... the three London adolescents who have run away to Syria to join Isis/Isil? They look and obviously are pretty rough, but I can't help wondering if they really know what they're letting themselves in for: gang rape, physical abuse and domestic drudgery all the way to an early grave, if anyone bothers to dig one.
No doubt they've heard a lot of guff about how true Islam respects women and their rights. True Islam does (in its fashion) but the kind they're rushing off to join and reinforce really, really doesn't. Ask any proper Muslim.
|
|
The sad thing is that when disillusionment sets in, which I fear won't take long, they will find it a lot harder to get out of Syria than they found it to get in. They are going to pay a high price for being an idealistic teenager.
|
I have no sympathy with them. They are being described as children the media despite being fifteen and sixteen years old. I was in full time work when I was fifteen and I was not a child, I was a young adult who was fully expected to know the difference between right and wrong. Any one of that age who commits rape or murder would face the full force of the law and could expect a lengthy jail sentence. These girls are knowingly going to join an organisation who routinely use torture, rape and murder against people whose only crime is to not share their insane beliefs, and as such they are no better than Jamie Bulger's killers - and they are a lot older than those two were at the time.
They deserve everything they get.
|
Photo in today's comic of a glowering, bearded Boko Haram savage wearing a demure traditional dress, really a printed cloth wrapped round the torso.
Those bushy-bearded twits in drag may be the real militant girls. Damn backwoods rubbish...
|
I think the problem most people have is what possibly could be the attraction of joining a group like ISIS. we dismiss them as a group of psychopaths and religious fanatics but whist this is undoubtedly true we have to accept that they do have an appeal to some and we have to understand what that appeal is.
Like all cults they promise the idea of certainty and simplicity of purpose, a sort of black-and-white view of itself as ultimate good fighting ultimate evil, with the same promise of finding true meaning in life by following the only people who really understand the will of God.
For many its a beguiling dream even if the reality is starkly different.
Last edited by: CGNorwich on Wed 25 Feb 15 at 19:41
|
Our understanding does them no good. They don't think we understand and they despise us for trying: they know we can never understand, because we don't have their advantages, their intrinsic superiority.
>> For many its a beguiling dream
Yes, poor things, intellectually deprived and socially abused from birth. Imagine what their home life must be like to make a desperate leap into the howling void seem attractive.
Last edited by: Armel Coussine on Wed 25 Feb 15 at 20:12
|
>> www.telegraph.co.uk/news/religion/11434695/Over-a-quarter-of-British-Muslims-have-sympathy-for-the-Charlie-Hebdo-terrorists.-That-is-far-too-many.html
>>
Probably a lot lower than the percentage of Irish people in this country who had some sympathy for the IRA. There are varying degrees of sympathy, from those who vaguely agree with the general aims of whatever the organisation in question is trying to achieve while despising their methods, to the full on fanatics who support every terrorist act.
What is unknown so far is how steep the taper is from the one extreme to the other.
|
>> www.telegraph.co.uk/news/religion/11434695/Over-a-quarter-of-British-Muslims-have-sympathy-for-the-Charlie-Hebdo-terrorists.-That-is-far-too-many.html
Clearly no Muslim organisations advertising in the Telegraph this week. What a crappily biased summary of the poll findings
Last edited by: Zero on Wed 25 Feb 15 at 20:23
|
Muslims are like other people: afraid of their neighbours. Try to fit in, don't make waves, don't upset people.
Just cowardice basically. Pathetic eh? But all too familiar.
|
>> >> www.telegraph.co.uk/news/religion/11434695/Over-a-quarter-of-British-Muslims-have-sympathy-for-the-Charlie-Hebdo-terrorists.-That-is-far-too-many.html
>>
>> Clearly no Muslim organisations advertising in the Telegraph this week. What a crappily biased summary
>> of the poll findings
Yet, it's by the darling of the left and UKIP scourge Dan Hodges!
|
AIUI it was a quarter who understood or have some sympathy with their motivation.
I understand and have some (actually considerable) sympathy with the motivation of Irish Nationalism in the six counties. Does that make me a supporter of IRA murders?
EDIT As might be anticipated RR makes substantially same point.
Last edited by: Bromptonaut on Wed 25 Feb 15 at 20:25
|
|
I think it inappropriate to deliberately insult a devout persons god. Suppose that makes me a black flag and white toyota hilux driver.
|
The MCB needs to publish more of this sort of thing more widely, but condemning the likes of Boko Haram, ISIL, Al-Quaeda, the Taliban, 9/11, the London bombings and the rest. Otherwise non-Muslims are bound to wonder if there is not silent consent for these activities:
www.mcb.org.uk/chapel-hill-copenhagen-muslim-council-britain-decries-week-hatred-bloodshed/
As regards the three girls, it is vital to discover what "underground railway" (to borrow the term used over smuggling slaves out of American southern states) exists to facilitate these journeys. It sounds as if there is a well-organised and comprehensive travel agency involved.
|
>> The MCB needs to publish more of this sort of thing more widely,
>> www.mcb.org.uk/chapel-hill-copenhagen-muslim-council-britain-decries-week-hatred-bloodshed/
The MCB needs a generalist statement setting out the true aims of Islam and condemning murder in its name placed on its homepage where even the thickest can find it quickly. It shouldn't need to apologise at every verse end nor should it be suckered into commenting on each and every outrage.
