. Actually no, as I understand it these girls are British citizens, living in Britain and raised in Britain. The fact they are of Muslim faith is not an open ended excuse in my view. If our nation is unpalatable to them then they can leave, which they did. Impressionable or not, that is an extreme act. We can suppose that they will be paying a terrible price for that decision - and they may well be realising that it wasn't so bad back home after all.

This I completely agree with.
The word "vulnerable" is bandied about far too frequently IMO.

 

[Sam B]

Sam, I don't want to quote any of your posts directly, but I do regard the ex marine who died the other week fighting with the Peshmerga against ISIL as a "hero".
You see, ISIL are fighting against EVERYONE who disagrees with their very narrow fundamentalist views. They are killing Sunni and Shia Muslims, Christians, Azeris etc, just because the people refuse to convert to ISIL's branch of Wahhabi Islam.
Last week a young Britsh girl of Turkish descent was arrested because she tried to join a Kurdish Women's group to fight against ISIL, and yet the Met Police have said that the three girls who ran away to join ISIL will NOT be prosecuted if and when they return.
The reason why we are in this position today, is because of our interventions in Afghanistan, Iraq, Libya, Egypt and Syria, and I do not support any of those interventions because there was never any plan put into place to deal with the aftermath.
However, that being said, ISIL are the single most dangerous threat to everyone in the Middle East at the moment, and they wish to export their terror to us. They are a totally evil organisation who wish to destroy anything which they dislike or disagree with, and the terrorist attack in Tunisia yesterday was yet another horrific example of what they are capable of.

Hi Andy,

Yep, I get ISIL are wrong'uns and I know what they stand for. If I haven't made it clear in my previous posts, I am in no way, shape or form supportive of them. However, I don't necessarily argree that these three girls are 'scumbags'. Yes, they're massively misguided; but so were many German citizens by the Nazi Party and, as the American government found out, so were many white American college students by Stanley Milgram. It's easily done.

Again, I agree with everything you have said about ISIL but (and I did mention I was somewhat playing the devil's advocate when I first said this), what's the difference between a (often non-white Muslim) British citizen going abroad to unlawfully fight against anyone and everyone, and another British citizen (usually white, male, non-Muslim and ex-military) going abroad to unlawfully fight against anyone and everyone... for money? I have many friends still in various arms of the military and this is said with upmost respect for them; but I see that ex-marine as a mercenary who was sadly killed. Similarly, I discriminate between those who died heroically on Herrick / Telic and those who trod on an IED or got killed in their vehicle... the latter are inevitable casualties, not necessarily 'heroes' - The sooner we all learn to drop this romanticised image of combat and warfare, the better. So back to the marine, yes, he might have been fighting for a good bunch but he was still a mercenary... a soldier of fortune and all that. As I said, a lad who I have worked with in the past was/is into all that stuff... within reason, his primary motivator was money.

I honestly don't know why we've been getting mixed-up in so many middle-eastern countries' affairs.

Regards, Sam

 

[Lindsay D]

The word "vulnerable" is bandied about far too frequently IMO.

Absolutely, it's virtually an excuse at times depending on how liberal the commentator. I have to say I am sometimes rendered speechless by some of the excuses I hear put forward for acts which are frankly repulsive, but are too often described simply as 'misguided' as if that is where accountability ends.

 

[Byker28i]

I honestly don't know why we've been getting mixed-up in so many middle-eastern countries' affairs.

Regards, Sam

Where's the oil?

 

[viv1969]

Where's the oil?

Russia, Saudi and the USA?

 

[Sam B]

...However, picking up on your expansion of the role of mercenaries, I do understand the point you're making and if we are talking about individuals who fight simply for whoever will pay them the most, and if their actions are counter to our national security, then I would agree that they are no better than terrorists. But that is drifting off topic somewhat...

