These young girls travelling to Syria

Rapscallion said:
Been working on mine through the winter.

Have you come across those nut jobs that keep going on about that new age nonsense called 'comprehension'. Freaks.

:D
Click to expand...

Ah yes. ....the art of understanding when the meaning is made clear ;)
 
simonblue said:
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 :confused:
Click to expand...


For a good six months now I have been asking myself that question.
The US have satellite information which can be interpreted within minutes, yet the media are broadcasting these images of heavily armed ISIL columns moving at will.
If the US can use Predator and Reaper drones to kill innocent people at wedding parties, then why can't they use them to wipe out easily identifiable ISIL movements?
 
andy700 said:
For a good six months now I have been asking myself that question.
The US have satellite information which can be interpreted within minutes, yet the media are broadcasting these images of heavily armed ISIL columns moving at will.
If the US can use Predator and Reaper drones to kill innocent people at wedding parties, then why can't they use them to wipe out easily identifiable ISIL movements?
Click to expand...

It is quite odd,plus the other country that have had IS attacks,then say they are going to bring a rein down upon them,then a couple of raids and its over :confused:
 
simonblue said:
It is quite odd,plus the other country that have had IS attacks,then say they are going to bring a rein down upon them,then a couple of raids and its over :confused:
Click to expand...


When Egypt attacked ISIL in Libya after the slaughter of Egyptian Coptic Christians there, Qatar removed its ambassador to Egypt in protest.
The Arab states are turning out to be a "Coalition of the unwilling" IMO.
You only have to ask yourself where ISIL gets its funding from, and who they are selling their recently acquired oil to.
 
Not sure what to make of these preemptive orders. I can't help but think that this would just add more fuel to the fire.

Syria fears prompt travel ban on five teenage girls
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-31993723
 
More people for the security services to monitor for the rest of their lives. This will just snowball and snowball to the point of not enough resources to police them. They're never going to change their ways, so just let them go, and do whatever we have to do to change the law to stop them coming back.
It says the family were complicit. Deport them too.
 
That is the bit I don't get indeed. If the family was complicit then surely they have consent. What is the problem let them sign a waiver to not require repatriation assistance from the UK government and enjoy their sexy time.
 
dejongj said:
Not sure what to make of these preemptive orders. I can't help but think that this would just add more fuel to the fire.

Syria fears prompt travel ban on five teenage girls
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-31993723
Click to expand...


As it was LB Tower Hamlets who blew the whistle on this, I wonder if these five girls were from Bethnal Green Academy (if this is true, then it could be renamed "preparatory school for young female terrorists") as well. IF it turns out they were, then that would be 9 girls in total from one school.
The East London mosque is also in Tower Hamlets, and is - err, just the kind of place which upholds "British values" - NOT!

http://www.theguardian.com/world/2011/mar/06/usama-hasan-london-imam-death-threats-evolution
 
Last edited by a moderator:
h14nha said:
More people for the security services to monitor for the rest of their lives. This will just snowball and snowball to the point of not enough resources to police them. They're never going to change their ways, so just let them go, and do whatever we have to do to change the law to stop them coming back.
It says the family were complicit. Deport them too.
Click to expand...

You can't simply deport a British citizen.
 
dejongj said:
What is the problem let them sign a waiver to not require repatriation assistance from the UK government.
Click to expand...
Article 8 of the human rights act. It's more important to allow people to plot to kill their fellow countrymen, than to throw them out of the country. Teresa May had to jump through hoops to get Hamza out. Thank god other countries weren't so soft with him.
Up to 2010 we were spending £3.5 billion on monitoring terrorists, the figure had trebled in the last decade. I shudder to think of that costs today.
 
h14nha said:
Article 8 of the human rights act. It's more important to allow people to plot to kill their fellow countrymen, than to throw them out of the country. Teresa May had to jump through hoops to get Hamza out. Thank god other countries weren't so soft with him.
Up to 2010 we were spending £3.5 billion on monitoring terrorists, the figure had trebled in the last decade. I shudder to think of that costs today.
Click to expand...


