Magnificent seven | Page 12 | Vital Football

Magnificent seven

jocklatic said:
Serious question Moonay......what if one of these low life terrorist sympathisers were welcomed back & on return commit a Manchester type incident causing serious harm to your family would you still hold that same view?
Click to expand...

I would sincerely hope that such a circumstance wouldn't occur Jock .......... because the returnee would either have been
a) kept in custody because they were still deemed a risk,
b) released, partially rehabilitated, but as they are deemed a slight "risk", kept under some kind of tagging/reporting, or
c) released, but rehabilitated.

I know that sounds blasé, and I don't mean to be ......... but I don't want us to stoop to the level whereby we pander to the demands of the lynch mob.
 
moonay said:
Hampton, Jock ........ I understand where you're coming from ........ but where do you draw the line?

If a civilised society denies the rights of individuals, then how can it claim to be civilised?

As I say, an eye for an eye is a medieval form of justice ........ and the start of a very slippery slope.

I know it takes some swallowing, but that's life.
Click to expand...

It's not a slippery slope at all - it's super simple - if you leave our country to join a proscribed terrorist organisation that is our enemy you should lose all individual rights and there is no way back. I am all about protecting the rights of the indivdual but we've got about 60 billion individuals in this country who didn't go to join Isis and i prioritise every single one of them over the ones who did.

Eye for an eye is necessary in some instances - Isis terrorism is one of them. As for international law saying we can't make her stateless - let the Kurds, Syrian / Russians or Gitmo have her if they want her and the problem is solved.
 
KDZ ...... I made this point earlier in the thread:
- Though she may have "joined" ISIS, other than act as the unofficial partner (and had 3 pregnancies) to one of their soldiers, what specific crime has she done?

Eye for an eye can kill a lot of innocent people. Note, I'm not saying that she's innocent .......... I'm just not sure exactly what she's guilty of ........ other than being an effing stupid, naive teenager with idealistic beliefs.

Also note ....... I fully accept that her recent comments re justifying the Manchester bombing do her no good whatsoever.
 
moonay said:
I would sincerely hope that such a circumstance wouldn't occur Jock .......... because the returnee would either have been
a) kept in custody because they were still deemed a risk,
b) released, partially rehabilitated, but as they are deemed a slight "risk", kept under some kind of tagging/reporting, or
c) released, but rehabilitated.

I know that sounds blasé, and I don't mean to be ......... but I don't want us to stoop to the level whereby we pander to the demands of the lynch mob.
Click to expand...


Didn't answer the question tho??? You getting ready for a slot on question time with your no answer, answer lol!!!
 
jocklatic said:
Didn't answer the question tho??? You getting ready for a slot on question time with your no answer, answer lol!!!
Click to expand...
OK. Yes, I would hold the same view. I don't want to be part of a "mob rule" culture.

We don't burn witches any more.

Edit ...... at least, I hope I'd hold the same view - how could I possibly know unless I was involved in such a tragic incident. That's why I hope it would never come to that.
 
moonay said:
I would sincerely hope that such a circumstance wouldn't occur Jock .......... because the returnee would either have been
a) kept in custody because they were still deemed a risk,
b) released, partially rehabilitated, but as they are deemed a slight "risk", kept under some kind of tagging/reporting, or
c) released, but rehabilitated.

I know that sounds blasé, and I don't mean to be ......... but I don't want us to stoop to the level whereby we pander to the demands of the lynch mob.
Click to expand...

What about the lad who did the Manchester bombing who wasn't deemed a risk after we brought him back? Or the 30k on the terror watch list we don't actively follow as it costs 9b to follow the most dangerous 3k? They believe their ideology is the literal instruction of God, no amount of deradicalisation courses can guarentee to change that. And how easy would it be to just lie and pretend they have changed when they haven't. If we'd do what i'm advocating now with the Manchester bomber 4 or so years ago he would never have even been in the country to commit the crime and all those kids parents wouldn't be taking their kids to the park to play rather than putting flower on their graves every week.

