Jump to content
Join the Unexplained Mysteries community today! It's free and setting up an account only takes a moment.
- Sign In or Create Account -
spud the mackem

Jihadists applying to re-enter the U.K

88 posts in this topic

Recommended Posts

hetrodoxly
9 minutes ago, Captain Risky said:

Jack Letts is a UK national but his father is Canadian. so yeah he's entitled to Canadian citizenship. Canada has said no way and who can blame them. Bangladesh also said the same but was ignored by the home office. so what are the chances of the UK home office ignoring Canada if the home office decides to revoke Jack Letts citizenship? it won't happen is my guess. so why is Shamina being singled out? 

Jack Letts should be put down like a mad dog, yes his citizenship should be removed we need to get it done before Canada removes it, why did you bring their colour into it as no one else had mentioned it.

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Setton
1 hour ago, Captain Risky said:

err if I'm not mistaken, i think the home office revoked Shamina's citizenship 

Yes, and as we've been through (extensively), she is entitled to Bangladeshi citizenship. Therefore she is not stateless. 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
susieice
7 hours ago, Grey Area said:

Where are you getting this race element from?

We are talking about Shamima Begum here who happens to have brown skin.  If you can find an identical case where a white Jihadist has publicly declared they wish to return to the U.K. And been allowed to return then your question would be valid.

From what I can see you are making up a controversial element, why I am not so sure.

Because anymore it's a generic response to most things.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Setton
5 hours ago, hetrodoxly said:

Jack Letts should be put down like a mad dog, yes his citizenship should be removed we need to get it done before Canada removes it, why did you bring their colour into it as no one else had mentioned it.

I think it is a bit more complicated but obviously nothing to do with skin colour. Canada is one of our closest intelligence partners. We'd have to weigh up the pros of keeping Letts out with the cons of leaving a partner to deal with it. 

Bangladesh, less of a significant intelligence partner... 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Captain Risky
8 hours ago, hetrodoxly said:

Jack Letts should be put down like a mad dog, yes his citizenship should be removed we need to get it done before Canada removes it, why did you bring their colour into it as no one else had mentioned it.

i haven't done anything. the actions of all the protagonists have done that. there is a blatant divide between the actions of a jihadi bride and Jihadi fighters. and since its impossible to draw any other conclusion, colour seems to be the defining feature of the Shamina case not security. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Captain Risky
7 hours ago, Setton said:

Yes, and as we've been through (extensively), she is entitled to Bangladeshi citizenship. Therefore she is not stateless. 

Bangladesh have said no. so that would make her stateless. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
itsnotoutthere
12 hours ago, Captain Risky said:

so if it was a white girl who did what Shamina Begum did and who's parents were born in the UK you'd be okay with taking away her citizenship? 

Yes.

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Captain Risky
4 minutes ago, itsnotoutthere said:

Yes.

me too. pity that the politicians haven't been as fair.

Only one in 10 jihadis returning from Syria to the UK have been prosecuted, it can be revealed.

But more than 400 people “of national security concern” are believed to have returned from conflicts in Syria and Iraq.

https://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/home-news/shamima-begum-isis-return-uk-syria-jihadis-terror-threat-prosecute-nationality-a8790991.html

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
itsnotoutthere
Just now, Captain Risky said:

me too. pity that the politicians haven't been as fair.

Only one in 10 jihadis returning from Syria to the UK have been prosecuted, it can be revealed.

But more than 400 people “of national security concern” are believed to have returned from conflicts in Syria and Iraq.

https://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/home-news/shamima-begum-isis-return-uk-syria-jihadis-terror-threat-prosecute-nationality-a8790991.html

Indeed, but you only have to watch the governments brexit negotiations to see they haven't got any backbone.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
itsnotoutthere
12 hours ago, Captain Risky said:

no thats wrong. so a white jihadist is somehow more redeemable that a dark skin one. one that can be rehabilitated better? that's what your saying. 

Ah, the race card.......should have seen that coming.

  • Like 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Captain Risky

home secretary Sajid Javid said all Isis fighters who re-entered the UK had been investigated and “the majority have been assessed to pose no or a low security risk”.