The problem is, that unlike these girls (as Ruth has correctly pointed out) Abu Hamza was not born in the UK, he is from the UAE originally, and if it had been up to me, I would have put him in a Hercules, flown over UAE and dumped him out the cargo door.
I personally think that if a person declares allegience to a particular state, then they should be deported there, but again unfortunately (or should that be fortunately) Islamic Sate is not a recognised state.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abu_Hamza_al-Masri
 
It is ridicules that we spend so much money on monitoring these people just let them go to wherever it is they want to go or detain them so that they are not a threat to society either way get them off the streets. Once they have departed our shores remove their right to a British passport and put them on an exclusion list.
 
h14nha said:
Article 8 of the human rights act. It's more important to allow people to plot to kill their fellow countrymen, than to throw them out of the country. Teresa May had to jump through hoops to get Hamza out. Thank god other countries weren't so soft with him.
Up to 2010 we were spending £3.5 billion on monitoring terrorists, the figure had trebled in the last decade. I shudder to think of that costs today.
Click to expand...

Article 8 of the Human Rights Act 1998:

Right to respect for private and family life

1. Everyone has the right to respect for his private and family life, his home and his correspondence.

2. There shall be no interference by a public authority with the exercise of this right except such as is in accordance with the law and is necessary in a democratic society in the interests of national security, public safety or the economic well-being of the country, for the prevention of disorder or crime, for the protection of health or morals, or for the protection of the rights and freedoms of others.

In my opinion, that seems a pretty important thing to have in place. And no, it does not '...allow people to plot to kill their fellow countrymen...'. There may be occasions where it makes things a little more awkward to extradite someone but, overall, its there for 'us'... the people. Take stuff like that away and those in power start to have too much power. We're all already subjects to GCHQ's scrutiny.

As for '£3.5 billion on monitoring terrorists', I can't imagine expenditure ever dropping even if we were to banish the homegrown extremists; as long as the world has terrorists, our intelligence community will be following them. Whether they're currently an immediate threat to us or not. I bet the doughnut costs a fortune to run too.

Lastly, I very much doubt the security services want these people out of the country. I used to wonder why that Anjem Chaudary chap was never killed in a freak 'road traffic collision'... surely that would have been the cheapest way of silencing him? Personally, I think it's because he is (probably unwittingly) a massive help to the our security services. I doubt he is able to wipe his nose without someone knowing about it.

Sam
 
andy700 said:
The problem is, that unlike these girls (as Ruth has correctly pointed out) Abu Hamza was not born in the UK, he is from the UAE originally, and if it had been up to me, I would have put him in a Hercules, flown over UAE and dumped him out the cargo door.
I personally think that if a person declares allegience to a particular state, then they should be deported there, but again unfortunately (or should that be fortunately) Islamic Sate is not a recognised state.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abu_Hamza_al-Masri
Click to expand...


Hi,

I get what you're saying but how would we feel if - say - The People's Republic of the Congo suddenly dumped 4000 undesirables on our doorstep who had openly expressed their hatred of Congo and pledged alliance to QEII? Would we consider them to now be our problem and therefore grant them citizenship?

Sam
 
tarric said:
It is ridicules that we spend so much money on monitoring these people just let them go to wherever it is they want to go or detain them so that they are not a threat to society either way get them off the streets. Once they have departed our shores remove their right to a British passport and put them on an exclusion list.
Click to expand...

If we let them go abroad then we would still be monitoring them and it would still cost money... they would still harbour a hatred for the UK and, consequently, MI6 would be all over them like a rash. Personally, I think a review of our foreign policy would be the cheapest and most sensible solution. I mean, why are we and the US making ourselves so unpopular?
 
