House wife's father now blames the UK

[sodthisforfun]

Actually I'm becoming increasingly convinced that sodthis doesn't realise anything.

Read this:
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-47512659
Read this:
https://www.gov.uk/foreign-travel-advice/syria
Read facts. You've not given me any facts at all, it's all just emotional. Think risk assessment. Think practicality. Think Syria - war torn and simple things are no longer simple.

It's you who seems to be clueless on actually how hard these things would be - and all in a 2 week time frame. Why should someone from the UK risk themselves to help a woman who left, willingly, to support one of the worst terrorist groups in living memory? Someone who would happily be a member still if it hadn't gone tits up? Why is her life more important than anyone else's life?

Funnily enough, neither you or Himmy address those facts.

 

[sodthisforfun]

Best leave her to her own fate then, and all the other people whose stupidity got themselves into dire situations.

Although it might be cheaper, in terms of money and lives, in the long term, to rethink that strategy.
The kind of thinking that governments should do instead of popular decisions, because that's what gets them re-elected.

And again, you've missed the point. Risk assessment. RISK ASSESSMENT!!! Why is her life more important than those of others?

She put herself in that situation. And now you are bemoaning the fact that the UK didn't send decent, honest people, people who did not run away to support a terrorist group to rescue her & her baby quick enough in a war torn country and all the difficulties that entails..
Life is hard enough, let's not make it harder for ourselves hey? And have some responsibility for our actions.

 

[jasonzyx]

What I stated is fact. One cannot own facts, so I cant be responsible for them.

And if they turn out not to be facts?

I suspect that notch was fully aware that what he said, at the time, was pure invention.

 

[jasonzyx]

Why should someone from the UK risk themselves to help a woman who left, willingly, to support one of the worst terrorist groups in living memory?

Because in the long run, it's cheaper, in terms of money and lives, it's more civilised than just leaving someone to their own fate brought about by their own stupidity. It's more responsible.
There is no evidence that anyone would be risking their lives, just Hunt's opinion.

Someone who would happily be a member still if it hadn't gone tits up? Why is her life more important than anyone else's life?

It isn't, but the possibility of leaving her there to be further radicalised, potentially creating more terrorists in the future is a ludicrous policy.
Or at liberty to roam wherever she wishes, radicalising others is also a ludicrous policy.
Bring her back, put her on trial, and punish her if possible. If not place her under close scrutiny.
That is the responsible, civilised, intelligent way to deal with her.

 

[Brigadier]

I did a search for a member named "BAS" as well, and nothing turned up either.

 

[sodthisforfun]

Because in the long run, it's cheaper, in terms of money and lives, it's more civilised than just leaving someone to their own fate brought about by their own stupidity. It's more responsible.
There is no evidence that anyone would be risking their lives, just Hunt's opinion.


It isn't, but the possibility of leaving her there to be further radicalised, potentially creating more terrorists in the future is a ludicrous policy.
Or at liberty to roam wherever she wishes, radicalising others is also a ludicrous policy.
Bring her back, put her on trial, and punish her if possible. If not place her under close scrutiny.
That is the responsible, civilised, intelligent way to deal with her.

LOL! No evidence?!!! I've given you the link to the home office advice for travel to Syria. If there was no evidence of risk to life there, why is the consulate closed and all the staff out of the country? Why do they clearly state there is a very real risk to life and do not travel??
Cloud cuckoo land again if you don't understand that, or can't grasp what 'war' means.

You don't know that she wouldn't do her punishment here and then not continue with the radicalisation. Close scrutiny of every single person who comes back costs money and it's not fail safe - we know people on watch lists have then gone on to kill. People can't read minds, we don't have a crystal ball and people slip through the net. Should the UK take that risk?

I also think being civil went out the window the moment she left to join a terrorist group.

 

[Notch7]

I suspect that notch was fully aware that what he said, at the time, was pure invention.

wrong.

 

[jasonzyx]

You don't know that she wouldn't do her punishment here and then not continue with the radicalisation. Close scrutiny of every single person who comes back costs money and it's not fail safe

I wasn't thinking of her, or even just her, I was thinking of the children 'inheriting' the bigotry and becoming potential terrorists in the future.
I would refer you back to my presentation of the larger picture.
It is not a sensible policy to not apprehend criminals when the opportunity presents itself. It is a ludicrous policy to allow those people free to propagate their bigotry. Furthermore, to leave these children in refugee camps exposes them to further radicalisation, reinforced by their own perception of the treatment of their own government, e.g. not attempting to provide proper support to an innocent child.
Prevention is nearly always cheaper, better and more civilised than correction or compensation.
The current government policy potentially encourages the growth of future terrorists. But in the pursuit of popular support it abdicates its responsibility.

