Isn't that the Peoples Front of Judea?
Shamima Begum allowed back to the UK
- Thread starter Wija
- Start date
ThunderBox
LE
She is probably living on several forced portions of **** each day, all the protein none of the fat, apart from man fat.
Does anyone know what the plans of these camps are? Sooner or later Syria will want to dismantle them, or is the plan they will be tried and jailed in Syria, what then if she serves her time, she will get back to the U.K., I can’t see the likes of the charity doogooders who traffic illegal immigrants under the thin veil of humanitarian aid not helping her get back.
A big win for those NIMBYs.
Lindermyer
LE
I reckon thats nearer the truth
Walter_Ego
Old-Salt
The gauntlet has been thrown by the UK govt. All the do-gooders have to do is spring her from the camp . They're fairly well sorted once they get her to Calais
Lardbeast
LE
My point re enforced vaccinations on a covid thread. Could lead to some dodgy practices if the opposition lunatics get into power.
The writer obviously lacks any sense of irony.
Yes. In Leicester.
TamH70
MIA
Winnet
War Hero
Sexton Blake
LE
Is that for real FFS?
Arse Gravy
War Hero
I concur. I was in Northern Iraq, mostly Mosul and Sinjar, after ISIS had their arses handed back to them by coalition/ISF. We employed Yazidi on to some of our teams and listening to their tales and witnessing the devastation around was horrifying and humbling at the same time.
But these tales weren't just from the Yazidi neither. The Assyrian Christians, especially round Bartella, and Shia communities had some horrifying experiences in the hands of ISIS. When I left Nineveha there was a huge amount of distrust amongst all different sides especial towards the Sunni sects.
As has already been said on here, her crimes were committed in Syria so why should we take responsibility for her, let the Syrians deal with her. I for one hope she rots in that camp.
Last edited:
The Judean People's Front? Splitters!
syrup
LE
She's jumped the gun there obviously trying to look more western as part of her smoke and mirrors about being a model citizen when she gets back.
It would appear according some of the human rights drips that this has now put her in danger with former colleagues who would like to stone here to death.
Problem she has is according to some sources she's not quite the innocent she tries to make out she is now.
She was reportedly part of an enforcement squad and carried an AK around and was known for being strict with anyone breaking the morality code as she is now doing.
She's now reportedly in danger from former colleagues who agree you can't simply hand in your notice and return home.
Hence the rush for all thing British she'll be talking like Dick an Dyke by next week.
Shamima Begum 'was a paid enforcer in ISIS police squad’
Fresh claims about Shamima Begum’s life in Syria have emerged, with sources alleging the London teenager was a “member of the feared ISIS morality police”.
www.standard.co.uk
And they're both groups with a serious downer on the Front Wheelers, so do you mean Labour is controlled by imams and Blair's supposed conversion to Left Footery was just a subterfuge to confuse the kaffir ?
That would only be proven if you ever have a muslim Labour mayor in London.
There's a lot of performative outrage from the usual suspects. It seems the main avenue of attack is that this decision wouldn't have been made if she was white, that it sends a message that non-white people in the UK are not regarded as properly British & that as a victim of grooming, its shameful she isn't treated as such.
This ignores the facts that at least one white jihad lost his British citizenship, most non-white Brits would never support a group like IS & that after she became an adult, she continued to support IS and made no attempt to return.
I'm still of the opinion that she should be turned over to the Iraqis or Syrian governments as is the normal procedure for other Brits when they commit crimes abroad. There is a wider issue of Brit kids in the camps & not letting them languish out there till they too become adults.
I'm haunted by the stories of what happened to the Yazidi & that we are neighbours with people who participated in that or condone what happened. I'd like to see some of the virtue signalling performers dedicate some of their energies & keyboard time to raising awareness of what happened to the Yazidis but looking at their past performances of obfuscation for the victims of grooming around the country, I think we'll have a long wait.
This ignores the facts that at least one white jihad lost his British citizenship, most non-white Brits would never support a group like IS & that after she became an adult, she continued to support IS and made no attempt to return.
I'm still of the opinion that she should be turned over to the Iraqis or Syrian governments as is the normal procedure for other Brits when they commit crimes abroad. There is a wider issue of Brit kids in the camps & not letting them languish out there till they too become adults.
I'm haunted by the stories of what happened to the Yazidi & that we are neighbours with people who participated in that or condone what happened. I'd like to see some of the virtue signalling performers dedicate some of their energies & keyboard time to raising awareness of what happened to the Yazidis but looking at their past performances of obfuscation for the victims of grooming around the country, I think we'll have a long wait.
Toastie
LE
As a straight statement, I’d agree. However, a working definition of terrorism could be the use of fear to coerce others to adopt a particular creed / opinion / behaviour / other characteristic.
At that point, IMHO your binary distinction becomes a bit blurred. Gangs of youths armed with knives attempting to protect their turf is undoubtedly a criminal act but they are also using the fear their behaviour creates as a weapon in itself. Arguably it’s “low level” terrorism but is the act of knifing someone on your patch without your say so any different to caging someone and setting them alight because you don’t sunscibe to the same religious beliefs?
The same can be said of the Muslim gangs roaming East London in their self declared “no alcohol zones”. I was subject to their attentions a few years back when a bunch of us in our mid 50s were out celebrating having met 30 years earlier. Yes, we had a can each to wash down the curry, bought from a shop in the area run by a Muslim, but no, we weren’t exactly drunkenly rioting, just ambling along chatting. The threats and intimidation were criminal as were the attempts to confiscate (steal) the beer but the intent was very much the use of fear to coerce us to abandon the lawful act of drinking alcohol in public.
I would also agree with your later post where you state that the vast majority of Muslims are peaceful and law abiding and that only a very small minority are classified as a terrorist threat. Again, IMHO this is fine as a straight statement but stumbles when looked at more closely. Is the act of tacitly accepting the extremist’s behaviour by not condemning it criminal? No, of course not but is it supporting it? A much more difficult question and I’d suggest that considerably more than those on the various watch lists would fall into this category, the impossible to define “supporters”.
By the same metric, many others, self included could easily be defined as “supporters” of white supremacy extremists in that we find the concept of being subjugated by Islamic fundamentalists under Sharia Law abhorrent. The confusion arises in how you define an extremist / terrorist and at what point behaviour crosses from criminal activity to terrorism. IMHO that line is blurred to the point of undefinable and therefore the importance of not blurring the line between criminality and terrorism is an impossible aspiration. The line has already been blurred and dare I say it, that situation is being ruthlessly exploited.
Last edited:
Fiona_TG
LE
In a former life he could well have been a Concentration Camp guard that once caught after the event would have used similar excuses for his behaviour.
Fiona_TG
LE
It's a good question, and after initial thinking I would define an extremist as someone who decides they are going to impose their beliefs on others and to do so by whatever means it takes up to and killing those that resist.
It could be posited that an extremist or fundamentalist is simply someone who sticks to their doctrine to the letter but does not seek to impose that on others. The problem with that argument is where it comes to a doctrine that has at it's core that all must follow or die, there can be no non-believers. It is impossible to square that circle but Western liberalists insist they can, they are doomed to fail and drag the rest of us down a route that does not allow the simple and self-evident truth to be told, that being some religions are not peaceful by design and do not tolerate dissent.
So what about religious types who keep their personal faith to themselves and show generosity of heart to others? Fine be me however I think their enemies are not any of the live and let live types but rather it is the intolerance within that will take them.
Fiona_TG
LE
Is the one in the middle Brian's mum?
Similar threads