Sam B said:
Hi,

I get what you're saying but how would we feel if - say - The People's Republic of the Congo suddenly dumped 4000 undesirables on our doorstep who had openly expressed their hatred of Congo and pledged alliance to QEII? Would we consider them to now be our problem and therefore grant them citizenship?

Sam
Click to expand...

That is a highly unlikely scenario, and I personally think that you are clutching at straws to find a comparison.
The FACT is that Abu Hamza was born in UAE, and obviously hated the UK (but all the same decided to avail himself of the benefits showered on him by this country). He preached hatred against the UK and incited violence towards our citizens and troops.
Therefore we should have given him back to the UAE - simples!
 
Sam B said:
If we let them go abroad then we would still be monitoring them and it would still cost money... they would still harbour a hatred for the UK and, consequently, MI6 would be all over them like a rash. Personally, I think a review of our foreign policy would be the cheapest and most sensible solution. I mean, why are we and the US making ourselves so unpopular?
Click to expand...
Since when is this about a popularity contest? Heck Putin is popular, as was Adolph.

If the girls want to go and be shared amongst sexually frustrated Muslim jihadist and their parents are happy with that as well. Who are we to interfere?

Let them go, let them enoy life's experiences. But please let us not mount a rescue mission as well.
 
andy700 said:
That is a highly unlikely scenario, and I personally think that you are clutching at straws to find a comparison.
The FACT is that Abu Hamza was born in UAE, and obviously hated the UK (but all the same decided to avail himself of the benefits showered on him by this country). He preached hatred against the UK and incited violence towards our citizens and troops.
Therefore we should have given him back to the UAE - simples!
Click to expand...

It was an example. You can replace 'People's Republic of the Congo' with any other country and it will carry the same message; you can't just deport someone to a country which they claim some kind of allegiance to and expect said country to let them in. That's not how it works. Thousands of Nepalese men swore allegiance to our country and fought in our wars... we still object to letting them in.

You're using Hamza as a specific example. I was not. My point is as outlined above and in reply to those of you who think the UK can just 'ged rid of people' to a country, basically, of their choosing. You can't.

Regards, Sam
 
dejongj said:
Since when is this about a popularity contest? Heck Putin is popular, as was Adolph.
Click to expand...


I don't get your point?

My comments were in line with the 'national security' aspects of things... if we chose our wars more carefully I doubt we, as a country, would be so unpopular. Less 'haters' tends to mean less money needs needs to be spent of intelligence and defence.

dejongj said:
the girls want to go and be shared amongst sexually frustrated Muslim jihadist and their parents are happy with that as well. Who are we to interfere?


Let them go, let them enoy life's experiences. But please let us not mount a rescue mission as well.
Click to expand...

Who said anything about interfering?

Sam
 
Last edited:
andy700 said:
The problem is, that unlike these girls (as Ruth has correctly pointed out) Abu Hamza was not born in the UK, he is from the UAE originally, and if it had been up to me, I would have put him in a Hercules, flown over UAE and dumped him out the cargo door.
I personally think that if a person declares allegience to a particular state, then they should be deported there, ]
Click to expand...


I agree with you.

But I'd like to declare allegiance to somewhere hot and sunny. Fuji I think. Now awaiting deportation
 
boyfalldown said:
But I'd like to declare allegiance to somewhere hot and sunny. Fuji I think. Now awaiting deportation
Click to expand...
I'm off to rustle a few sheep, right after I've packed my bags, and await the knock on the door.
Australia here I come :thumbs:
:D
 
Sam B said:
If we let them go abroad then we would still be monitoring them and it would still cost money... they would still harbour a hatred for the UK and, consequently, MI6 would be all over them like a rash. Personally, I think a review of our foreign policy would be the cheapest and most sensible solution. I mean, why are we and the US making ourselves so unpopular?
Click to expand...

Why would we have to monitor them abroad?

They may still harbour haltered for this country and they can do that in a country of their choosing but not the UK.