 

[jasonzyx]

I suspect that notch was fully aware that what he said, at the time, was pure invention.

wrong.

As was his comment about the baby being rushed to hospital and placed on a drip. I can't be bother to test the veracity of the "under armed guard" comment.

He just invents anything that he imagines might support his unsupportable argument.
Potentially three, undeniably two, such inventions in this thread alone.

 

[sodthisforfun]

I wasn't thinking of her, or even just her, I was thinking of the children 'inheriting' the bigotry and becoming potential terrorists in the future.
I would refer you back to my presentation of the larger picture.
It is not a sensible policy to not apprehend criminals when the opportunity presents itself. It is a ludicrous policy to allow those people free to propagate their bigotry. Furthermore, to leave these children in refugee camps exposes them to further radicalisation, reinforced by their own perception of the treatment of their own government, e.g. not attempting to provide proper support to an innocent child.
Prevention is nearly always cheaper, better and more civilised than correction or compensation.
The current government policy potentially encourages the growth of future terrorists. But in the pursuit of popular support it abdicates its responsibility.

Neither was I. According to some reports, as many as 900 people went from the UK to join ISIS. I wonder how much it would cost to a, lock em up for a while, b, support them when they leave prison, and c, watch them closely for many years, possibly their lifetime. So is it cheaper? Seems like a high cost either way to me and that's not including the cost to get them out of Syria.

And as I said before, there is no crystal ball as to what they may do later in life, if they will attempt to radicalise or not, who they will attempt to radicalise. But I think it's fair in presuming their own children would be at the top of the list, no matter what country they live in. They've already been brought up with a very warped view of Westerners.
So what's the answer? Take all the children away? That's not going to work is it, on many levels. While I appreciate your thinking, and it's certainly a kinder way of thinking for the children getting them out of a hell-hole, there literally are no guarantees that either choice is for the best.

We have to leave it to the experts to decide, and they have to take into the account of the safety of the rest of the British public. It's also called risk assessment.

 

[Notch7]

As was his comment about the baby being rushed to hospital and placed on a drip. I can't be bother to test the veracity of the "under armed guard" comment.

He just invents anything that he imagines might support his unsupportable argument.
Potentially three, undeniably two, such inventions in this thread alone.

none of it invented all true old bean.

you cant just say what other people post as 'invented' simply because it suits your argument.

 

[Notch7]

It is not a sensible policy to not apprehend criminals when the opportunity presents itself. It is a ludicrous policy to allow those people free to propagate their bigotry.

oh dear you are divorced from reality.

what crime would you charge Shamima Begam with? Or would you want a huge team of policemen to go to Syria to try and find some evidence in a war zone?

and if she is locked up -she can propagate her bigotry anyway.

Oh and if she was returned and locked up for many years -she would become martyr and encourage more people to be radicalised.

 

[motorbiking]

some of the following:
The Terrorism Act 2000 creates a number of offences including:
• being a member of a proscribed organisation -
• arranging a meeting to encourage support for a proscribed organisation or that’s addressed by a person who belongs to one
• raising funds for or donating money to a proscribed organisation
• receiving or providing money or property where it’s intended, or there’s reasonable cause to suspect that it may be used for the purposes of terrorism
• facilitating the laundering of terrorist money
• failing to report suspicions of terrorist finance offences to the police
The Terrorism Act 2006 includes other offences concerned with:
• preparation of terrorist acts
• providing training for terrorism or receiving the training
• attending any place, whether in the UK or elsewhere, where terrorism training is being conducted
• encouraging terrorism, including publishing statements that encourage and glorify terrorist acts

I'm not aware of any similar laws against mountain climbing.

 

[jasonzyx]

some of the following:
The Terrorism Act 2000 creates a number of offences including:
• being a member of a proscribed organisation -
• arranging a meeting to encourage support for a proscribed organisation or that’s addressed by a person who belongs to one
• raising funds for or donating money to a proscribed organisation
• receiving or providing money or property where it’s intended, or there’s reasonable cause to suspect that it may be used for the purposes of terrorism
• facilitating the laundering of terrorist money
• failing to report suspicions of terrorist finance offences to the police
The Terrorism Act 2006 includes other offences concerned with:
• preparation of terrorist acts
• providing training for terrorism or receiving the training
• attending any place, whether in the UK or elsewhere, where terrorism training is being conducted
• encouraging terrorism, including publishing statements that encourage and glorify terrorist acts

Using a false passport.

 

[JohnD]

Using a false passport.

like Yaxley-Lennon did.