I find that things we're told are a threat to our National Security are often 'made to fit' a proposed action; WMD and ballistic missiles, for example. As I have already asked, why aren't we storming into China, North Korea and Russia? - They're more of a threat than a load delusional extremists with mismatched arsenals and camcorders. These ISIL people need to be destroyed, yes, but I just don't buy into this whole 'Access of Evil' and 'War on Terror' stuff. That is propaganda.

ask me if I cannot see how impressionable those girls were because they were watching 'Muslim countries getting battered their whole lives'. Actually no, as I understand it these girls are British citizens, living in Britain and raised in Britain. The fact they are of Muslim faith is not an open ended excuse in my view. If our nation is unpalatable to them then they can leave, which they did. Impressionable or not, that is an extreme act. We can suppose that they will be paying a terrible price for that decision - and they may well be realising that it wasn't so bad back home after all. If the story of these girls is being used to fuel 'right-wing anti-Muslim rantings' then that is an unfortunate consequence of what these girls (and others) have done. Of course this will give fodder to some quarters - and in so doing the decent Muslim folk are going to suffer. But I doubt those girls considered that, or even cared.

Well, the girls are about 17 aren't they? - OK, so give or take a year, they've watched Britain et al smashing Muslim countries on the news for most of their lives. Furthermore, everything negative which involves a Muslim, the media ensures his/her faith is within the headline. I am certainly not using their faith as an 'excuse'... an excuse for what?

'If 'our' nation?'... Do you mean 'their' nation? Also, leave to where? Where should they go? British weather is becoming unpalatable to me, if I rock up to Australian Immigration, do you think they'll let me in?

The girls are young, impressionable and have been living in what has proven to be quite a less-than-friendly society towards Muslim since 2001. I can see them as being fairly impressionable. Or, maybe they're evil and were just waiting for a group like ISIL to pop up? I don't know. I think it's too early to start calling them 'scumbags'... so far they've definitely made a huge mistake, but they're still British and they've yet to harm anyone.

Sam

 

[Sam B]

This I completely agree with.
The word "vulnerable" is bandied about far too frequently IMO.

Nope, 'vulnerable' is exactly the kind of people extremists seek. Prisons and universities are good places to recruit people too.

 

[viv1969]

Nope, 'vulnerable' is exactly the kind of people extremists seek. Prisons and universities are good places to recruit people too.

You miss my point.
What would you class as vulnerable?
I ask because I suspect many of the things you might class as vulnerable, I and many others would class as exceptionally stupid.

 

[Sam B]

Where's the oil?

That's

Absolutely, it's virtually an excuse at times depending on how liberal the commentator. I have to say I am sometimes rendered speechless by some of the excuses I hear put forward for acts which are frankly repulsive, but are too often described simply as 'misguided' as if that is where accountability ends.

Who said anything about excuses?

MI5 will often exploit 'vulnerable' people to have them as an agent. Often the military (both here and in the US) will target less-affluent areas, or areas where jobs are scarce, to recruit people. Payday loans advertising on daytime TV. New Age religious sects etc. etc.

Just because someone may be described as being 'vulnerable' prior to doing something, doesn't make it some kind of wishy-washy leftie 'excuse' for them. You'll find very few people who are financially, emotionally and mentally stable volunteering for this kind of stuff.

 

[Sam B]

You miss my point.
What would you class as vulnerable?
I ask because I suspect many of the things you might class as vulnerable, I and many others would class as exceptionally stupid.

Nope, I recognised what you were getting at.

What would be considered 'vulnerable' would depend on what one was trying to get the subject to do. No point trying to get someone to rob a bank for you if they're a millionaire, is there?

 

[Lindsay D]

Well, the girls are about 17 aren't they? - OK, so give or take a year, they've watched Britain et al smashing Muslim countries on the news for most of their lives. Furthermore, everything negative which involves a Muslim, the media ensures his/her faith is within the headline. I am certainly not using their faith as an 'excuse'... an excuse for what?

'If 'our' nation?'... Do you mean 'their' nation? Also, leave to where? Where should they go? British weather is becoming unpalatable to me, if I rock up to Australian Immigration, do you think they'll let me in?

The girls are young, impressionable and have been living in what has proven to be quite a less-than-friendly society towards Muslim since 2001. I can see them as being fairly impressionable. Or, maybe they're evil and were just waiting for a group like ISIL to pop up? I don't know. I think it's too early to start calling them 'scumbags'... so far they've definitely made a huge mistake, but they're still British and they've yet to harm anyone.