1. They left of the own free will.

2. We as a nation withdraw their right to a British passport.

3. We insure that they are not allowed back.

If they hate the UK so much, they really shouldn’t have a problem with that.

Why should we review or foreign policies which wars would you fight.
 
Sam B said:
Article 8 of the Human Rights Act 1998:

Right to respect for private and family life

1. Everyone has the right to respect for his private and family life, his home and his correspondence.

2. There shall be no interference by a public authority with the exercise of this right except such as is in accordance with the law and is necessary in a democratic society in the interests of national security, public safety or the economic well-being of the country, for the prevention of disorder or crime, for the protection of health or morals, or for the protection of the rights and freedoms of others.

In my opinion, that seems a pretty important thing to have in place. And no, it does not '...allow people to plot to kill their fellow countrymen...'. There may be occasions where it makes things a little more awkward to extradite someone but, overall, its there for 'us'... the people. Take stuff like that away and those in power start to have too much power. We're all already subjects to GCHQ's scrutiny.

As for '£3.5 billion on monitoring terrorists', I can't imagine expenditure ever dropping even if we were to banish the homegrown extremists; as long as the world has terrorists, our intelligence community will be following them. Whether they're currently an immediate threat to us or not. I bet the doughnut costs a fortune to run too.

Lastly, I very much doubt the security services want these people out of the country. I used to wonder why that Anjem Chaudary chap was never killed in a freak 'road traffic collision'... surely that would have been the cheapest way of silencing him? Personally, I think it's because he is (probably unwittingly) a massive help to the our security services. I doubt he is able to wipe his nose without someone knowing about it.

Sam
Click to expand...
He may well not be able to wipe his nose without the security services knowing about it. Unfortunately, whilst he is here spouting all his sh1t, others around him are carrying out atrocities for him. He doesn't need to get his hands dirty, too many killers have links to him.
 
tarric said:
Why would we have to monitor them abroad?

They may still harbour haltered for this country and they can do that in a country of their choosing but not the UK.

1. They left of the own free will.

2. We as a nation withdraw their right to a British passport.

3. We insure that they are not allowed back.

If they hate the UK so much, they really shouldn’t have a problem with that.

Why should we review or foreign policies which wars would you fight.
Click to expand...

Why would we need to monitor them abroad? - I would have thought that was obvious?... because they wish harm to Britain. That's why we have 'foreign intelligence' - MI6. Our intelligence services would be quite poor if they limited intelligence gathering to those only on British soil, don't you think?

To answer your points in their numerical order:

1. Yes. But were they groomed?

2. I'm not sure if 'we' can; I could be wrong but I think there is some kind of law about making someone 'stateless', so-to-speak. Furthermore, how would revoking their British passport neutralise them as a threat? If some shellsuit-clad illegal immigrant can breach our borders aboard a HGV and remain here until their asylum appeal, I'm sure a terrorist group could arrange something.

3. Ok, so without MI6 tracking them, how would you know who was who? What's stopping them coming back on the back of a truck without any papers or identity?
 
h14nha said:
He may well not be able to wipe his nose without the security services knowing about it. Unfortunately, whilst he is here spouting all his sh1t, others around him are carrying out atrocities for him. He doesn't need to get his hands dirty, too many killers have links to him.
Click to expand...

I'm pretty sure he is more use to our intelligence services alive than dead... sparing a rat to allow it to lead you back to the nest, kind of thing. Unless he was killed (which would give him some kind of martyr status), banishing him - if we could find somewhere who would have him - wouldn't silence him... he'd be giving Youtube lectures and all sorts. In a similar way to Al Qaeda, all this stuff has become a mentality or 'cause', rather than a structured organisation that you can take out the chain of command etc... I'm not sure removing Choudary et al would do much good.
 
