View Poll Results: Would you allow the families of those who left the UK to fight for IS to return?

Voters
14. You may not vote on this poll
  • Yes

    2 14.29%
  • No

    11 78.57%
  • Don't Know

    1 7.14%
Page 2 of 8 FirstFirst 1 2 3 4 ... LastLast
Results 11 to 20 of 72

Thread: Well would you allow them back?

  1. #11
    Join Date
    Nov 2016
    Posts
    2,894
    Thanks
    1,220
    Thanked 706 Times in 502 Posts
    Quote Originally Posted by DeppityDawg View Post
    Sure. Would that include Sally Jones son, the innocently named "Jo Jo"?

    Ask yourself this, Toots. How many no longer have to lead a life, let alone one of hardship, as a result of what the people these women went to join believe? Would you want to be a woman in the place they are? Their testimony speaks for itself, but they went there of their own accord. Unless, of course, they really were the poor, helpless beings "tricked" into it. Which you don't really believe, and nor does anyone else. They can't be trusted to be here anymore.


    I often get told off on here by the morally correct. But there are places where life is cheap. If you think you can simply bring these children back and resume where they left off, I think you're gravely mistaken.
    Oh dear yes I see that completely and I am not saying that I disagree with any of the views on this thread. The trouble for me is that I am taught to hate the sin not the sinner, so I am back where I struggle especially for those who did not make the decision as to where they were born. Believe me I am no do gooder. I totally believe in justice for wrong doers and these mothers were wrong, misguided, misled even and I am really sorry for them. Once there of course there was no way back for them. If they stayed because they agreed with what was happening then I guess they deserve whatever life metes out to them. So the mothers should live out their choices. I don't suppose they would accept return of the children without them so the decision once again would be theirs.
    My vote counts just as much as your's xx

  2. #12
    Join Date
    Jan 2011
    Location
    Leaving the EUSSR
    Posts
    10,229
    Thanks
    2,364
    Thanked 2,263 Times in 1,716 Posts
    Quote Originally Posted by DeppityDawg View Post
    Sure. Would that include Sally Jones son, the innocently named "Jo Jo"?

    Ask yourself this, Toots. How many no longer have to lead a life, let alone one of hardship, as a result of what the people these women went to join believe? Would you want to be a woman in the place they are? Their testimony speaks for itself, but they went there of their own accord. Unless, of course, they really were the poor, helpless beings "tricked" into it. Which you don't really believe, and nor does anyone else. They can't be trusted to be here anymore.


    I often get told off on here by the morally correct. But there are places where life is cheap. If you think you can simply bring these children back and resume where they left off, I think you're gravely mistaken.
    Wondered why my ears were burning anyway I don't tell you off I try to reason which usually results in a reply containing the word feck,however on this occasion I believe you right.
    The new parliamentary democracy,it's not the will of the people that counts but the will of 650......will come back to haunt them.

  3. #13
    Join Date
    Nov 2017
    Posts
    1,090
    Thanks
    27
    Thanked 145 Times in 122 Posts
    I had a few thoughts on this.

    Firstly, I'm not sure the poll is the right thing to generalise, because it feels like this should be taken on a case by case basis for each individual.

    Secondly, the article in the OP speaks of the families (wives and children) of IS fighters. In a UK scenario, we don't lock up the families of criminals. However in this scenario, is there a moral justification for putting that rule aside and saying that these families are guilty of the same crimes as their husband / father?

    Thirdly, it's possible that some of these wives, and also children, have effectively been groomed. There is another thread running on this forum about the gang grooming of young girls in the UK. Based on documentaries and stories I've watched (and I think there was a dramatisation of one of the prior cases on the BBC), some of these girls who were groomed and abused, claimed to the authorities that they were consenting in what they were doing, and this was even one of the factors that made it hard to prosecute these men because their victims actually felt a sense of duty to their abuser and in many cases claimed that he hadn't done anything wrong because they consented to what was happening, or even in some cases that they loved him.

    Therefore if I say that yes all families of IS fighters should be stopped from coming back, but I then defend the girls in the UK, to me there is a risk of double standard, and more importantly, a risk that vulnerable people (UK citizens) who've effectively been groomed or brainwashed, have been classed as criminals because their husband or father was a criminal, without due process and without any right of appeal.