The terrorists use our 'dont stoop to their level' mentality against us constantly - how many innocent lives have to be lost and how many more have to be put in danger to give undeserved second chances for those who want to kill us and are only coming back because they've been captured or lost?

moonay said:
KDZ ...... I made this point earlier in the thread:
- Though she may have "joined" ISIS, other than act as the unofficial partner (and had 3 pregnancies) to one of their soldiers, what specific crime has she done?

Eye for an eye can kill a lot of innocent people. Note, I'm not saying that she's innocent .......... I'm just not sure exactly what she's guilty of ........ other than being an effing stupid, naive teenager with idealistic beliefs.

Also note ....... I fully accept that her recent comments re justifying the Manchester bombing do her no good whatsoever.
Click to expand...

Sorry you can't say this is a naive teenage mistake - this is joining Isis - the worst terrorist organisation to ever exist who are pretty much at war with the west. Everyone knows who they are and anyone who want to join them makes you someone we don't want, don't need and represents a threat to our country.

My idea of eye for an eye isn't to kill innocent people it's to protect those innocent people by keeping away everyone who would hurt them and not getting in the way of Isis' other enemies dishing out far harsher justice than we would.

There is no way we can prove what crimes she was complicit in but we know Isis have committed so many crimes against humanity that anyone to willingly join and in her own words enjoy being part of is a huge risk.

Comments justifying the bombing do her no favours - that isn't a slip of the tounge that is her telling you what she believes - that is the Jihadi mentality - why would you want that in our country?

I don't know about you but i'm not willing to spend a penny on trying to rehabilitate her, not a single resource on watching her when we have so many Jihadis we can't watch as it is and not put a single innocent person at risk for her. In this situation you either do what's best for the terrorist or what's best for the country - you can't do both and it's not a hard choice to me.
 
They hate us with a passion, feed on the western value of giving someone benefit of the doubt / 2nd 3rd chances & our downright naivety of how barbaric they can be. It will only become more prevalent & barbaric whilst those in charge (Government / International Law ) bow to the idea that given the right education & integration it will cease.
I believe we are in a Trojan Horse scenario here & look how that ended!!
 
moonay said:
OK. Yes, I would hold the same view. I don't want to be part of a "mob rule" culture.

We don't burn witches any more.

Edit ...... at least, I hope I'd hold the same view - how could I possibly know unless I was involved in such a tragic incident. That's why I hope it would never come to that.
Click to expand...


You really can't liken it to 'burning witches' now can you Moonay?

I wish i could hold similar views to you Moonay but i guess I'm to cynical, old & set in my ways.

My how a wee post titled 'Magnificent Seven' could stir up so much eh!
 
What has she done wrong? She joined a proscribed terrorist organisation for a start and at the very least provided support for it.

I think most level headed people don't want her or any other terrorist back in the country. The problem is with the law as it stands and so new legislation is required. As we know the weak willed hand wringers and left wing media such as the guardian will try and resist as per usual with Corbyn and Abbott doing their best to block it. They are best ignored. I'd also advocate bringing back the death penalty for such offences.
 
jocklatic said:
Hmon............as much as i think Notts is wrong / totally wrong about letting her back in it doesn't call for you to say 'let's hope it's your children in bits'...OTT. You wouldn't wish that on anyone but it could well be some innocent party being hurt thanks to the turn the other cheek / do gooders/ see good in everyone brigade.
Click to expand...

Of course I don't want anyone's children harmed jock and it was a clumsy way off getting my point across but I get very protective of my own because I think it puts all our loved ones at risk having these ideologists roaming amongst us.

Also in answer to the " what crime has she committed " askers...is there not a crime of guilty by association still in existence?... meaning if 2 lads are walking down the road and 1 of them kicks the shit out a passer-by ( who dies ) then the 1 holding the coat of the aggressor is just as guilty.
Just as this girl facilitated the actions of the animal she married.
 