Non Muslims who constantly imagine silent consent for these activities need treatment themselves.
>> As regards the three girls, it is vital to discover what "underground railway" (to borrow
>> the term used over smuggling slaves out of American southern states) exists to facilitate these
>> journeys. It sounds as if there is a well-organised and comprehensive travel agency involved.
Flying to Turkey isn't exactly difficult is it? Even a smallish regional airport like Leeds Bradford has services to Antalya, Bodrum and Dalaman. The bigger airports add year round services to Istanbul, Izmir etc. There is a large Turkish community in UK and plenty UK citizens with holiday homes out there.
Unaccompanied teenagers are likely to be pretty routine on such routes - these girls wouldn't have stuck out like sore thumbs. Neither are onward tickets for Turkish domestic flights going to ring alarms. Surveillance of minors will, at least up to now, focus on abduction by non custodial parents or trafficking.
Some suggestion that UK security services were not quick enough off the mark in alerting the Turks. OTOH if girls 'went shopping' then took a train to Gatwick and got straight on a flight they'd be in Istanbul before anyone missed them.
|
<< thickest...>>
>> Non Muslims who constantly imagine silent consent for these activities need treatment themselves. >>
Perhaps you think Edward Luttwak is thick and needs treatment as well? I received the current issue of the London Review of Books this morning and found there a letter to the point from this heavyweight expert in such matters. He mentions more terrorist groups, that I had never heard of, such as the al-Shabaab in Somalia, and asks (regarding a claim made by Tariq Ali);
"And is all this being done by a 'tiny sliver of young Moslems' all by themselves with no support from Muslim institutions such as more than forty thousand Wahhabi/Deobandi schools around the world?"
I doubt I will find any justification in the Qur'an , which I am reading just now, for the actions of these groups, or that there is any among right-thinking Muslims. In the meantime we dense psychotics would welcome assistance, in the form of more open discussion.
Last edited by: Webmaster on Fri 27 Feb 15 at 17:02
|
You're quoting selectively there Ambo and ducking the MCB bit.
Luttwak is an American military strategist. He doesn't hold himself out as being an authority on Islam. His letter is contesting Tariq Ali's assertion about role of US foreign policies in radicalising Brits. While I've little time for Ali I think he's more in touch with UK stuff than the yank who's googled and listed a dozen inter/intra racial conflicts involving Islam.
Its also significant that you ignoring his concluding paragraph about secularisation and those Muslims holding out against it.
|
>>You're quoting selectively there Ambo and ducking the MCB bit.
>>ducking the MCB bit etc..
I don’t understand this, Brompton. If you are referring to >>The MCB needs a generalist statement setting out the true aims of Islam and condemning murder in its name placed on its homepage where even the thickest can find it quickly<< then I agree with the idea, if not the way it is expressed.
If to >>It shouldn't need to apologise at every verse end nor should it be suckered into commenting on each and every outrage<< I never said it should
Luttwak may not >>hold himself out as being an authority on Islam<< but the range of his published work must mean he has a pretty good idea of it, as would any historian with such wide interests. (Isn’t calling him a “Yank†a trifle immoderate in the context?)
As for his concluding passage, I think it is quite likely that secularisation is a factor and don’t see any need to comment on it. OTOH, having spent 16 years in a country that was about 60% Muslim, I am keenly aware of how touchy such matters can be. To explore them further I am taking the FutureLearn course on Muslims in Britain and re- reading the Qur’an and, hopefully, associated texts.
|
Ambo,
My original response was to the idea that the MCB should do more. IMHO it does enough if it has a link to a general statement on its homepage.
The terminology I used and suggestion that UK Islam's spokespeople shouldn't need to apologise 'at every verse end' wasn't aimed specifically at you. There are people though, including some here, who seem unable to see or hear Muslim voices on the subject however loudly, frequently or clearly they speak. I'm particularly thinking of those who claimed Muslims were wilfully absent from the thanksgiving for Alan Hemming. They were there in number and anybody who looked or listened more than superficially would have seen/heard the interviews.
Luttwak clearly has a wide understanding of the world's conflicts. Listing a range of those that involve Muslim participation, while possibly overlooking the one man's terrorist/other man's freedom fighter conundrum, does not refute anything Tariq Ali might have said on motivation of Britons who become radicalised. It's also worth remembering that until around a year ago anybody who opposed the Beirut regime was a 'plucky freedom fighter'. The west was far to slow to see how, like in Libya, removal of a strongman would facilitate inter-ethnic fighting, civil war and an opening for extremism.
|
"An alternative perspective: "
Interesting .......... I mean the Wiki entry about Suzanne Moore.
|
>> Interesting .......... I mean the Wiki entry about Suzanne Moore.
So she's a grad of Middlesex Poly and has written for papers ranging from the Mail to Marxism today. Oh, and she had a well publicised spat with Germaine Greer and a less well known one with the trans community.
Outrageous.
|
"Outrageous."
I said "interesting", you said "outrageous". She must be more interesting than I thought.
|
>> I said "interesting", you said "outrageous". She must be more interesting than I thought.
What was even interesting? Bit of a thin biog really for somebody writing op/ed/comment page stuff for Guardian.
|
"What was even interesting?"
