This might be a good idea, as long as the sentences are life upon conviction...
Getting a conviction is the challenge.
That is true. Then they should be left for dead on the battlefield. If we can not convict these traitors, I sure as heck do not want them in Canada walking free.
This might be a good idea, as long as the sentences are life upon conviction...
Getting a conviction is the challenge.
That is true. Then they should be left for dead on the battlefield. If we can not convict these traitors, I sure as heck do not want them in Canada walking free.
This might be a good idea, as long as the sentences are life upon conviction...
Getting a conviction is the challenge.
That is true. Then they should be left for dead on the battlefield. If we can not convict these traitors, I sure as heck do not want them in Canada walking free.
No due process?
If they are captured on the battlefield then due process is not necessary. Most importantly I want the Canadian government to tell both male and female ISIS members that they are not coming back to Canada.
This might be a good idea, as long as the sentences are life upon conviction...
Getting a conviction is the challenge.
That is true. Then they should be left for dead on the battlefield. If we can not convict these traitors, I sure as heck do not want them in Canada walking free.
No due process?
The law- designed with best intentions- works for them and they take advantage of it. The 'returned' committed their offences in another country where madness and chaos are the norms. Witnesses are hard to find. Garbage spewed on social media is irrelevant. There is very little the courts can use to convict.
They chose to go over there. They knew what they were getting into. They can stay. Common sense- which is sorely lacking around here- should prevail. I don't want people with twisted ideologies lurking in rat holes in my country- plotting to kill children on sidewalks with rented vans.
We can't convict them, but we know what they did and commit resources to monitor and track their behaviours. Doesn't that seem odd? If they're innocent, then we should be all in on innocence and they should enjoy the freedom every other Canadian citizen enjoys without the concerns.
Veiled sympathy- or playing devil's advocate- for returning ISIS members isn't scoring points or making you appear dignified. Stick to the pee tape and collusion.
This might be a good idea, as long as the sentences are life upon conviction...
Getting a conviction is the challenge.
That is true. Then they should be left for dead on the battlefield. If we can not convict these traitors, I sure as heck do not want them in Canada walking free.
No due process?
Nope. See Anwar al-Awlaki, Abdulrahman al-Awlaki, Nawar Al-Awlaki, etc for past precedent.
"I'll use the magic word - let's just shut the fuck up, please." EV, 04/13/08
This might be a good idea, as long as the sentences are life upon conviction...
Getting a conviction is the challenge.
That is true. Then they should be left for dead on the battlefield. If we can not convict these traitors, I sure as heck do not want them in Canada walking free.
No due process?
The law- designed with best intentions- works for them and they take advantage of it. The 'returned' committed their offences in another country where madness and chaos are the norms. Witnesses are hard to find. Garbage spewed on social media is irrelevant. There is very little the courts can use to convict.
They chose to go over there. They knew what they were getting into. They can stay. Common sense- which is sorely lacking around here- should prevail. I don't want people with twisted ideologies lurking in rat holes in my country- plotting to kill children on sidewalks with rented vans.
We can't convict them, but we know what they did and commit resources to monitor and track their behaviours. Doesn't that seem odd? If they're innocent, then we should be all in on innocence and they should enjoy the freedom every other Canadian citizen enjoys without the concerns.
Veiled sympathy- or playing devil's advocate- for returning ISIS members isn't scoring points or making you appear dignified. Stick to the pee tape and collusion.
It’s not “veiled sympathy” or trying to “appear dignified” or whatever such shit. It was an honest question. It amazes me that the Nuremberg Trials were held at The Hague to great success after one of the largest atrocities of humankind and yet putting members of ISIS on trial is too much of challenge for our democratic ideals. I thought “we” were supposed to better than that? Note that I didn’t say there shouldn’t be punishment or that these should be Truth and Reconciliation Commissions. You act like prosecuting terrorists has never been successful and nowhere did I suggest they should be allowed to walk around Canada or the US. Guess all prisoners of war should be shot on sight?
This might be a good idea, as long as the sentences are life upon conviction...
Getting a conviction is the challenge.
