Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

A

A

A

A

A

A

A

A

[Owlbread]

Yeah, there is a very big difference between fighting and killing an armed enemy in wartime, and machine gunning captives laying down in a ditch or beheading people.

Not all soldiers understand that. To be fair in most wars there's a very fine line. But that's why I said "what they did over there is most important and that's what I think the trials should focus on".

[TD1]

I don't know how many have burned their passports. But enough do it to, as I said, show their sentiment.

Hating the West may not be a crime. Letting someone who has been trained to be a terrorist, and whom you know has been, back into the country simply because he has British nationality (on paper, anyway) is the height of stupidity.

Also, how exactly do you wish to see which of the hooded and masked murderers did exactly what?

[Owlbread]

Hating the West may not be a crime. Letting someone who has been trained to be a terrorist, and whom you know has been, back into the country

Knowledge is not a big problem in my eyes (thought crimes are a bugbear for me), the issue is purely whether they have committed war crimes during their time in Syria/Iraq and elsewhere. I don't think it should be any government's right to stop people from fighting for what they believe in.

simply because he has British nationality (on paper, anyway)

If someone has legal British nationality they're British, regardless of their ethnicity, where they were born or what their skin colour is or what religion they belong to. Are you going to dispute that?

Also, how exactly do you wish to see which of the hooded and masked murderers did exactly what?

That's an issue for the secret services and criminal investigators. If they can't work it out then they have no evidence.

[scrdest]

I seem to recall - nothing concrete, just a vague recollection, mind you - that leaving to fight was in itself a crime because... reasons.

[Loud Whispers]

Actually, Obama would do this to appeal to the usual "the US has to be strong/show leadership/nuke them commies" demographic.
Oh who am I kidding, those guys aren't happy either way.

Not likely. The usual warhawkish right wingers have looked inwards to American soil as they have, like the American left lost the taste for war (in the majority at least). One only has to see how hard US military intervention in Syria was shut down unilaterally and how one half complains about US Imperialism whilst the other half claims about US authoritarianism for just about the same reasons. Thanks Obama.

There's been talk of a trial much like one held for murder, I believe. Also, if a ban were to go ahead (I think Cameron would be too weak-spined to carry it through, but we shall see.) it would supposedly be temporary.
I think it's safe to say a brave number of them are involved in less than savoury practices whilst over there. Something needs to be done, and I don't think the answer is "let them back on the streets after they've been trained to kill."

Life in prison or permanent exile from Britain. Personally I'd prefer life in prison as it would allow the option for their distraught families to still visit them and also for the govna' to know where these militants all are, safe in a max sec. cell.

We let soldiers back on the streets after they've been trained to kill, I don't see the problem. Indeed many of them have killed. Some of them have killed many, many people. The main issue for me is what they did over there and that's what I think the trials should focus on.

British soldiers aren't trained to kill British civilians after retirement Owlbread, this is one of the most bizarre lines of reasoning I've seen in favour of allowing Jihadis back onto British streets.

[Sergarr]

Anyone knows how much supply (in trucks) a typical tank battalion consumes over a day of intense fighting? I'm trying to calculate the amount of trucks which must go through the border every day to supply the Russian offensive...

[Owlbread]

British soldiers aren't trained to kill British civilians after retirement Owlbread, this is one of the most bizarre lines of reasoning I've seen in favour of allowing Jihadis back onto British streets.

As I said, holding knowledge in my opinion should not be a crime. The focus of the trials should be on what exactly they did in Iraq and Syria. If there is reason to believe that they are a threat to British citizens they should be kept under close observation by the authorities.

[TD1]

Okay. Intent to kill isn't a crime. Professing an intent to kill isn't a crime.

I'm not going to go any further in this conversation.

[Owlbread]

Okay. Intent to kill isn't a crime. Professing an intent to kill isn't a crime.

This is a tough one - is there a difference between holding knowledge, and intending to use that knowledge?

[Ukrainian Ranger]

Owlbread, that kind of liberal-pacifism-tolerance is outstanding even by Bay12 standards...

They are very dangerous for safety of British people. That what  matters

[Loud Whispers]

Okay. Intent to kill isn't a crime. Professing an intent to kill isn't a crime.

I'm not going to go any further in this conversation.

After already illegally fighting and committing war crimes in addition to being trained and ideologically indoctrinated to destroy all enemies of their particular brand of extremism we should not be giving them any opportunities to bring the war to Britain. It's prison or barring.

Okay. Intent to kill isn't a crime. Professing an intent to kill isn't a crime.

This is a tough one - is there a difference between holding knowledge, and intending to use that knowledge?

If you've thrown away all of your previous life attachments in Britain to fight for ISIS you have already declared your intent well and thoroughly so. It honestly defies belief that anyone on this bloody planet can support this level of tolerance for a clear batshit militant ideological threat to Western society.

[Owlbread]

Owlbread, that kind of liberal-pacifism-tolerance is outstanding even by Bay12 standards...

They are very dangerous for safety of British people. That what  matters

Actually I think the liberty of the British people is most important, and my fear is that these laws will set dangerous precedents on thought crimes and preventing people from doing what they think is right. If they commit an atrocity in the process then obviously they should be imprisoned for it.