    This is why the OP article in my view is not nearly enough information to judge it, and each case needs to be looked into on its merits. It's also concerning to me that these families, even though they were UK citizens, have been stripped of their citizenship purely because they were there, rather than on a detailed assessment of each individual case (unless there was a detailed assessment but it doesn't cover that in the story).

  4. #14
    Join Date
    Oct 2009
    Posts
    9,752
    Thanks
    1,892
    Thanked 1,750 Times in 1,252 Posts
    They might be more credible if they totally rejected extremism, and started speaking to people face to face.

    Seems ITV are on a campaign:
    https://www.itv.com/news/2018-10-26/...d-to-stop-him/

  5. #15
    Join Date
    Oct 2007
    Location
    Newport, South Wales
    Posts
    9,636
    Thanks
    1,698
    Thanked 1,342 Times in 1,087 Posts
    Blog Entries
    1
    Quote Originally Posted by Javert View Post
    I had a few thoughts on this.

    Firstly, I'm not sure the poll is the right thing to generalise, because it feels like this should be taken on a case by case basis for each individual.

    Secondly, the article in the OP speaks of the families (wives and children) of IS fighters. In a UK scenario, we don't lock up the families of criminals. However in this scenario, is there a moral justification for putting that rule aside and saying that these families are guilty of the same crimes as their husband / father?

    Thirdly, it's possible that some of these wives, and also children, have effectively been groomed. There is another thread running on this forum about the gang grooming of young girls in the UK. Based on documentaries and stories I've watched (and I think there was a dramatisation of one of the prior cases on the BBC), some of these girls who were groomed and abused, claimed to the authorities that they were consenting in what they were doing, and this was even one of the factors that made it hard to prosecute these men because their victims actually felt a sense of duty to their abuser and in many cases claimed that he hadn't done anything wrong because they consented to what was happening, or even in some cases that they loved him.

    Therefore if I say that yes all families of IS fighters should be stopped from coming back, but I then defend the girls in the UK, to me there is a risk of double standard, and more importantly, a risk that vulnerable people (UK citizens) who've effectively been groomed or brainwashed, have been classed as criminals because their husband or father was a criminal, without due process and without any right of appeal.

    This is why the OP article in my view is not nearly enough information to judge it, and each case needs to be looked into on its merits. It's also concerning to me that these families, even though they were UK citizens, have been stripped of their citizenship purely because they were there, rather than on a detailed assessment of each individual case (unless there was a detailed assessment but it doesn't cover that in the story).
    When you say "wives and children of IS fighters"...

    are you including the women who openly chose to leave these shores to be a bride of ISIS?

    I have no problem leaving them and their children where they chose duplicitously to go, but then I've been to one funeral caused by an IED albeit one triggered by a murdering Irishman and I've no particular interest in the lot of anyone who dragged their kids into that never mind went out there to breed some for the cause. Showing mercy to such people is how the Tutsi and Hutu came to exchange machete blows. Better they end their days in a stinking Syrian hovel than blow my grand daughters generation up as mcguinness enjoyed doing to her grandfathers generation...
    --
    "The Inland Revenue is not slow, and quite rightly, to take every advantage which is open to it under the Taxing Statutes for the purposes of depleting the taxpayer's pocket. And the taxpayer is in like manner entitled to be astute to prevent, so far as he honestly can, the depletion of his means by the Inland Revenue"

    Lord Clyde: "Ayrshire Pullman Motor Services V Inland Revenue, 1929"

  6. #16
    Join Date
    Nov 2017
    Posts
    1,090
    Thanks
    27
    Thanked 145 Times in 122 Posts
    Quote Originally Posted by johnofgwent View Post
    When you say "wives and children of IS fighters"...

    are you including the women who openly chose to leave these shores to be a bride of ISIS?