The report that she'd upset GG; what did you find outrageous? The bit about the footwear?
|
My comment was ironic Haywain. I'd somehow expected it to say she had flitted from one Socialist fringe group to another while living a life of debauchery and hiding a personal fortune; ammunition for some ad-hominem comment on her article.
I remember the spat with La Greer well as it resulted in Moore (whom I thought the more interesting writer) flouncing from the Guardian for some years.
Whatever I did though I couldn't visualise what 'farq me shoes' might look like. Were they the sort of stilettos Tracy wore while dancing round her handbag and trying to get Wayne's attention.
Last edited by: Bromptonaut on Thu 26 Feb 15 at 17:44
|
>> They look and obviously are pretty rough
You're probably right AC, but what leads you to that conclusion? Just their actions, or something else? FWIW they look pretty normal in the few pictures I've seen on the media eg.
www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-31612666
|
Not thickos either it seems - amongst the little information in the reports is that they were all academically good performers.
One hopes that education is the best antidote to this sort of thing.
|
The thing that gets me is how well planned this was. They were off away and into Syria before you could shake a stick, stuff like that does not happen by chance or with amateur bungling.
So they have gone to syria? So what? Clearly they have turned their backs on the UK, thats fine, passports cancelled, british citizenship revoked, kiss them goodbye for good. The families in the Uk have any other children? Take them away from the parents - put them in care, the families clearly can not offer the proper guidance.
|
>> So they have gone to syria? So what? Clearly they have turned their backs on
>> the UK, thats fine, passports cancelled, british citizenship revoked, kiss them goodbye for good. The
>> families in the Uk have any other children? Take them away from the parents -
>> put them in care, the families clearly can not offer the proper guidance.
People have been running away to foreign wars since time immemorial.
I don't think the families had the slightest inkling. The parents/sisters of some of the girls held a press conference on Sunday. All spoke like you'd expect educated Anglo-Asians to do, normal family stuff. The overall message and atmosphere was just like those where children have run away in other circumstances; you're not ion trouble, your teddy's still on your bed sort of thing.
Almost certainly Brit born so no possibility or revoking citizenship (unless we're going to look like USSR with its 'dissidents'). Neither is locking them up 'pour encourager les autres' likely to be constructive. The Danes have the right idea, welcome them home and gradually re acclimatise them to British society.
|
>> Almost certainly Brit born so no possibility or revoking citizenship (unless we're going to look
>> like USSR with its 'dissidents').
We don't need to label them dissidents, or lock them up in gulags. If, as these girls clearly have, you reject you country of birth, your country of birth should have the right to reject you. Passport revoked, citizenship revoked, stateless in effect. You want to come back you are processed as an immigrant, and given your past? probably rejected.
|
Exactly on what grounds should they be deprived of citizenship then. As fas as I can see they haven't committed any crime, just travelled to Syria to find themselves some Jihadist husbands.
|
>> Exactly on what grounds should they be deprived of citizenship then.
Gone to live in a different country Clearly they have no intention of bringing back a Jihadi husband so -. Let them take citizenship there.
Legally? aiding and abetting a crime (murder) would do for a start.
Last edited by: Zero on Thu 26 Feb 15 at 13:49
|
Ah - gone to live in a different country. Must be a new criminal offence. And what murder have they aided and abetted?
You could always accuse them of thought crimes I suppose though God knows what is going on inside their heads
|
>> Ah - gone to live in a different country. Must be a new criminal offence.
>> And what murder have they aided and abetted?
Who knows yet but they are aiding and abetting an organisation that murders non muslims.
>> You could always accuse them of thought crimes I suppose though God knows what is
>> going on inside their heads
No-one is accusing them of anything. We do know however they have rogered off to Syria, and we do know that have rogered off to be with Jihadi John types. So its appropriate to assume they don't want be a UK citizen and to be frank who wants them back anyway? Why on earth should we want or welcome them back? Sod off good bye forgotten.
Last edited by: Zero on Thu 26 Feb 15 at 16:21
|
>> No-one is accusing them of anything. We don know however they have rogered off to
>> Syria, and we do know that have righted off to be with Jihadi John types.
>> So to be frank who wants them back anyway? Why on earth should we want
>> or welcome them back. Sod off good bye forgotten.
You were, IIRC, one of the people whining about 16 and 17 yo 'children' voting in the Scottiss referendum. Yet you're prepared to see minors rendered stateless for falling victim to a cult.
You might like to get your intellectual credibility re calibrated.
|
>> You were, IIRC, one of the people whining about 16 and 17 yo 'children' voting
>> in the Scottiss referendum. Yet you're prepared to see minors rendered stateless for falling victim
>> to a cult.
>>
>> You might like to get your intellectual credibility re calibrated.
We are talking about three girls not hundreds of thousands of gerrymandered voters. And yes I am prepared to see three minors rendered stateless as that is the route they have chosen.
And lets just examine that "minors" statement. My idea of a minor does not have the brains gumption and determination to cook up a plot with others, fool family, commit fraud, (the passport) book tickets, find a way to turkey and then meet with a guy knowing he is taking them into a war zone.
Actually its a perfect example of why 16 and 17 year olds should not be given the vote. Perhaps your intellectual credibility is in that bike helmet you wont wear?