Gentlemen, I really, really do understand - and even to a degree, share - your views on the potential return of this young lady ................... but you're (we're all wrong).

I'm not in any way condoning what she did ........... but what did she actually do?

Hindley, you have a point re the guilt through association ........... but I'm fairly sure that demands a much greater level of involvement and support than merely being in the same country.

KDZ,you can't measure the extent of one person's guilt or radicalisation by comparison to another. We can't impose the same assumed characteristics on everyone associated with summat like ISIS, in exactly the same way that we can't assume every fan of a football club to think and behave in the same way. One person's guilt and abominations can't be focused on or attributed to another ..... even if they somehow defend them. As for you comments re ISIS being the worst terrorist organisation to ever exist .......don't stoop to the Trump tactic ..... Hitler, Pol Pot, Khmer Rouge, etc ....... detestable, yes, but let's not make a league table.

Jock, the "burn the witches" comment was merely meant to illustrate that the level of evidence of guilt required can sometimes be diluted to the extreme - dunk them, and if they float, they're a witch .....if they sink/drown, they weren't ..... oh bugger, she was innocent !

I'm in complete agreement with you all that (as it stands), her comments re the Manchester bombing were/are reprehensible.......... but let's maintain laws by which we can measure the guilt of others, rather than judging them by feelings and emotions.
 
moonay said:
Gentlemen, I really, really do understand - and even to a degree, share - your views on the potential return of this young lady ................... but you're (we're all wrong).

I'm not in any way condoning what she did ........... but what did she actually do?

Hindley, you have a point re the guilt through association ........... but I'm fairly sure that demands a much greater level of involvement and support than merely being in the same country.

KDZ,you can't measure the extent of one person's guilt or radicalisation by comparison to another. We can't impose the same assumed characteristics on everyone associated with summat like ISIS, in exactly the same way that we can't assume every fan of a football club to think and behave in the same way. One person's guilt and abominations can't be focused on or attributed to another ..... even if they somehow defend them. As for you comments re ISIS being the worst terrorist organisation to ever exist .......don't stoop to the Trump tactic ..... Hitler, Pol Pot, Khmer Rouge, etc ....... detestable, yes, but let's not make a league table.

Jock, the "burn the witches" comment was merely meant to illustrate that the level of evidence of guilt required can sometimes be diluted to the extreme - dunk them, and if they float, they're a witch .....if they sink/drown, they weren't ..... oh bugger, she was innocent !

I'm in complete agreement with you all that (as it stands), her comments re the Manchester bombing were/are reprehensible.......... but let's maintain laws by which we can measure the guilt of others, rather than judging them by feelings and emotions.
Click to expand...

It's not feelings and emotions it's body count of the organisation she still supports i'm judging by and remeber this girl hasn't even changed her mind - she doesn't regret going and says she enjoyed it. If you join Isis and enjoy then that's pretty cut and dry - there is no cctv in these Isis strong holds and they murdered all victims so there will be no evidence of exactly who murdered all of the corpses we find stacked up - we just know it was them. So if we want to apply our standards of evidence to terrorism committed elsewhere we'll end up letting them all walk free as they can all say 'i wasn't there when any of those murders happened' when in fact they were doing them all - there is no way you could ever tell. So when it comes to joining Isis i think you have to say that is the line - cross it and there is no way back they aren't a proscribed terrorist organisation for nothing.

Would you want this girl living next door to you, do you want your kids going to school with hers, do you want the government to divert your taxes from other public services or to put them up to keep her on benefits for the rest of her life as she wont work, do you want a local family pushed down the housing list so she can be priority, do you want to go to the families of all the murdered kids from Manchester and explain to their parents that you've willing to take the chance again? And if she does come back and is involved in further terrorist activity like the Manc bomber would you want to go to the victims families and tell them we knowling took the risk as we wanted to suicidally virtue signal? Of course you wouldn't so why should we effectively ask other people in this country to have to do that? Why do good honest people have to be put out for what is literally a traitor who if she had her way would have every one us murdered for not sharing her belief. Compassion shouldn't be wasted on the merciless and remorseless.