None of the four fatal terror attacks launched in London and Manchester in 2017 were carried out by returnees from Iraq and Syria, although Manchester bomber Salman Abedi had fought in Libya.

https://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/home-news/shamima-begum-isis-return-uk-syria-jihadis-terror-threat-prosecute-nationality-a8790991.html

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Captain Risky
Just now, itsnotoutthere said:

Ah, the race card.......should have seen that coming.

take it up with Shamina. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
itsnotoutthere

I wouldn't take up anything with her, no need....just move on.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
bmk1245

No, don't let them in. "You make the bed you lie in", let them rot in the $#!+hole they dug out for themselves.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Setton
51 minutes ago, Captain Risky said:

Bangladesh have said no. so that would make her stateless. 

By Bangladeshi action. Not British. You should be directed your self righteousness that way, not here. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Captain Risky
1 minute ago, Setton said:

By Bangladeshi action. Not British. You should be directed your self righteousness that way, not here. 

so the British home office knows better than the Bangladeshi government? mate she has never been a Bangladesh national. no Bangladeshi passport. no record of her at all other than her mother is from there. anyway, i think we're going around in circles here. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Captain Risky
24 minutes ago, bmk1245 said:

No, don't let them in. "You make the bed you lie in", let them rot in the $#!+hole they dug out for themselves.

shut the door to them all. 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
itsnotoutthere
39 minutes ago, Captain Risky said:

shut the door to them all. 

Um.....what's so outrageous about that ???

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
susieice

Supposedly ISIS has been backed into a final stronghold. They are still loyal to the cause. What has Syria said about these detainees? I can't find anything. The US is also going to leave a small contingency of troops in Syria. The timeline for withdrawl of the rest hasn't been established as far as I can see.

https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/world/2019/02/23/isis-caliphate-holdouts-syria-stay-despite-being-told-leave/2960973002/

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Captain Risky
25 minutes ago, itsnotoutthere said:

Um.....what's so outrageous about that ???

nothing at all. is the UK government doing so? no they have selectively chosen the least likely threat to ban while letting back in the head choppers. around 400 of them.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Setton
1 hour ago, Captain Risky said:

so the British home office knows better than the Bangladeshi government? mate she has never been a Bangladesh national. no Bangladeshi passport. no record of her at all other than her mother is from there. anyway, i think we're going around in circles here. 

That would be because you're not listening.

It doesn't matter whether she has had a Bangladeshi passport. A passport is not a requirement for citizenship.

She has always been a Bangladeshi national as their law states any child of a Bangladeshi citizen (her mother) is also a Bangladeshi citizen, regardless of birthplace. This only lapses if the individual makes no effort to claim it by the age of 21. Begum is 19 and therefore still a Bangladeshi citizen by Bangladeshi law. 

The government of Bangladesh knows that as well as anyone. But they don't want to deal with her or confront their poorly thought out laws. So instead they're just parroting her ignorant defences in the hope public sympathy goes her way and the home office backs down. 

Clearly they don't know the British. We don't take well to traitors and the home office is fulfilling its duty of protecting British citizens admirably. And you won't often see me praising this government. 

  • Like 1
  • Haha 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
bmk1245
1 hour ago, Captain Risky said:

shut the door to them all. 

Well, there is more expensive way - let them in and lock them for the life (single cell, pork lunch, bringing snooze with breakfast on sundays, just for fun).

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Captain Risky
1 minute ago, bmk1245 said:

Well, there is more expensive way - let them in and lock them for the life (single cell, pork lunch, bringing snooze with breakfast on sundays, just for fun).

both are good options but the government needs to be consistent. either one or the other. But whats crazy is letting in the head choppers BUT keeping the brides out. i would have thought it would have been the other way around. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
bmk1245
4 minutes ago, Captain Risky said:

both are good options but the government needs to be consistent. either one or the other. But whats crazy is letting in the head choppers BUT keeping the brides out. i would have thought it would have been the other way around. 

I feel you. Tough decision for government, but opinion of mine is - don't let them in. Period. These pests have to be eradicated

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Black Red Devil

I'd say to them where they are to rot but if it can't be done then the best way to resolve this is by sticking to the rules.  If they can't be stateless by I'nal Law and you can't revoke their citizenship bring them back and throw them in jail under the terrorist act.  In Australia the maximum penalty is life imprisonment.  So throw away the keys for the head choppers and reduce the sentence to the brides.  The kids would have to be fostered.

  • Like 1

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

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.