Typical left winger comments tho, all ideology and no practicality.
|
>> that "minors" statement. My idea of a minor does not have the brains gumption and determination to cook up a plot with others, fool family, commit fraud, (the passport) book tickets, find a way to turkey and then meet with a guy knowing he is taking them into a war zone.
>> Actually its a perfect example of why 16 and 17 year olds should not be given the vote.
Yes. They have adult autonomy, access to money, free to associate with stupid Islamist toerags, unlikely to be questioned by concerned officials if there are three of them and they seem to know where they are going. But so many are still children when it comes to making lifechanging decisions. There but for the grace of God, one can't help thinking...
Parents in our excessively free society have to trust adolescents and keep their fingers crossed. Usually everything ends up OK, but there are cases where one bad choice results in a life if not ruined, at least severely foxed.
And yes, it serves them right in a way, and their poor parents must be terribly worried. But no need to refuse entry if they come back, even if it was legal. Not very British really, such harshness.
|
OK , let me get this clear.
You are not accusing them of anything.
You however believe that without any legal process and simply because they have departed the country for Syria and without any evidence that they have committed a crime of any sort.
1 They should have their passports cancelled
2 Their British citizenship should revoked
3 Their brothers and sisters should be taken into care.
Brave New World indeed.
|
>> OK , let me get this clear.
>>
>> You are not accusing them of anything.
apart from wishing to turn their backs on the UK for a completely different life in a another part of the world, something you conveniently keep forgetting to mention.
>> You however believe that without any legal process and simply because they have departed the
>> country
Rejected the country.
>> 1 They should have their passports cancelled
yes
>> 2 Their British citizenship should revoked
Yes
>> 3 Their brothers and sisters should be taken into care.
Yes
>> Brave New World indeed.
Now try coming with a perfectly good argument why that should not happen? Also perhaps add a side note on the benefits to the Uk society of them returning?
Last edited by: Zero on Thu 26 Feb 15 at 18:07
|
>> Now try coming with a perfectly good argument why that should not happen? Also perhaps add a side note on the benefits to the Uk society of them returning?
It may not be a good argument, but this country has a long tradition of receiving peoplle on their uppers without asking awkward questions at the port of entry.
And it doesn't have a long tradition of refusing people entry or admitting them on the basis of their 'usefulness to society'. That's totalitarian stuff.
|
>> And it doesn't have a long tradition of refusing people entry
I must admit it gets up my nose a bit when I have to get the permission of an immigration officer who obviously does not have English as his or her first language to enter my own country.
|
>> I must admit it gets up my nose a bit when I have to get
>> the permission of an immigration officer who obviously does not have English as his or
>> her first language to enter my own country.
You mean that you quibble because he/she was dusky skinned and had an accent that wasn't obviously Scots, Welsh or English regions?
Like me you've got a passport that makes your status as UK national unequivocal. All the Immigration service need to be convinced of is that you're the same guy as named and pictured.
|
"admitting them on the basis of their 'usefulness to society'. That's totalitarian stuff."
That's Australia and, I believe, a number of other countries?
|
|
When I went to AustraliaI didn't have to prove I was useful to society, just that I had enough money to get home again.
|
"When I went to AustraliaI didn't have to prove I was useful to society, just that I had enough money to get home again."
Ah, but they weren't so choosey in those days ;-)
They let me in too, but I had to tell them that I wasn't stopping.
|
>> They let me in too, but I had to tell them that I wasn't stopping.
>>
Me too, and I am sure they would have chucked me out if I overstayed my welcome. Unlike the UK authorities who don't give a toss who stays here.
Last edited by: Old Navy on Thu 26 Feb 15 at 20:42
|
"Now try coming with a perfectly good argument why that should not happen?"
Because up to now at least they have not broken any law and a civilised country stands or fall on the rule of law
Fortunately we live in a country where you cannot be arbitrarily accused for "rejecting" your country" and stripped of your nationality and your family punished. That is why we have laws and courts.
Do you propose such a law be enacted that would only require evidence of travel to a territory of which the Government disapproves to be found guilty of the offence ?
As to the benefits of them returning to the UK is there a new law that our existence needs to be beneficial to the state? Plenty might fail that test
|
>> ...we live in a country where you cannot be arbitrarily accused for "rejecting"
>> your country" and stripped of your nationality and your family punished.
Swap "can" for "cannot" and "religion" for "country" and ironically, that's where they've ended up.
|
>> Do you propose such a law be enacted that would only require evidence of travel
>> to a territory of which the Government disapproves to be found guilty of the offence
You seem to be under strange misapprehension they have gone to spain for two weeks.
They have rejected the United Kingdom and all it stands for, why is it so hard for you too accept it can work both ways?
>> As to the benefits of them returning to the UK is there a new law
>> that our existence needs to be beneficial to the state? Plenty might fail that test
No there is existing laws and thresholds that new immigrants need to pass to gain citizenship, and new immigrants is exactly what they should be classed as. And now with terrorist connections -rejected citizenship.
|
"You seem to be under strange misapprehension they have gone to spain for two weeks.
They have rejected the United Kingdom and all it stands for, why is it so hard for you too accept it can work both ways?"
No I'm just trying to point out to you that a civilised country needs to operate by the rule of law. At the moment the girls as far as anyone know have not broken any law or indeed, as far as I am aware, said why they have left . Leaving the country for Syria is not a crime so they cannot be punished for something that is not a crime.