Sam

I meant exactly that Sam - 'our' nation. Ours, theirs - the nation of anyone who holds British citizenship. And as I said, they held that citizenship in such contempt that they chose to leave and join a terrorist organisation in another country, as others have (or attempted to do) both before and after them. That cannot be compared with trotting off to Australia or Canada for the quality of the air and the surfing.

The girls are young, but not that young. They may well be impressionable to an extent, yet their moral compass was somehow unable to impose reason, and the old chestnut of 'right and wrong' on their mindset. Therefore to my mind their actions cannot simply be attributed to the high spirits and naivete of youth. I am also really quite amazed that you consider that our society is less than friendly towards Muslims - when I have seen quite the opposite. In fact, our society bends over to accommodate people of every faith and persuasion - why do you think the UK remains so attractive, and so instrumental to terrorism.

You feel the girls are yet to harm anyone - on the contrary, I think harm is done by the very fact that their actions may well encourage other young people to consider or act upon similar urges. And if the girls are in some way providing services or comfort to those engaged in terrorism then yes, that is harmful to the victims of terrorism.

 

[boyfalldown]

I honestly don't know why we've been getting mixed-up in so many middle-eastern countries' affairs.

Regards, Sam

Is not a new thing. We've being doing just that for atleast the last 100 or so years

 

[Lindsay D]

You'll find very few people who are financially, emotionally and mentally stable volunteering for this kind of stuff.

I think you might be surprised.

 

[Lindsay D]

No point trying to get someone to rob a bank for you if they're a millionaire, is there?

You need to watch the Thomas Crown Affair.

Better still, go and work in an investment bank for a while.

 

[viv1969]

Nope, I recognised what you were getting at.

What would be considered 'vulnerable' would depend on what one was trying to get the subject to do. No point trying to get someone to rob a bank for you if they're a millionaire, is there?

So, Just because these girls were Muslim makes them vulnerable to IS?
No I'm sorry, that's not washing.
These were supposedly highly intelligent young women who, although Muslim, hadn't led a terribly sheltered life.
They weren't locked away from "western" (for want of a better word) culture or schoolmates.

As another example of where I constantly hear the word vulnerable:
a 16 year old girl...just an average girl...befriends someone online (apparently male, apparently in her own age group, but she has no real way of knowing).
He then asks her to send him naked pictures of herself...and she does.
She isn't vulnerable...she's stupid.

 

[Sam B]

I meant exactly that Sam - 'our' nation. Ours, theirs - the nation of anyone who holds British citizenship. And as I said, they held that citizenship in such contempt that they chose to leave and join a terrorist organisation in another country, as others have (or attempted to do) both before and after them. That cannot be compared with trotting off to Australia or Canada for the quality of the air and the surfing.

It read as if you saw the girls as being some kind of 'guest' - albeit permanent ones - in 'our' Country. From my understanding, they are as British as you or I. Sadly not as patriotic though.
My comparison to turning up at Australian Immigration expecting citizenship was an attempt to ridicule your apparent 'Love it or leave it' philosophy.

The girls are young, but not that young. They may well be impressionable to an extent, yet their moral compass was somehow unable to impose reason, and the old chestnut of 'right and wrong' on their mindset. Therefore to my mind their actions cannot simply be attributed to the high spirits and naivete of youth. I am also really quite amazed that you consider that our society is less than friendly towards Muslims - when I have seen quite the opposite. In fact, our society bends over to accommodate people of every faith and persuasion - why do you think the UK remains so attractive, and so instrumental to terrorism.

'Young but not that young'? - what age would have been acceptable for you to consider that they have been radicalised? Three? Seven?

How are you 'amazed' that I consider our society less than friendly towards Muslims? - BNP are on the up, UKIP are on the up, countless EDL protests, Britain First protests and viral media, 'Muslim this, Muslim that' stories in the tabloids, endless Facebook hoaxes about 'Tesco refusing to serve soldier in case it offends Muslims' etc.... yes, I can see why you're amazed!

 

[Sam B]

So, Just because these girls were Muslim makes them vulnerable to IS?

Ah come on, that's low!... Now where did I say that? You're twisting what I said!

The girls are as impressionable as most other girls of that age. That's how you get 15yr olds who fall pregnant to some 19yr old Chav with his own car. The fact that they are Muslim - I would imagine - left them more vulnerable to being radicalised by Muslim extremists than, say, a 17yr goth atheist would be.

 

[Lindsay D]

It read as if you saw the girls as being some kind of 'guest' - albeit permanent ones - in 'our' Country. From my understanding, they are as British as you or I. Sadly not as patriotic though.
My comparison to turning up at Australian Immigration expecting citizenship was an attempt to ridicule your apparent 'Love it or leave it' philosophy.

!

Sam, I think you are now deliberately starting to twist my replies to you. Absolutely nowhere have I made any suggestion that I or anyone else in this dialogue would view those girls as 'guests'. In fact I find that offensive. I was at pains to point out that they are British citizens like the rest of us, but somewhere along the line they have cast that aside. And it is that actually, which makes them different to us. I do feel that if somebody hates this nation to the point where they begin to empathise with murderous terrorist groups, then there is no particular requirement for us to regret their departure. Personally, I am saddened and ashamed by them - and equally saddened by what might happen to them in whichever nation they offered their allegiance to. But it was their decision, based on what must have been inherently deep and negative feelings about the UK - whatever concern I might feel about their likely fate, I also consider them to be traitorous.

 

[Lindsay D]

Ah come on, that's low!... Now where did I say that? You're twisting what I said!

The girls are as impressionable as most other girls of that age. That's how you get 15yr olds who fall pregnant to some 19yr old Chav with his own car. The fact that they are Muslim - I would imagine - left them more vulnerable to being radicalised by Muslim extremists than, say, a 17yr goth atheist would be.

Sam, I could be wrong but I think I saw somewhere over the last few months that it isn't just Muslims who have joined IS - there are other 'disaffected' recruits from varying backgrounds. Someone else might be better able to comment on that.

Sure, young girls are often swayed by boys and men who are able to persuade them into various acts which many of their friends might be doing. But I don't think that's in the same league as someone who decides to leave home, leave their families and friends, leave their education, and travel halfway across the world to become part of a group of horrific murderers. The point is that the vast majority of young people have boundaries concerning what they will and will not do, or a scale if you like. Jetting off to marry or become the concubine of terrorist warlords could be argued as occupying the far extreme of the morality scale - a place where not that many 'impressionable' youngsters would care to tread.

 

[Sam B]

Sam, I think you are now deliberately starting to twist my replies to you. Absolutely nowhere have I made any suggestion that I or anyone else in this dialogue would view those girls as 'guests'. In fact I find that offensive. I was at pains to point out that they are British citizens like the rest of us, but somewhere along the line they have cast that aside. And it is that actually, which makes them different to us. I do feel that if somebody hates this nation to the point where they begin to empathise with murderous terrorist groups, then there is no particular requirement for us to regret their departure. Personally, I am saddened and ashamed by them - and equally saddened by what might happen to them in whichever nation they offered their allegiance to. But it was their decision, based on what must have been inherently deep and negative feelings about the UK - whatever concern I might feel about their likely fate, I also consider them to be traitorous.

Nope, I'm not trying to twist your replies; they're there to see, I merely questioned your wording as I thought it appeared mildly UKIP-esque. I'm glad you've clarified things.

Yes, it was their decision. I get that. That doesn't mean that those three girls were not exploited and radicalised.

 

[Lindsay D]

I merely questioned your wording as I thought it appeared mildly UKIP-esque. I'm glad you've clarified things.

Yes, it was their decision. I get that. That doesn't mean that those three girls were not exploited and radicalised.

Thanks for that, heaven forbid any of us should sit to your right

For the record, I am not a UKIP supporter and I'm struggling to see how you met that conclusion.

Once again, it is my view that those girls could only be 'exploited and radicalised' if their moral compass occupied a particular position on the scale of right and wrong - which tends to be fairly moderate for most people. In other words, I think they had to have been of a particular type, with particular views, in order to demonstrate such an absolute response.

 

[Sam B]

Sure, young girls are often swayed by boys and men who are able to persuade them into various acts which many of their friends might be doing. But I don't think that's in the same league as someone who decides to leave home, leave their families and friends, leave their education, and travel halfway across the world to become part of a group of horrific murderers. The point is that the vast majority of young people have boundaries concerning what they will and will not do, or a scale if you like. Jetting off to marry or become the concubine of terrorist warlords could be argued as occupying the far extreme of the morality scale - a place where not that many 'impressionable' youngsters would care to tread.

No, it was an example of how susceptible teenage girls can be; of course, I suspect you know this and are just being pedantic. However, you stated the girls were 'young but not that young'... I'm still waiting to hear what you regard this age to be? At what age can someone become exploited and radicalised then?

Thanks for that, heaven forbid any of us should sit to your right

Why? Because I don't agree with your opinion? What makes you think I'm on the left of you?

For the record, I am not a UKIP supporter and I'm struggling to see how you met that conclusion.

It wasn't a conclusion, it was a suspicion based on how your choice of words... I've already explained that. In fact, whether you're a UKIP supporter or not is no concern of mine.

Once again, it is my view that those girls could only be 'exploited and radicalised' if their moral compass occupied a particular position on the scale of right and wrong - which tends to be fairly moderate for most people. In other words, I think they had to have been of a particular type, with particular views, in order to demonstrate such an absolute response.

You keep on about this 'moral compass'... One's moral compass is subject to influence. Again, I refer you back to my earlier comments on the Third Reich and Stanley Milgram. In fact, you can add Zimbardo to that too. People can be influenced. Milgram, Zimbardo and countless repititions of their experiments since, have struggled to find a 'type'.

Sam

 

[Lindsay D]

Sam, if somebody engages in a dialogue with you, and attempts a debate, or attempts to patiently answer the points you raised, they are not being pedantic. I think most would agree that my (quite light-hearted) response to your UKIP suggestion was more than justified - as you said, it is no concern of yours but I nevertheless answered you (politely) and clarified that. I feel that we are now repeatedly going over old ground and there is not much more to add to our conversation. I am more than happy for anyone to disagree with me but I would prefer not to be subjected to adjectives and labels which are inaccurate and have no place in the discussion.

 

[viv1969]

Ah come on, that's low!... Now where did I say that? You're twisting what I said!

The girls are as impressionable as most other girls of that age. That's how you get 15yr olds who fall pregnant to some 19yr old Chav with his own car. The fact that they are Muslim - I would imagine - left them more vulnerable to being radicalised by Muslim extremists than, say, a 17yr goth atheist would be.

It's not low Sam it's precisely what you implied.

The girls are young, impressionable and have been living in what has proven to be quite a less-than-friendly society towards Muslim since 2001.
Sam

And again with your subsequent reply.

...... The fact that they are Muslim - I would imagine - left them more vulnerable to being radicalised by Muslim extremists than, say, a 17yr goth atheist would be.

 

[Sam B]

Sam, if somebody engages in a dialogue with you, and attempts a debate, or attempts to patiently answer the points you raised, they are not being pedantic.

You took out of context my example, twisted it and used it to suggest that I considered getting knocked-up by a 19yr old chav equal to packing bags to join a Jihadi militant. No. I was illustrating that teenage girls are impressionable... even ones that are 'young but not that young'! I'm confident you grasped my point so yes, I feel you were being pedantic. Of course - and as you have done thus far - you have again taken what I said, loaded it into another context and, in this instance, have tried to make out as if I accuse everyone who doesn't share my opinion as being 'pedantic'. That is not the case.

As for patiently answering the points I raised. No, you neglected several.

I think most would agree that my (quite light-hearted) response to your UKIP suggestion was more than justified - as you said, it is no concern of yours but I nevertheless answered you (politely) and clarified that.

At no point did I ask if you were a UKIP supporter nor did I seek clarification over it but for some reason you felt the need to tell me. Your use of 'our', 'their' and an apparent 'love it or leave it' type philosophy sounded, in my opinion, UKIP-ish. However, I asked you to explain your choice of words and it was only when you challenged me to 'why', did I mention this.

I feel that we are now repeatedly going over old ground and there is not much more to add to our conversation. I am more than happy for anyone to disagree with me but I would prefer not to be subjected to adjectives and labels which are inaccurate and have no place in the discussion.

We are going over old ground because you've neglected to answer all but the my most easily-twisted points. Furthermore, I have not subjected you to any labels. If you disagree, please quote where I Have done and I will of course apologise.

Regards, Sam

 

[Lindsay D]

Sam - please. If you read my replies you will see that I have answered everything you have raised, more than once in fact. Of course you have subjected me to labels - I think you need to read some of your replies. You suggested I am a UKIP supporter who regards the girls as 'guests' in this country (then you slap me down for responding), and that I am 'pedantic' when I try to clarify or answer you. I feel there is a veiled suggestion of racism creeping in which is wildly off the mark and one of the reasons I will not keep answering you. I appreciate direct dialogue but I think you may be looking for an argument rather than a simple exchange of viewpoints.

 

[Sam B]

It's not low Sam it's precisely what you implied.



And again with your subsequent reply.

I honestly don't follow you?

Muslim girls are no more vulnerable (as far as I know) to girls of any other race or religion for being exploited into doing things in general... this may be sex, prostitution, animal rights activism, dressing like a hooker because they *think* that's what's expected of them... whatever. The same goes for teenage lads. Peer pressure, finding one's identity, being anti-establishment, rebelling... whatever you like to call it. They're just impressionable and therefore exploitable... vulnerable.

HOWEVER, if we're talking about a MUSLIM extremist group ISIL then they're obviously going to be much more prone (based also on their teenage disposition) to 'grooming' as they are in the extremist's target market.

Who do you think would be more vulnerable into joining a white supremacist group? A 17yr old white male or a 17yr asian male? Furthermore, who do you think the supremacists would attempt to groom?

So I'm not saying they were vulnerable in general because they're Muslim, I'm saying they were vulnerable because they were teenaged and most likely impressionable and naive girls. Combined with their faith, they became vulnerable to extremists.

Sam

 

[viv1969]

@Sam B read my post again.

I asked if you thought these girls in particular, being Muslim, were vulnerable to IS because of their faith. This one instance. I mentioned no other.

You kicked off and got all precious about that....yet that is exactly what you're saying.

Forget the teenaged and impressionable bit...most 16 year old girls are.

 

[Deleted member 49549]

I honestly don't follow you?

Muslim girls are no more vulnerable (as far as I know) to girls of any other race or religion for being exploited into doing things in general... this may be sex, prostitution, animal rights activism, dressing like a hooker because they *think* that's what's expected of them... whatever. The same goes for teenage lads. Peer pressure, finding one's identity, being anti-establishment, rebelling... whatever you like to call it. They're just impressionable and therefore exploitable... vulnerable.

HOWEVER, if we're talking about a MUSLIM extremist group ISIL then they're obviously going to be much more prone (based also on their teenage disposition) to 'grooming' as they are in the extremist's target market.

Who do you think would be more vulnerable into joining a white supremacist group? A 17yr old white male or a 17yr asian male? Furthermore, who do you think the supremacists would attempt to groom?

So I'm not saying they were vulnerable in general because they're Muslim, I'm saying they were vulnerable because they were teenaged and most likely impressionable and naive girls. Combined with their faith, they became vulnerable to extremists.

Sam

Your posts seem well argued and reasonable to me. Not sure what Ruth and Lindsay are arguing over, I'm sure they wou find a lot of middle ground and interesting points for discussion rather than trying to win the internet.

 

[viv1969]

Your posts seem well argued and reasonable to me. Not sure what Ruth and Lindsay are arguing over, I'm sure they wou find a lot of middle ground and interesting points for discussion rather than trying to win the internet.

He says that no, because these girls are Muslim, they're no more likely to be "vulnerable".

Yet in this instance they are.

One cannot have it both ways.

 

[Deleted member 49549]

He says that no, because these girls are Muslim, they're no more likely to be "vulnerable".

Yet in this instance they are.

One cannot have it both ways.

Ruth, I think you misunderstand his points. He said that because they are Muslim, they are more vulnerable to Muslim groups, a rather simple and concise observation. But anyway, I shall leave you all to fight it out as it seems people are set for arguing rather than discussing things in this thread. Have fun!

 

[Sam B]

Sam - please. If you read my replies you will see that I have answered everything you have raised, more than once in fact. Of course you have subjected me to labels - I think you need to read some of your replies.

I am still waiting to hear what the impressionable age is if it is not throughout one's teenage years. You have neglected to answer me that on a few occasions now. Furthermore, you said were 'amazed' that I felt UK society was less-than-friendly towards Muslims... I gave you my reasons but you neglected to respond. In fact, with 'Islamaphobia' being such a frequently discussed subject, I was quite surprised by your challenge over this. But again, you failed to respond.

Similarly, I defended your somewhat patronising twists to what I said on how one cannot simply up sticks and permanently 'leave' without process. You didn't bother replying.

I explained my questioning on your choice of words... 'our', 'their' and the like. You clarified. I accepted and yet you still use it as the crux of your 'argument'?

Again, what labels have I given you? - I've already asked you to quote me.

... you suggested I am a UKIP supporter who regards the girls as 'guests' in this country (then you slap me down for responding), and that I am 'pedantic' when I try to clarify or answer you. I feel there is a veiled suggestion of racism creeping in which is wildly off the mark and one of the reasons I will not keep answering you. I appreciate direct dialogue but I think you may be looking for an argument rather than a simple exchange of viewpoints.

Nope, I did not, and have not, suggested you are a UKIP supporter. Again, please quote me if I'm wrong on this.

I said you were 'pedantic' as you were, well, being pedantic. You knew exactly what I meant but you were purposely being slow in accepting it. In fact, when I further explained, you simply ignored it.

Whether or not you feel there is a 'veiled suggestion of racism' creeping in or not is irrelevant to me. As are your political affiliations. There is no suggestion of racism, nor UKIP membership. I don't agree with what you have said and I have challenged you on it, that doesn't mean you need to cop-out by suggesting I'm here looking for an argument, I'm not.

Regards,

Sam

 

[Sam B]

Ruth, I think you misunderstand his points. He said that because they are Muslim, they are more vulnerable to Muslim groups, a rather simple and concise observation. But anyway, I shall leave you all to fight it out as it seems people are set for arguing rather than discussing things in this thread. Have fun!

Yes, that's what I was trying to say! Albeit not as clearly as that!

Sam

 

[simonblue]

Something doesn't quite add up,we no where most of the IS are which town they control,why aren't we hitting them hard before they split up and go underground

 

[Sam B]

Something doesn't quite add up,we no where most of the IS are which town they control,why aren't we hitting them hard before they split up and go underground

I thought we were? - Airstrikes and all that?

I can't understand how they've massed in numbers without anyone really taking notice.

 

[Phil V]

Been like that for a while. It is a damned nonsense. Gov. does not have a clue who is in this country now. If people arrive on a short term visa there is no way of knowing whether they left before their visas expired.

Which is where the right get their 'illegal immigrant' figures from.

The reality should be obvious; though it's seemingly impossible for some to comprehend*. We count them in, we don't count them out. The one thing we do have is what's left of employment law. So, whilst illegal immigrants have no call on benefits, they can get employment, but only by criminals. Fortunately this means they're likely to be rounded up at some point. Meanwhile teams of Civil Servants are being paid to 'find' these missing illegals who are more often than not back in their own country (why wouldn't they be, their only choice of income being working for illegal gang masters)

*Leading to my favourite Daily Fail headline 'Govt doesn't know how many illegal immigrants in the country'. With no sense of irony, as the saying goes 'you couldn't make it up'.

 

[viv1969]

Yes, that's what I was trying to say! Albeit not as clearly as that!

Sam

Then forgive me.
My psychic power isn't what it used to be!