What's the best case scenario she comes back and lives on the public purse for the rest of her life and doesn't do any further damage - not exactly a win for us.

What's the worst case scenario she comes back and helps facilitate further radicalisation or terrorist actions that leads to more loss of innocent life and sends a message to any would be Jihadis we are soft on them. Massive loss for us.

Why take on such risk for no benefit?
 
Last edited:
More feelings. More emotion.

With regard to the body count "of the organisation she still supports" would you also then suggest that we expel all IRA supporting Catholics? ........ or UVF supporting Protestants? Based on your logic, are there not parallels?

KDZ, as for much of the rest of your post, it's just a rant.
- why would she be on benefits for the rest of her life?
- why would she be a "priority"?
- why would she be involved in "more" terrorist activity?
.....and most of all .....
- why the bloody hell would you assume that she"would have every one us murdered for not sharing her belief"? It's just shit stirring.

The best case by the way would be that she goes through the legal process, together with rehabilitation & de-radicalisation, and then becomes a voice against terrorism & the likes of ISIS............. but that's a long way in the future.

First, we have to understand exactly what she's done wrong, before we start condemning her for having bad thoughts ......or even for supporting those who have committed atrocities.

For the record, the nature of your post has pushed me to be more defensive of her position than I initially meant to be ........... see my first post on this back on page 7 ................ but it concerns me to think that we as a nation might start to condemn or jail (or worse?) folk for their thoughts and beliefs (and not their actions) ......... however a abhorrent.
 
Would you also then suggest that we expel all IRA supporting Catholics? ........ or UVF supporting Protestants? Neither organsiation are currently committing terrorist attacks on our country after a peace agreement - we arent talking about religion the debate is about members of terrorist organisations. If the IRA were still bombing us like they were in Warrington back in the day then i wouldn't be after Catholics but i'd be locking up and expelling anyone who was an IRA member regardless of whatever religion they were. The analogy is completely not comparable.

- why would she be on benefits for the rest of her life? - who would hire her?

- why would she be a "priority"? - because you've just brought her back to the UK her family live in Bangaldesh now she would be on the street if you don't house them so she would jump the queue of those waiting.


- why would she be involved in "more" terrorist activity? - why was the manchester bomber involved in more attacks, because they still believe in the ideology including the part about martyrdom being the only 100% guarenteed way into heaven regardless of any other sins you commit in life. It's like saying why would a rapist or paedo do it again - their track record suggests they have it in them, so they can't be trusted and you don't take the risk.

- why the bloody hell would you assume that she"would have every one us murdered for not sharing her belief"? It's just shit stirring. - no it isn't that is literally what Isis believe the literal interpretation of kill all infadels (which includes fellow Muslims who don't follow their interpretation) to install a world wide caliphate. That is the whole point of Isis that is why they are different and worse than Al Quada and previous terrorist organsiation who only wanted to control their region Isis want to expand to take over everywhere in the world.

The best case by the way would be that she goes through the legal process, together with rehabilitation & de-radicalisation, and then becomes a voice against terrorism & the likes of ISIS............. they probably thought that about the Manc bomber, they know he was fighting for a terrorist organisation but had no clue exactly what he did so no punishment or way to know how big a risk he would be and look what happened, is worth the risk again? We know if we let this girl back in she will very unlikely go to prison for any length of time due to the lack of witnesses and the crime taking place where forensics are impossible to gather - letting her back in is pretty much a free pass. Would letting her back in and then trying to put her on a pedastel as an example of what not do do - not have the opposite effect and show that if you go to fight for Isis commit terrorist attrocities you can come back in say the right things and get away with it? What is more powerful in putting people of joining - seeing her come back and get a second chance or seeing her rot in a Kurdish jail or handed over to Assad and Putin? We've already got 30k know mid level threats are largely unmonitored - the next terrorist attack is very likely to come from someone in that pool why would we want to add to it? If we let this one girl back in you have to let anyone else back in moving forward and then the numbers will just keep increasing and even if 99 out of 100 of them are ok - it only takes that 1 to kill someone and i'd happily block an unlimited number of Jihadi returns if it saved one innocent person. Like i say my approach would've saved a lot of kids in Manchester already - it's not emotions it's reality.