If we wish to strip people of their nationality because they travel to certain countries then we need to pass an appropriate law that allows for it but I think that even you can perceive of the difficulties that such a law would create and how difficult it would be to enforce. Such a law would also be in breach of various international agreements
If they commit a crime that is against UK law whilst they are in Syria then of course they should be held to account and charges brought against t them which is precisely where the law stands at the moment.
|
>
>> At the moment the girls as far as anyone
>> know have not broken any law
Apart from fraudulent use of a passport (not hers) and illegal entry into Syria? (no visa)
>> If we wish to strip people of their nationality because they travel to certain countries
there you go again, they have travelled to a war zone to aid and abet terrorist organisations.
As i keep saying to you, its not the Costa Del Sol, and they haven't gone for two weeks sun and sand. If they end up with terrorist associations they should be refused re-entry back into the UK.
Ok I agree our laws dont allow that at the moment, but laws can be changed and international agreements can be (and are) ignored - Gitmo anyone?
|
>> Apart from fraudulent use of a passport (not hers) and illegal entry into Syria? (no
>> visa)
If there is a passport offence it can be prosecuted on its merits on return tu UK. Lack of Syrian visa is matter for Syria.
>> there you go again, they have travelled to a war zone to aid and abet
>> terrorist organisations.
We've no clear idea why they travelled. Perhaps their motive was humanitarian. While it is mitigation not defence they may have been brainwashed by cult. The guy from Cage doing the media round yesterday gave a convincing account of how jihadi outfits use such techniques.
>>. If they end up with terrorist associations they should be refused re-entry back into the UK.
IF they're ending up personally involved in terror then we have adequate laws to deal. If they're actually victims then they need help not punishment.
>> Ok I agree our laws dont allow that at the moment, but laws can be
>> changed and international agreements can be (and are) ignored - Gitmo anyone?
Gitmo is a disgrace. Even the yanks agree they got it wrong.
Last edited by: Bromptonaut on Sat 28 Feb 15 at 22:32
|
I was just penning a reply to Zero but you have basically covered the points I was about to make.
The only observation I would add is isn't it somewhat odd that in the case of the sexual grooming and rape of young girls in Rotherham by Asian youths we are quite rightly not calling for the arrest and punishment of the girls but in what seems possibly to be a very similar process of sexual grooming to obtain jihadi wives we are, without any evidence of a crime being committed, calling for them to be refused entry back into the country
|
>> what seems possibly to be a very similar process of sexual grooming to obtain jihadi
>> wives we are, without any evidence of a crime being committed, calling for them to
>> be refused entry back into the country
Not in the least bit comparable. The conscious effort, deception and planning required by the girls Which you both seem unwilling to accept, to get to Syria is not in the least bit the same as face to face grooming of vulnerable younger girls.
|
Really? I would imagine that it is far from impossible for an impressionable and rebellious 15 or 16 year old who has little experience e of life and comes from a sheltered background to be persuaded that becoming the wife of a Muslim warrior in a distant land is a romantic and desirable future. That there were three of them would be mutually reassuring
Internet grooming and teenage girls running off to meet their dream partners is hardly unknown is it?
And if you think teenage girls are not up to a bit of deception and planning then I suggest you haven't met many.
Of course I may be wrong. Like you I don't know all the facts but what I have read in the papers or seen on TV. They may be terrorist masterminds or pschopathic killers. Time will tell although sadly I fear we may well never hear of them again
|
>> We've no clear idea why they travelled. Perhaps their motive was humanitarian.
Now you are just trying to make up excuses, you know and I know and HM gov knows that is not the case so stop trying to piddle in the wind.
|
>>
>> >> We've no clear idea why they travelled. Perhaps their motive was humanitarian.
>>
>> Now you are just trying to make up excuses, you know and I know and
>> HM gov knows that is not the case so stop trying to piddle in the
>> wind.
While it may have access to communication intercepts HM gov doesn't have a window into these girls heads. Their motive is unlikely to be as simple as you suggest.
The right way to deal with this is try and get them home then apply due process. Populist gestures such as you advocate are out of same box as that of internment without trial as applied at start of Ulster's troubles. Biggest thing to follow that was rush to ira colours. Outcome of revoking passports and citizenship by administrative fiat will be similar.
GG's analogy with grooming is excellent. Anybody who's read the reports rather than swallowed the media narrative there will see extent to which girls in Rotherham, Rochdale etc were superficially complicit.
Last edited by: Bromptonaut on Sun 1 Mar 15 at 08:49
|
>
>> While it may have access to communication intercepts HM gov doesn't have a window into
>> these girls heads. Their motive is unlikely to be as simple as you suggest.
And its even less likely to be "humanitarian" as you suggest.
>> The right way to deal with this is try and get them home then
>> apply due process.
The right way to deal with this is to ignore them. Not to start bleeding hearts hand wringing and national soul searching in the press.
Mr Norwich says they will probably never be seen alive again. Not really a problem then is it.
|
}}Gitmo anyone?
The other day you said wed no need for Gulags. Now you're advocating one.
Another example of your credibility problem?
|
>> }}Gitmo anyone?
>>
>> The other day you said wed no need for Gulags. Now you're advocating one.
>>
>> Another example of your credibility problem?
No I said we don't want gulags because we wouldn't have them back.
Another example of your comprehension problem?
|
>> Who knows yet but they are aiding and abetting an organisation that murders non muslims.
Far more of its victims are fellow Muslims, just the wrong sort. Not really surprising as its largely an inter ethnic civil war rather than a rerun of the crusades in reverse.
|
>> A propos:
>>
>> www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/islamic-state/11434343/Lets-stop-making-excuses-for-these-jihadi-brides.html
My post says much the same thing, but without the racist and anti muslim overtones the Telegraph managed to slather all over it.
|
|
You're clearly not a proper Charlie, if you object to a bit of satire.
|
>> You're clearly not a proper Charlie, if you object to a bit of satire.
That was not satire.
|
>> That was not satire.
>>
It reminded me of that spoof British army recruiting advert from years ago:
Join the army
See the world
Meet interesting people
Kill them.
Was that anti-army? anti-Christian? or satire?
|
|
I thought the stuff at the top (in bold) was satire - could imagine Charlie Brooker (Guardian writer) reeling it off in one of his TV programmes. Aimed at ISIS, rather than Islam? The rest wasn't satire.
|
>>That was not satire.
It conforms quite closely to Wikipedia's definition. OK, that is not authoritative but I know three men who are, should you be interested.
|
>> >>That was not satire.
>>
>> It conforms quite closely to Wikipedia's definition.
No it doesn't. Get your authoritative sources to read the article and let them pass judgement on satire or not. You are misreading or misapplying the concept of "satire"
|
>>You are misreading or misapplying the concept of "satire"
You clearly know a lot about a lot of things, Zero (I mean that sincerely, and thanks for your lead on the Computer forum), so I look forward to hearing your own definition. That of the Oxford English Dictionary seems to fit and includes "...holding up vice or folly to ridicule or lampooning individual(s)..."
When I said I "knew" the men I was using the word as a rhetorical conceit, as in "I know a man who does", when the subject does not "know" the A.A. man personally at all.
The three men I "know" in that sense are J. R. Clark, "The Modern Satiric Grotesque"; M. Hoggart, "Satire" and P. Petro, "Modern Satire: Four Studies". The four studies are Bulgakov, "The Master and Margarita" [you might also enjoy his "The Heart of a Dog]; Hasek "The Good Soldier Svejk [more usually rendered as "Sweik"]; Orwell, "Nineteen Eighty Four" and Vonnegut, "Breakfast of Champions". I have all of these and you are welcome to borrow them for comparison with Wikipedia, so long as you arrange collection.
|
>> You clearly know a lot about a lot of things, Zero (I mean that sincerely,
>> and thanks for your lead on the Computer forum), so I look forward to hearing
>> your own definition. That of the Oxford English Dictionary seems to fit and includes "...holding
>> up vice or folly to ridicule or lampooning individual(s)..."
Indeed, but Satire is a form of humour lampooning or ridiculing someone or something in a from designed to amuse.
That article was designed to inflame one side and insult another. No amusement or humour intend or delivered.
It may be classed as sarcasm.
|
No overtones about it, it's just anti-muslim.
If 20% think that “Western liberal society can never be compatible with Islamâ€, what are they still doing here? Trying to change it, presumably.
|
>> No overtones about it, it's just anti-muslim.
>>
>> If 20% think that “Western liberal society can never be compatible with Islamâ€, what are
>> they still doing here? Trying to change it, presumably.
Not at all, if 20% were trying to change it you would have more than the isolated cases of terrorism we have now.
It is possible, and many muslims do, to live an islamic life in a western country, they don't need to be compatible, just tolerant.
|
>> It is possible, and many muslims do, to live an islamic life in a western
>> country, they don't need to be compatible, just tolerant.
Absolutely. The West African lady who sat opposite me for last five years of my CS career did exactly that. Said her prayers, fasted at Ramadan, went to Mecca and did loads of organisational stuff for the Mosque.
And just like a western Mum she lived in a council flat in mixed area of London Drove a car, shopped at Sainsburys. Constantly chasing up her boys to stop messing round on way home from school, worried about her daughter at Uni in Brum etc etc.
Last edited by: Bromptonaut on Thu 26 Feb 15 at 12:23
|
>> Not at all, if 20% were trying to change it you would have more than
>> the isolated cases of terrorism we have now.
Not necessarily, there is the democratic process. The implied question being will the average Brit accept that?
>>
>> It is possible, and many muslims do, to live an islamic life in a western
>> country, they don't need to be compatible, just tolerant.
That's the 80%, surely?
Actually the wording of the question (or at least the summary) is rubbish. No idea what it means - elements of Western society are no doubt incompatible with many of our ideas, including mine.
|
>> >> Not at all, if 20% were trying to change it you would have more
>> than
>> >> the isolated cases of terrorism we have now.
>>
>> Not necessarily, there is the democratic process. The implied question being will the average Brit
>> accept that?
If only 20% wish to change something and use the democratic process then they wont have a majority so nothing will change and there is nothing to accept.
|
>> If only 20% wish to change something and use the democratic process then they wont
>> have a majority so nothing will change and there is nothing to accept.
That's a very narrow andd absolutist view of democracy Zeddo.