After already illegally fighting and committing war crimes

Now, this bit's a bit wooly. How certain are we that it is "illegal" to fight in Syria and Iraq? Do we have specific laws in the UK or under the Geneva Convention or something that define this? Furthermore - you need evidence to prove that someone has committed a war crime. Being in ISIS is not necessarily a war crime in itself.

in addition to being trained and ideologically indoctrinated to destroy all enemies of their particular brand of extremism we should not be giving them any opportunities to bring the war to Britain. It's prison or barring.

Having knowledge and a viewpoint is, once again, not a crime.

If you've thrown away all of your previous life attachments in Britain to fight for ISIS you have already declared your intent well and thoroughly so.

There is a difference between fighting for ISIS and having an intent to commit a terrorist attack in Britain. Let's not get carried away here.

It honestly defies belief that anyone on this bloody planet can support this level of tolerance for a clear batshit militant ideological threat to Western society.

If any government starts deciding what ideologies are to be proscribed and what ideologies promoted then I think we are in serious trouble - more so than from ISIS.

[TD1]

I wonder how many lives you are willing to sacrifice to not set a precedent?

Hundreds of trained murderers unleashed in the country, but at least there is no bad precedent, right?

Also, I'd be happy to set a precedent which sees nationals that get trained and indoctrinated kept out of the country.

[Loud Whispers]

Actually I think the liberty of the British people is most important, and my fear is that these laws will set dangerous precedents on thought crimes and preventing people from doing what they think is right. If they commit an atrocity in the process then obviously they should be imprisoned for it.

Preventing people who fight for terrorists abroad from returning home is not a dangerous precedent on punishing people for thought crimes.

Now, this bit's a bit wooly. How certain are we that it is "illegal" to fight in Syria and Iraq? Do we have specific laws in the UK or under the Geneva Convention or something that define this? Furthermore - you need evidence to prove that someone has committed a war crime. Being in ISIS is not necessarily a war crime in itself.

Yes we do, they are unlawful combatants. Being in ISIS is warrant enough to keep you well the way away from Britain as you would be a member of an extremist army of genocidal maniacs.

in addition to being trained and ideologically indoctrinated to destroy all enemies of their particular brand of extremism we should not be giving them any opportunities to bring the war to Britain. It's prison or barring.

Having knowledge and a viewpoint is, once again, not a crime.

People from Britain who have killed for their Jihad, are ready to return to Britain with their views intact, have openly professed to the joy in which they preach through twitter of all things of what they wish to teach their friends in Britain whilst killing Britons - there is no reason why Britain should allow these people back to any portion of Britain that is not a prison cell.

There is a difference between fighting for ISIS and having an intent to commit a terrorist attack in Britain. Let's not get carried away here.

Good gods man are you even reading your posts?

If any government starts deciding what ideologies are to be proscribed and what ideologies promoted then I think we are in serious trouble - more so than from ISIS.

Owlbread I think you are the only person here who does not fully agree that ISIS is trouble.

[Owlbread]

Spoiler: In response to the above posts (click to show/hide)

I wonder how many lives you are willing to sacrifice to not set a precedent?

This is a difficult question that could be asked of all advocates of a civil liberty that could result in danger, whether it's gun ownership or owning cars or drug legalisation etc. The truth is I don't actually know. I think that question will be more pertinent when the former Jihadists are under criminal investigation for planning to kill British people. Nobody has actually been killed by these people in Britain yet. I would like to keep it that way and so would the security services; hence why they should keep the returning Jihadists under very close observation.

Hundreds of trained murderers unleashed in the country, but at least there is no bad precedent, right?

There's hundreds of murderers in the country already, actively murdering people. The Jihadists haven't killed anyone here yet. I think we need to wait a few years to cut through the sensationalist nonsense and understand just how big the problem is.

Also, I'd be happy to set a precedent which sees nationals that get trained and indoctrinated kept out of the country.

This is where we differ, there's no way around that.

Preventing people who fight for terrorists abroad from returning home is not a dangerous precedent on punishing people for thought crimes.

Actually, I think it is, because then this brings up the issue of who exactly is a terrorist and who isn't and what ideologies can be proscribed and what ideologies should be promoted and all the rest of it.

Yes we do, they are unlawful combatants. Being in ISIS is warrant enough to keep you well the way away from Britain as you would be a member of an extremist army of genocidal maniacs.

The unlawful combatants bit is an interesting point, because technically Russian citizens fighting with the rebels in East Ukraine are unlawful combatants. It all lies on a big spectrum - on one end you've got fighters who are not committing war crimes regularly and are only volunteering for what they believe in (e.g. Communist volunteers in the Spanish Civil War) and on the other end you've got ISIS.

People from Britain who have killed for their Jihad, are ready to return to Britain with their views intact, have openly professed to the joy in which they preach through twitter of all things of what they wish to teach their friends in Britain whilst killing Britons - there is no reason why Britain should allow these people back to any portion of Britain that is not a prison cell.

I think if a court can determine that they do intend on killing British people based on the things they have said (such as through social media and what have you) then they should be put in prison. I don't think I've disputed that.

Owlbread I think you are the only person here who does not fully agree that ISIS is trouble.

No, I think they are trouble for the world and they're an organisation that should not exist. I loathe ISIS and everything they stand for. That doesn't mean that I think we should sacrifice the liberties of British citizens to combat them.