Didn't the 9/11, 7/7, Richard Smith ( AKA Shoe Bomber ), Lee Rigbys killers all have links to Choudrey ? That's one dangerous rat. According to the CIA approx 15-25% of Muslems hold extremist views. The recent poll of British Muslims found 27% had sympathies with the Charlie Hebdo terrorists, so the CIA poll seems to have some legs to it. As there are ( according to 2011 census ) 2.7 million Muslims in the UK, that's a whole lot of people who disagree with our way of life ( freedom of speech ) some 400,000 to 670,000 people, and that section of the community happens to be the fastest growing too.
 
at the risk of sounding like Steve, both Hamza and Choudry want a bullet in the face (or preferably behind the ear) - if the govt had the balls for it , it would be a lot easier and cheaper than deporting them.
 
h14nha said:
Didn't the 9/11, 7/7, Richard Smith ( AKA Shoe Bomber ), Lee Rigbys killers all have links to Choudrey ? That's one dangerous rat. According to the CIA approx 15-25% of Muslems hold extremist views. The recent poll of British Muslims found 27% had sympathies with the Charlie Hebdo terrorists, so the CIA poll seems to have some legs to it. As there are ( according to 2011 census ) 2.7 million Muslims in the UK, that's a whole lot of people who disagree with our way of life ( freedom of speech ) some 400,000 to 670,000 people, and that section of the community happens to be the fastest growing too.
Click to expand...

What? Really? Terrorists had links to Choudary? I don't believe you!

Well, do you think if Choudary didn't exist (again, kill him and make him a martyr? Banish him?.. If so, where to?) these terrorists would have lacked inspiration? I doubt it.

I'm afraid I struggle with non-bias 'statistics' to support things like this. 'According to the CIA'?... Yes, there's absolutely no chance their findings could have budgets in mind. Statistics can be bias or unreliable, 87.6% of people in a 2007 survey knew that. Have a read of Ben Goldacre's 'Bad Science' - it's a very interesting book which goes into flaws in research and 'surveys'.

'Our' way of life? Meaning what, exactly? Drinking alcohol? Eating bacon? Sex outside of marriage? Making profit in bank accounts? Mortgages? Accepting some people are gay?... Not agreeing with 'our' (Western?) way of life is too much of a general term. Of course, it's a great thing to use in a survey if you've an agenda. How was the Hebdo terrorists survey worded? 'Do you disagree with the cartoons Hebdo published of the Prophet Mohammed?' Either way, I bet I could go into 100 mosques and not find a single person who had been surveyed. Sample sizes are very important when making such sweeping generalisations. Furthermore, I have Muslim friends who were as appalled as I about the Hebdo terrorists. By your 'data', at least one of them must be a closet terrorist?

Sam
 
Sam B said:
'How was the Hebdo terrorists survey worded? 'Do you disagree with the cartoons Hebdo published of the Prophet Mohammed?'

Sam
Click to expand...

The survey he's referring to asked the question 'do you have any sympathy with the Motives behind the Hebdo attacks?'

Which isn't the same as saying 'do you support?' Which I can only guess would give a different answer
 
Sam B said:
What? Really? Terrorists had links to Choudary? I don't believe you!

Well, do you think if Choudary didn't exist (again, kill him and make him a martyr? Banish him?.. If so, where to?) these terrorists would have lacked inspiration? I doubt it.
Click to expand...

I tend to agree with you - but if i was David Cameron I'd still have him shot - doubtful he could do more damage as a martyr than he does alive , he's clearly an enemy of the state and if he's british (I can't remember and CBA to look it up) he's guilty of treason
 
boyfalldown said:
The survey he's referring to asked the question 'do you have any sympathy with the Motives behind the Hebdo attacks?'

Which isn't the same as saying 'do you support?' Which I can only guess would give a different answer
Click to expand...

yeah didnt the same survey find that the majority of them were opposed to violent action ?

according to this http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-31293196 95% feel loyalty to britain , 93% agree they should obey british laws and 11% feel some sympathy for those who fight against western interests

The other thing is that this survey was based on a sample of 1000 - not exactly a representative sample of the UK muslim population
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top