One fifth is a pretty significant chunk of society. If they make their case, form alliances and persuade others that what they propose is reasonable and that it's impact on rest of us is acceptable then they can certainly effect change. How do you think rights for gays, transsexuals or for that matter race relations legislation was advanced?
Sharia law on the streets or in the general criminal code isn't going to happen. It's a wholly unreasonable demand.
OTOH there is a wish for Islamic businesses to resolve disputes between themselves in accordance with Islami (ie Sharia) law with result being enforceable. That isn't really any different from other Alternative/Proportionate Dispute resolution. I think you could persuade sufficient of the populace that was reasonable. I'd be less sanguine about Islamic family courts because of the potential unfairness to women but OTOH with right safeguards. We allow Judaism's Beth Din to pronounce on such matters.
|
>> That's a very narrow andd absolutist view of democracy Zeddo.
Not really - it was an answer to a narrow and absolutist argument that 20% of dissenters must all be terrorists.
>> rest of us is acceptable then they can certainly effect change. How do you think
>> rights for gays, transsexuals or for that matter race relations legislation was advanced?
Possibly because the legislation was patently inhumane and indefensible?
>> OTOH there is a wish for Islamic businesses to resolve disputes between themselves in accordance
>> with Islami (ie Sharia) law with result being enforceable.
Indeed if both parties wish to be arbitrated by such a tribunal then fine, it in no way usurps or supersedes the law of the land, and can be incorporated within under certain circumstances.
>>We allow Judaism's Beth Din to pronounce on such
>> matters.
Indeed we do, that is a little known fact and works well for the community that wishes to use it. We even regulate sharia based islamic banks in the UK.
|
>> they don't need to be compatible, just tolerant.
And adaptable.
|
>> You're probably right AC, but what leads you to that conclusion?
Apart from the fact that they is black you mean? Something about them in the photo, and the fact that they did what they did. But it was a snap judgement, a bit unsound I admit.
The fact that they had performed well academically in a modern British secondary school certainly doesn't make them either very bright or gently raised. Half the young toerags one reads about are supposedly academically sound, even the privately educated ones. Basic literacy and a dose of low animal cunning do the trick every time.
'Highly respectable' parents don't necessarily make a person realistic or even sane. Isn't there some sort of demented Islamist beardie who was raised as a Jehovah's Witness? Out of the frying pan into the cauldron so to speak?
Poor girls. I bet they're regretting it already.
|
>> >> Half the young toerags one reads
>> about are supposedly academically sound, even the privately educated ones.
Very good. Nicely slipped in :)
In the same way as young road accident victimes are always bright, vivacious, studying for A-levels and with brilliant futures ahead of them.
Odd how the dull, the thick and the no-hopers never meet tragic deaths.
|
>> >> >>
>> Odd how the dull, the thick and the no-hopers never meet tragic deaths.
>>
No, we all end up on here. :-)
|
This evening the Beeb was wondering why, since the three girls were under surveillance by everyone throughout, 'no one stopped them'.
The reason was that no one had a good reason to. Their papers were in order and they weren't wanted by Interpol. They were perfectly legal travellers not at any identifiable risk.
|
>> This evening the Beeb was wondering why, since the three girls were under surveillance by
>> everyone throughout, '.....
They were perfectly legal travellers not at any
>> identifiable risk.
>>
Then why were they under surveillance?
|
|
Everybody who walks down the High Street or drives down a motorway let alone travels through an airport is under surveillance.
|
I think surveillance implies more than simply being accidentally photographed or routinely recorded.
It suggests being actively monitored and tracked, usually with some purpose in mind.
When a suspected criminal, terrorist, spy etc is described as "under surveillance", I hope it means more than simply relying on chance observations by CCTV.
|
Aiui they'd crossed the radar by being in touch with a school chum who'd gone to Syria earlier. Not sure how that equates to surveillance, journalists get sloppy about use of SME words like that.
Once they were reported missing then CCTV etc would be searched. That can be done for anybody, remember the pics of the lass who elopd with her teacher on the ferry?
|
|
By that definition they were not under surveillance.
|
I just wonder how many people in Britain are quietly muttering "good riddance, that's three fewer Jihadis in the country"?
Last edited by: Roger. on Mon 2 Mar 15 at 10:26
|
"I just wonder......."
Er sorry, Roger, you aren't allowed to ask those sort of questions ;-)
|
|
I think that you confuse your right to ask questions with your expectations that all should agree with your views.
|
|
I expect the usual soft apologists to disagree with me, but I don't mind - they are entitled to their mistaken opinions. :-) :-)
|
>>I just wonder how many people in Britain are quietly muttering "good riddance, that's three fewer Jihadis in the country"?
I don't know. What's the current membership level of UKIP?
|
>> >>I just wonder how many people in Britain are quietly muttering "good riddance, that's three
>> fewer Jihadis in the country"?
>>
>> I don't know. What's the current membership level of UKIP?
Your point being - what?
|
Sigh, I managed to to keep an argument going about something happening within, and concerning the muslim community without a hint of racism raising its head.
Please lets keep it that way.
|
>> By that definition they were not under surveillance.
I got the impression that they were, as well as being seen by the cctv everywhere. I also got the impression that they were beyond reach in Syria before their parents, the foreign office, MI5, the Turkish security authorities and so on had got around to talking to each other. All the hand-wringing after the event had a faint odour of humbug.
|
All the hand-wringing after the event had a faint odour
>> of humbug.