First, we have to understand exactly what she's done wrong, before we start condemning her for having bad thoughts ......or even for supporting those who have committed atrocities. - Theis isn't bad thoughts this is participating in a terrorist organisation.

For the record, the nature of your post has pushed me to be more defensive of her position than I initially meant to be ........... see my first post on this back on page 7 ................ but it concerns me to think that we as a nation might start to condemn or jail (or worse?) folk for their thoughts and beliefs (and not their actions) ......... however a abhorrent. - We aren't conflating policing wrong think or shutting down free speach we are battling terrorism, people who crossed the line and physically joined a terrorist organsiation. I think the censorship culture we have now and the attack on free speach is awful for society but these are people who have gone beyond speaking or thinking they have taken action.

I can't believe this is even a conversation to be honest - why would anyone be willing to increase the threat or risk by even the tiniest amount to a single soul in this country to help out someone who not only went to join Isis but admits openly that she still believe in it. If the girl had even shown remose or regret i'd not believe her or be willing to take the risk but there would be something resembling an arguement but she doesn't even do that so i don't get why anyone would stick up for her.

Put it this way if there was a bowl of your favourite sweets (say something like smarties) and i told you to help yourself but warned you one of the sweets was potentially fatally poisonous would you tuck in or decided that the risk just wasn't worth it and would you offer that same choice to anyone else? That's where i am with this - just not worth the risk.

Hope, presumption and good intentions aren't enough to guarentee she wont cause any further issues - keeping her out does.
 
Last edited:
moonay said:
More feelings. More emotion.

With regard to the body count "of the organisation she still supports" would you also then suggest that we expel all IRA supporting Catholics? ........ or UVF supporting Protestants? Based on your logic, are there not parallels?

KDZ, as for much of the rest of your post, it's just a rant.
- why would she be on benefits for the rest of her life?
- why would she be a "priority"?
- why would she be involved in "more" terrorist activity?
.....and most of all .....
- why the bloody hell would you assume that she"would have every one us murdered for not sharing her belief"? It's just shit stirring.

The best case by the way would be that she goes through the legal process, together with rehabilitation & de-radicalisation, and then becomes a voice against terrorism & the likes of ISIS............. but that's a long way in the future.

First, we have to understand exactly what she's done wrong, before we start condemning her for having bad thoughts ......or even for supporting those who have committed atrocities.

For the record, the nature of your post has pushed me to be more defensive of her position than I initially meant to be ........... see my first post on this back on page 7 ................ but it concerns me to think that we as a nation might start to condemn or jail (or worse?) folk for their thoughts and beliefs (and not their actions) ......... however a abhorrent.
Click to expand...

Moonay. For a start it is more than her beliefs, which whilst abhorrent i don't believe thinking something is yet an offence - though publicising them maybe under the right circumstances be considered so. However firstly she left to join a proscribed terrorist organisation which is an offence. Secondly she at the very least provided said support to the same organisation which is an offence. If she ever returned to the UK I can't imagine a scenario whereby it wouldnt be in the public not to prosecute her. To answer your question, she is t being condemned for bad thoughts, she is being condemned for her actions as a result of them.

I think the crux of this is what is legally right and what is morally right. As I said on page 7 to which you refer, legally she may well be entitled to return. Morally I, and I think most think she shouldn't.

To answer several more of your questions. She would likely be on benefits because it's unlikely she would find any sort of meaningful employment. Unrelated her child would also be a cost because I can't envisage a scenario in which she'd be allowed to keep it, nor her family, due to the risk she poses to herself, others and a child. It also answers the question why she would be a priority. Why would she be involved in more terrorist activity? Well she only wants to return as Isis have been defeated and she's now homeless. It's evident t from her comments and abhorrent views she still supports them and has a hatred for the country. She would be a magnet for other warped individuals. Given her views and that of Isis I suspect they would like all non believers killed as that's their philosophy and modus operandi.

To think she would become de radicalised is just wishful thinking and no evidence she would. It's not a chance I'm willing to take, though legally as has been pointed out she may be 'entitled' to return. It's why new legislation is required to close such loopholes and more draconian measures such as the option of the death penalty to deter those leaving to join terrorist organisations and those wanting to return. As a nation we are a soft touch and too liberal. Given the sickening - and they are sickening-atrocities this organisations carried out we need to start taking a firmer stance to protect the country. I applaud the government in their action in this though ultimately they may need to back down, however if they do they should be pursuing her and others who return with vigour and to the n'th degree.
 
Made in Wigan said:
Moonay. For a start it is more than her beliefs, which whilst abhorrent i don't believe thinking something is yet an offence - though publicising them maybe under the right circumstances be considered so. However firstly she left to join a proscribed terrorist organisation which is an offence. Secondly she at the very least provided said support to the same organisation which is an offence. If she ever returned to the UK I can't imagine a scenario whereby it wouldnt be in the public not to prosecute her. To answer your question, she is t being condemned for bad thoughts, she is being condemned for her actions as a result of them.

I think the crux of this is what is legally right and what is morally right. As I said on page 7 to which you refer, legally she may well be entitled to return. Morally I, and I think most think she shouldn't.

To answer several more of your questions. She would likely be on benefits because it's unlikely she would find any sort of meaningful employment. Unrelated her child would also be a cost because I can't envisage a scenario in which she'd be allowed to keep it, nor her family, due to the risk she poses to herself, others and a child. It also answers the question why she would be a priority. Why would she be involved in more terrorist activity? Well she only wants to return as Isis have been defeated and she's now homeless. It's evident t from her comments and abhorrent views she still supports them and has a hatred for the country. She would be a magnet for other warped individuals. Given her views and that of Isis I suspect they would like all non believers killed as that's their philosophy and modus operandi.

To think she would become de radicalised is just wishful thinking and no evidence she would. It's not a chance I'm willing to take, though legally as has been pointed out she may be 'entitled' to return. It's why new legislation is required to close such loopholes and more draconian measures such as the option of the death penalty to deter those leaving to join terrorist organisations and those wanting to return. As a nation we are a soft touch and too liberal. Given the sickening - and they are sickening-atrocities this organisations carried out we need to start taking a firmer stance to protect the country. I applaud the government in their action in this though ultimately they may need to back down, however if they do they should be pursuing her and others who return with vigour and to the n'th degree.
Click to expand...
Very well put MiW :clap:
 
KDZ, (& MiW), we're probably not going to agree.

As I've said numerous occasions, I do understand the position of those who (for whatever reason) don't want to see he back in the UK. However, neither do I want to see people condemned due to assumptions of crimes that they may or may not have committed .......... as opposed to being a member of a "banned" organisation.

If she returns, then she should be subject to the legal process. Simple. Nothing of what you've said - especially trying to tar her with the actions of the Manchester bomber, regardless of what she might have said - has persuaded me otherwise. You can't generally condemn people - rapists, paedophiles, murderers, terrorists - with a single label, or a collective behaviour. Each of their individual circumstances will have context.

Just a point re "Joining a terrorist organisation" ....................... who defines what a terrorist organisation might be. The point re IRA and UVF are is absolutely still relevant.

Let's just agree to disagree.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.