    I have no problem leaving them and their children where they chose duplicitously to go, but then I've been to one funeral caused by an IED albeit one triggered by a murdering Irishman and I've no particular interest in the lot of anyone who dragged their kids into that never mind went out there to breed some for the cause. Showing mercy to such people is how the Tutsi and Hutu came to exchange machete blows. Better they end their days in a stinking Syrian hovel than blow my grand daughters generation up as mcguinness enjoyed doing to her grandfathers generation...
    As I said, it depends on the individual case - not all people have been groomed or manipulated even know that it's happened, so it depends on the definition of "openly choosing". I again draw the parallel with grooming in this country where quite often the victim doesn't see it as grooming until they go through a lengthy psychological process.

    These are (or at least were) UK citizens so they should have the same rights as other UK citizens, which for example means if they've committed crimes they should be tried in the UK and imprisoned in the UK.

  7. #17
    Join Date
    Oct 2007
    Location
    Newport, South Wales
    Posts
    9,636
    Thanks
    1,698
    Thanked 1,342 Times in 1,087 Posts
    Blog Entries
    1
    Quote Originally Posted by Javert View Post
    As I said, it depends on the individual case - not all people have been groomed or manipulated even know that it's happened, so it depends on the definition of "openly choosing". I again draw the parallel with grooming in this country where quite often the victim doesn't see it as grooming until they go through a lengthy psychological process.

    These are (or at least were) UK citizens so they should have the same rights as other UK citizens, which for example means if they've committed crimes they should be tried in the UK and imprisoned in the UK.
    and that's another thing.

    they should have their citizenship revoked

    as I said, I've been to.one too many funerals.

    it radicalizes you.

    hopefully you'll never find out the hard way.
    --
    "The Inland Revenue is not slow, and quite rightly, to take every advantage which is open to it under the Taxing Statutes for the purposes of depleting the taxpayer's pocket. And the taxpayer is in like manner entitled to be astute to prevent, so far as he honestly can, the depletion of his means by the Inland Revenue"

    Lord Clyde: "Ayrshire Pullman Motor Services V Inland Revenue, 1929"

  8. #18
    Join Date
    Aug 2015
    Posts
    4,976
    Thanks
    1,105
    Thanked 889 Times in 725 Posts
    Blog Entries
    5
    I can't see why not.

    As far as I can see they aren't much more than dozy dollies who were bored crapless with life at home with mum and dad and went off to find a bit of excitment. If they murdered any Britons while abroad then they may have a case to answer, but as far as I can see they spent most of their time getting laid, which is something young women from all walks of life are prone to do.

  9. #19
    Join Date
    Aug 2009
    Location
    South London
    Posts
    8,576
    Thanks
    1,036
    Thanked 1,105 Times in 821 Posts
    Quote Originally Posted by Borchester View Post
    I can't see why not.

    As far as I can see they aren't much more than dozy dollies who were bored crapless with life at home with mum and dad and went off to find a bit of excitment. If they murdered any Britons while abroad then they may have a case to answer, but as far as I can see they spent most of their time getting laid, which is something young women from all walks of life are prone to do.
    No way Borky ,you couldn't make a Dolly between them and bored or not they really needed to find something else to relive it than joining a death cult . It was their choice , a wrong one but tough luck they are now the unwashed , the unwanted and they and theirs can spend the rest of their lives thinking about that in a tent in Syria .
    They have nothing to offer the UK ,if we did let them back they would spend forever on the social and the terrorist watchlist . It would cost us a bloody fortune .

    Yes we all enjoy a bit of hanky panky but really if shagging Mussas was all they wanted they could have just pitched up in Rotherham and saved a few kids from that horror .

  10. #20
    Join Date
    Aug 2018
    Location
    Southport
    Posts
    1,134
    Thanks
    191
    Thanked 195 Times in 141 Posts
    Quote Originally Posted by T00ts View Post
    I just don't see that that can be the only consideration. Surely leaving them there just compounds the wrong. The children are innocents in this.
    Do the children of the fallen, killed by ISIS, that they supported have any choice if their father or mother comes home?

    Nope, let them rot.
    I can explain it to you, but I canít understand it for you.

Similar Threads

  1. How can you be sure that he ISN'T back?
    By Jack Napier in forum Religion, Faith and Spirituality
    Replies: 28
    Last Post: 02-03-2011, 12:51 PM

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •