Join the Unexplained Mysteries community today! It's free and setting up an account only takes a moment.
- Sign In or Create Account -
Sign in to follow this  
Followers 2
and then

How to deal with returning Jihadis

163 posts in this topic

http://news.sky.com/story/1285129/isis-militants-will-be-used-to-target-uk

This seems to be a coming decision that Europe (and the US) are going to have to get serious with - or pay the consequences. If intel is there showing these citizens went to a war zone and joined the conflict should they lose their citizenship and right to return? I'm interested to hear any opinions.

2 people like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted (edited)

That question reminds me of this http://en.wikipedia....hn_Walker_Lindh

To me it is a grey area and a potentially slippery slope. I think a case by case approach to dealing with that is best, let the courts decide each case and not make blanket rules.

Edited by Razer

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Young men have always gone off to fight in distant wars.

And the Walker Lindh example came to mind as well.

You make as many problems as you solve when you don't let people return home.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

here in the UK, when muslims are found coming back into the country from Syria, we take no chances and throw their asses straight into jail.

the only reason young muslims go to Syria is to train and fight. we know that, they know that, so they take their chances, and we take their liberty.

fair trade.

.

4 people like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted (edited)

The west is full of politically correct dimwits afraid of offending people.

I don;t care who wins what but for such big powerful forces, they sure are little ***** cats when it comes to admitting that they;d rather not have known jihadist's and their sympathizers in their countries.

They should have learnt from their mistakes by now.

Edited by Sean93
1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

If we can clearly prove that these people joined the people we are supposedly at war with then hell yes we should not let them back. Honestly if we know for a fact that they did then we should shoot them. Thats what we would of done to them if we found them fighting against us in the war zone

3 people like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

If we can clearly prove that these people joined the people we are supposedly at war with then hell yes we should not let them back. Honestly if we know for a fact that they did then we should shoot them. Thats what we would of done to them if we found them fighting against us in the war zone

So you trust the bureaucrats telling you who you're supposedly enemies with, so let's just kill our own people if they make connections with that enemy? Are you kidding me?

What happens when the govt does the exact same thing? You ready to go kill Obama too?

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

So you trust the bureaucrats telling you who you're supposedly enemies with, so let's just kill our own people if they make connections with that enemy? Are you kidding me?

What happens when the govt does the exact same thing? You ready to go kill Obama too?

If person x uses his passport to enter a war zone and there is a record of it then there should be a reason established for that excursion. If it was something legitimate (not becoming a jihadi) then obviously an exception would be made. Making no attempt to curtail a flow of newly trained jihadis from re-entering the country and allowing them to use their skills against their own people is PC insanity but I fully expect some governments to be guilty of just that kind of thinking. And while I would not mind hearing that Oby had succumbed to a lethal case of hemorrhoids I think you might be careful using the phrase "kill Obama" in any context ;)
2 people like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

We can only anull citizenship if the person in question has dual-nationality.

If they are pure British, then our laws do not permit us to strip them of citizenship, as this would render them stateless.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

We can only anull citizenship if the person in question has dual-nationality.

If they are pure British, then our laws do not permit us to strip them of citizenship, as this would render them stateless.

So if a native Briton decides he wants to return to London and kill as many as he can for Allah then legally all that can be done is for the state to deal with the aftermath?
1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

So you trust the bureaucrats telling you who you're supposedly enemies with, so let's just kill our own people if they make connections with that enemy? Are you kidding me?

What happens when the govt does the exact same thing? You ready to go kill Obama too?

I was picturing it as long as its all done in civilian court in the open.

But you may have a point, im not sure. Im going to have to think about this

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

We can only anull citizenship if the person in question has dual-nationality.

If they are pure British, then our laws do not permit us to strip them of citizenship, as this would render them stateless.

OHMYGOD!!! stateless WHITE people! :cry:

Now there's a cause to be really concerned about!

Sorry, RoofGardener, I couldn't resist lol

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

OHMYGOD!!! stateless WHITE people! :cry:

Now there's a cause to be really concerned about!

Sorry, RoofGardener, I couldn't resist lol

They exist ! We call it "Liverpool" :P

2 people like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

We could always send tham back to the country where they've just been causing havoc... or put them all on a plane and blow it up in mid-air.

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted (edited)

http://news.sky.com/...ed-to-target-uk

This seems to be a coming decision that Europe (and the US) are going to have to get serious with - or pay

the consequences. If intel is there showing these citizens went to a war zone and joined the conflict should

they lose their citizenship and right to return?

I'm interested to hear any opinions.

Here in Germany it is proved by the Federal Prosecutor's office that approx 320 radical Salafists went to Syria to participate in the civil war there and Germany based Salafists groups are still recruiting ppl here to join the war.

Some goups had been banned here already and all groups are under permanent view of the Federal Office for

the Protection of the Constitution as these groups do not accept our constitution and it is their main target to

proselytize the German population into Islam and to establish the Sharia.

Yeah, I´m getting more and more p***ed about this freaks so I would say that all known German Salafists who do

not own the German citizenship (a granted German citizenship cannot be cancelled as per constitution) and

travelled to Syria should not be allowed to enter our country again, just keep them out forever. And the non Syria travellers as well as this community is a dangerous threat to our society and democracy. The freedom of belief is

fixed in our constitution but if a belief is used to try to bring down our democracy, appeasement is to be out of place.