>>
Quite. They obviously didn't actually want to catch them - too many problems over what then to do with them. But conversely they didn't want to give the impression that they couldn't be bothered, so they have to spin a yarn about quasi-surveillance which doesn't quite wash.
|
>> Quite. They obviously didn't actually want to catch them - too many problems over what
>> then to do with them. But conversely they didn't want to give the impression that
>> they couldn't be bothered, so they have to spin a yarn about quasi-surveillance which doesn't
>> quite wash.
>>
If you use surveillance on someone to see what they are up to... and they to date haven't done anything wrong, then you record what they they've been doing... then either carry on the surveillance or leave them alone.
A surveillance team do not normally intervene and arrest people, different people would do that, you wouldn't want to compromise your surveillance officers or their techniques.
There are obviously rare occasions when a surveillance officer would dive in, but only in exceptional circumstances.
Surveillance can also be via CCTV etc and after the event.
|
>>
>> Surveillance can also be via CCTV etc and after the event.
>>
When the birds have flown, as Charles I once famously remarked. :)
|
Another site I visit has this construction:
They're randy teenage girls. Travelled to Syria with aim of being laid by as many alpha male jihadis as they can get under.
PS for the avoidance of doubt this post is TIC.
|
"They're randy teenage girls."
Do you have a subscription to 'The Sun online'?
You know what they say - 'All Grauniad and no Sun makes Brompt a dull boy'. ;-)
|
>> PS for the avoidance of doubt this post is TIC.
>>
A tic is a sudden, repetitive, nonrhythmic motor movement or vocalization involving discrete muscle groups.[1][2] Tics can be invisible to the observer, such as abdominal tensing or toe crunching. Common motor and phonic tics are, respectively, eye blinking and throat clearing.[3]
Tics must be distinguished from movements of other movement disorders such as chorea, dystonia, myoclonus; movements exhibited in stereotypic movement disorder or some people with autism; and the compulsions of obsessive-compulsive disorder (OCD) and seizure activity
I presume you didn't mean the above?.... What did you mean?
|
|
Perhaps he was hoping not to be taken too seriously - lingua in maxillam as the Romans might have said, so to speak.
Last edited by: CGNorwich on Mon 2 Mar 15 at 22:03
|
>> I presume you didn't mean the above?.... What did you mean?
TIC is everything but an HTML switch for Tongue In Cheek.
ie It was meant to be a joke or at least an ironic comment.
|
I had a nightmare the other night.....I was dreaming of Bromp whispering sweet nothings into Mrs Bromps ear.
It was all in abbreviations and neither of us could work out what he was saying!
Pat
|
>> It was all in abbreviations and neither of us could work out what he was
>> saying!
As long as I use them properly you'll get the drift......
|
>> As long as I use them properly you'll get the drift......
WTF! OMG TMD
|
>>
>> WTF! OMG TMD
>>
LOL
|
>> ie It was meant to be a joke or at least an ironic comment.
>>
There is a crying need for a method of suggesting irony or TIC now that all communication is by keypad and no one actually talks face to face, so little glints in the eye and imperceptible tongue and body movements are missed.
I'm often caught out by posting with gentle or heavy irony, or the sort of non-verbal inverted commas one uses in direct conversation, so often people miss my point and get worked up by an ironic point taken literally.
There was a movement some years ago to promote a new font, called "ironics", which was like italics only sloping backwards. It was intended to show to the kind of people who invariably miss the more subtle kind of TIC remarks that the following words are intended to be read ironically.
But that of course also misses the point - the sharpest remarks are the nearly invisible, so highlighting renders them pointless.
Anyway, "ironics" never caught on. There is a fascinating account in the wonderful book by Keith Houston, called "Shady Characters".
|
This afternoon the Home Affairs Select Committee is taking evidence form (a) family of girls (b) Met Commissioner and deputy (c) Turkish Ambassador. I'm no particular fan of Keith Vazbut this committee does produce some interesting insights from witnesses.
As might be experted the family contribution was pretty short. They were inevitably like rabbits in the headlights and their lawyer did most of speaking.
Hogan-Howe and his sidekick were, I thought, excellent. HH is urbane and answers questions frankly and articulately but without taking any grandstanding bullsh*t from the politicians.
It seems first girls were not reported missing until afternoon of their departure, by which time they'd arrived in Istanbul. Final missing report was not made until following day. By time messages ahd gone to Istanbul (where they're by no means only western girls doing same thing) it wasa game of catch up and they were over border before they were caught up with.
They were not under any surveillance but had been seen by Police because they were in same friendship group as girl who 'flitted' earlier. Not much came out of that group interview so Police wrote and sought permission of parents to interview singly - letters were given to girls and never reached parents.
Tickets were bought for cash in an East London travel agency with funds though to have come form jewellery stolen from family/ies.
Session currently suspended due to a division in Commons.
No doubt it will all be in papers tomorrow.
|
I'm getting tired of the terminology used to discuss this.
People aren't 'radicalised'. They are like that already.
And Isil prats aren't 'radical' by any stretch of the imagination. They are profoundly and irredeemably reactionary and backward. Modern western societies are too radical for them.
|
Militant girls - CGNorwich