Edited by toast

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I think a lot of people are forgetting one, monstrous and damning thing that will happily keep this Jihadists in their tax payer funded, European homes, and that is the

ridiculous European Court of Human Rights.

In GB, we have an African warlord, who committed acts of murder, rape and pillage, tried and convicted in the Hague for crimes against humanity, who is using the same Human Rights act to take the British government to court over the right to a family life.

And I would not bet a quid that he wins.

4 people like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Young men have always gone off to fight in distant wars.

And the Walker Lindh example came to mind as well.

You make as many problems as you solve when you don't let people return home.

As devil's advocate here - what problems? I mean, if they are allowed to return in large numbers how does a government then do anything other than react when a few decide to commit an atrocity like the London bombings? Surely ALL of them will not return and try to kill their fellow citizens but 19 guys with boxcutters helped wreck the American economy and begin a decade long war. If clear laws are set in place that any citizen who enters a war zone (and is KNOWN) to have taken part in hostilities, cannot return to the US or GB, France, etc... then what could the families of these adventurous tikes do other than be angry? After all, it isn't they who have become radicalized - and more importantly - possibly trained in the use of explosives and tactics. No, I feel a strong stand needs being taken in this otherwise we are welcoming back an insurgent force that WILL attack us at home some day.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted (edited)

You cannot convict someone of crimes they might commit.

End of story.

Edited by Leonardo
2 people like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

You cannot convict someone of crimes they might commit.

End of story.

Of course you are correct - but it isn't exactly the end of the story is it? Laws change over time as threats emerge or new paradigms take root. Laws are for civilized people who are willing to be part of a common social contract, no? And when a group or an ideology spreads that literally can destroy a society then does the obligation to protect the individual supercede the right of a society to exist? I think it isn't so cut and dried.
1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Of course you are correct - but it isn't exactly the end of the story is it? Laws change over time as threats emerge or new paradigms take root. Laws are for civilized people who are willing to be part of a common social contract, no? And when a group or an ideology spreads that literally can destroy a society then does the obligation to protect the individual supercede the right of a society to exist? I think it isn't so cut and dried.

In a society where individual rights are protected, then ceasing to protect them will destroy that society anyway.

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted (edited)

In a society where individual rights are protected, then ceasing to protect them will destroy that society anyway.

Not exactly accurate. If the effort is permanent then you are correct - but taking drastic steps to alleviate a deadly hazard can work. Churchill and Roosevelt practically made our countries into police states during WWII and it helped stop infiltrators and end the war sooner. Once the threat was gone the freedoms returned. It's a delicate balance to be sure, but to simply ignore the dangers of this political/religious behemoth that is Islam is nothing less than a surrender. I will not live dhimmi to a 7th century despot nor will my child or grand children IF I have a say.

edit to add a timely link:

http://www.bbc.com/news/uk-27947343

Edited by and then

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted (edited)

Not exactly accurate. If the effort is permanent then you are correct - but taking drastic steps to alleviate a deadly hazard can work. Churchill and Roosevelt practically made our countries into police states during WWII and it helped stop infiltrators and end the war sooner. Once the threat was gone the freedoms returned. It's a delicate balance to be sure, but to simply ignore the dangers of this political/religious behemoth that is Islam is nothing less than a surrender. I will not live dhimmi to a 7th century despot nor will my child or grand children IF I have a say.

Very different situation with a conflict which had a realistic expectation of limited duration. Unless you are suggesting the 'West' goes to war with Islam, with a dedication to a "one of us wins, the other surrenders" outcome, then we cannot use such examples as indicators of what action should be taken in the situation we find ourselves in.

Edited by Leonardo

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Very different situation with a conflict which had a realistic expectation of limited duration. Unless you are suggesting the 'West' goes to war with Islam, with a dedication to a "one of us wins, the other surrenders" outcome, then we cannot use such examples as indicators of what action should be taken in the situation we find ourselves in.

Leo do you actually think we AREN'T at war with Islam? These guys say regularly what their motivations for fighting are. We are doomed to lose our way of life if we cannot even name the enemy.
1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

You cannot convict someone of crimes they might commit.

End of story.

My understanding of this thread was that we have intelligence that said citizen went to a country and helped terrorist. If that's true then dosent that mean they already committed a crime?

2 people like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted (edited)

Leo do you actually think we AREN'T at war with Islam? These guys say regularly what their motivations for fighting are. We are doomed to lose our way of life if we cannot even name the enemy.

No, we are not "at war with Islam". Islam is more than the extremist elements who use the religion to promote themselves using violence, just as Christianity, Hinduism, Judaism, or any other religion is more than it's own extremist elements (such as some Millenialists) who similarly use or promote violence to further their agenda.

The number of Muslims who are vocal about wanting to take away your "western lifestyle" are far outnumbered by those who are quite happy for you to maintain your own belief, culture and society while they enjoy theirs.

spartan,

My understanding of this thread was that we have intelligence that said citizen went to a country and helped terrorist. If that's true then dosent that mean they already committed a crime?

In the case of those who join organisations the UK recognises as terrorist groups, then the use of UK law to prevent those people from re-entering the country, or detaining them if they do enter, is applicable. However, that is not the only situation the OP was considering, and my reply was directed at this group of 'others' who would go to fight for what they believe, but not join any such organisation.

Edited by Leonardo

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!


Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.


Sign In Now
Sign in to follow this  
Followers 2

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.