That is true. Then they should be left for dead on the battlefield. If we can not convict these traitors, I sure as heck do not want them in Canada walking free.
No due process?
The law- designed with best intentions- works for them and they take advantage of it. The 'returned' committed their offences in another country where madness and chaos are the norms. Witnesses are hard to find. Garbage spewed on social media is irrelevant. There is very little the courts can use to convict.
They chose to go over there. They knew what they were getting into. They can stay. Common sense- which is sorely lacking around here- should prevail. I don't want people with twisted ideologies lurking in rat holes in my country- plotting to kill children on sidewalks with rented vans.
We can't convict them, but we know what they did and commit resources to monitor and track their behaviours. Doesn't that seem odd? If they're innocent, then we should be all in on innocence and they should enjoy the freedom every other Canadian citizen enjoys without the concerns.
Veiled sympathy- or playing devil's advocate- for returning ISIS members isn't scoring points or making you appear dignified. Stick to the pee tape and collusion.
It’s not “veiled sympathy” or trying to “appear dignified” or whatever such shit. It was an honest question. It amazes me that the Nuremberg Trials were held at The Hague to great success after one of the largest atrocities of humankind and yet putting members of ISIS on trial is too much of challenge for our democratic ideals. I thought “we” were supposed to better than that? Note that I didn’t say there shouldn’t be punishment or that these should be Truth and Reconciliation Commissions. You act like prosecuting terrorists has never been successful and nowhere did I suggest they should be allowed to walk around Canada or the US. Guess all prisoners of war should be shot on sight?
To be fair... you didn’t say much of anything. Much was left to interpretation.
These POS's are terrorist, ISIS is a terrorist organization. The Naza's were well organized, had a political structure, had a proper military that had clear leadership...so it only stands to reason that Nazi's were easier to convict. ISIS has none of that. Turn the bastards over to Asad...problem solved, he takes care of them for us...all of them.
And I already spoke to the challenges prosecution teams face and will face trying to convict these losers.
This situation is unprecedented.
The “challenge” of it shouldn’t mean we throw away our democratic ideals.
And I simply asked a simple question that you read an awful lot into and made a ton of assumptions about before going personal.
Coupled with your evident tension around here lately, it appeared as passive aggression.
I re-read it and I don't see anything too personal outside of questioning your motive behind the vague line of questioning. I'm on your side way more than I am not.
I don't think we should toss away democracy either; however, these scumbags went to another country and committed grievous offences while there. They should face the consequences of their actions there before returning home. It shouldn't be up to us to try and convict them- especially with the inherent challenges of doing so and the seriousness of their crimes.
To boot, I do not want our courts, our newspaper headlines, and our tax dollars making any investment in treating these turds with any treatment more deserving than a turd. They made their beds... now go lie in them.
These POS's are terrorist, ISIS is a terrorist organization. The Naza's were well organized, had a political structure, had a proper military that had clear leadership...so it only stands to reason that Nazi's were easier to convict. ISIS has none of that. Turn the bastards over to Asad...problem solved, he takes care of them for us...all of them.
And I already spoke to the challenges prosecution teams face and will face trying to convict these losers.
This situation is unprecedented.
The “challenge” of it shouldn’t mean we throw away our democratic ideals.
And I simply asked a simple question that you read an awful lot into and made a ton of assumptions about before going personal.
Coupled with your evident tension around here lately, it appeared as passive aggression.
I re-read it and I don't see anything too personal outside of questioning your motive behind the vague line of questioning. I'm on your side way more than I am not.
I don't think we should toss away democracy either; however, these scumbags went to another country and committed grievous offences while there. They should face the consequences of their actions there before returning home. It shouldn't be up to us to try and convict them- especially with the inherent challenges of doing so and the seriousness of their crimes.
To boot, I do not want our courts, our newspaper headlines, and our tax dollars making any investment in treating these turds with any treatment more deserving than a turd. They made their beds... now go lie in them.
“My evident tension around here?” WTF does that mean and enough with this passive aggressive shit. You (meaning me or in the general sense) ask a question or challenge someone’s post and it’s “passive aggressive” or “ganging up” or some other perceived slight. Sorry, I’m not buying it.
Personally, I think any US citizen who supports or goes and fights for any terrorist organization should forfeit their citizenship. However, there should be some process whereby that happens and it should be legal and a known risk. Captured on the battlefield? Document it, create a record, transcripts of interviews, photographs, biometric evidence, witness interviews, etc. I’m not arguing for Miranda warnings and legal counsel. But what do you do with those that aren’t captured and return home? What if you suspect they fought for ISIS? Deport them? And what about those Americans or Canadians or Europeans who fought or are fighting with the Kurds? Do they get a pass? One man’s terrorist is another man’s freedom fighter.
And I already spoke to the challenges prosecution teams face and will face trying to convict these losers.
This situation is unprecedented.
The “challenge” of it shouldn’t mean we throw away our democratic ideals.
And I simply asked a simple question that you read an awful lot into and made a ton of assumptions about before going personal.
Coupled with your evident tension around here lately, it appeared as passive aggression.
I re-read it and I don't see anything too personal outside of questioning your motive behind the vague line of questioning. I'm on your side way more than I am not.
I don't think we should toss away democracy either; however, these scumbags went to another country and committed grievous offences while there. They should face the consequences of their actions there before returning home. It shouldn't be up to us to try and convict them- especially with the inherent challenges of doing so and the seriousness of their crimes.
To boot, I do not want our courts, our newspaper headlines, and our tax dollars making any investment in treating these turds with any treatment more deserving than a turd. They made their beds... now go lie in them.
“My evident tension around here?” WTF does that mean and enough with this passive aggressive shit. You (meaning me or in the general sense) ask a question or challenge someone’s post and it’s “passive aggressive” or “ganging up” or some other perceived slight. Sorry, I’m not buying it.
Personally, I think any US citizen who supports or goes and fights for any terrorist organization should forfeit their citizenship. However, there should be some process whereby that happens and it should be legal and a known risk. Captured on the battlefield? Document it, create a record, transcripts of interviews, photographs, biometric evidence, witness interviews, etc. I’m not arguing for Miranda warnings and legal counsel. But what do you do with those that aren’t captured and return home? What if you suspect they fought for ISIS? Deport them? And what about those Americans or Canadians or Europeans who fought or are fighting with the Kurds? Do they get a pass? One man’s terrorist is another man’s freedom fighter.
Okay look... I'm not into sparring with you on this issue. You have a deep history of very well articulated posts that leave little to the imagination. In this instance, you go all 'unsung' like and was misinterpreted.
You never bothered to even qualify your questions. You asked them in no more than three words. They came across as oppositional. This shouldn't be hard to understand. I'm trying to explain to you how I perceived them. I'm moving past this. There is no conflict here.
The situation is tricky. I don't have the answers that could satisfy everyone. You've clarified your position. I'm okay with it.
And I already spoke to the challenges prosecution teams face and will face trying to convict these losers.
This situation is unprecedented.
So just kill them right there oh ok yeah that’s the way ...
If the option is leaving them dead on the battlefield or risk one of them being radicalized even more because they thought they were going to create a Utopia, and then commit a terror attack, take them out or hand them ALL over to Asad...
And I already spoke to the challenges prosecution teams face and will face trying to convict these losers.
This situation is unprecedented.
So just kill them right there oh ok yeah that’s the way ...
Deep thoughts by Jack Handy?
I never said that. Now you're taking shots here? What the f**k do you suggest Mr. Smarty Pants?
Just leave them there don’t let them back that’s what I’ve stated but I’m def not on the side of just kill them and ask questions later ..why are you so uptight around these days I’m not attacking you ..
I don't even know how this is a discussion: you fight for the other team then you aren't allowed back. It is simple as that.
There’s room for discussion with some aspects The most important one, like I’ve said, is what we might learn that could prevent the next similar event. The other is for those who were children. There’s a well publicized case of a British 15 year old who wants to return. I can definitely see a 15 or 16 year old making a terribly misguided choice out of rebellion and regretting it pretty quickly, and I don’t think a 15 year old has the capacity to evaluate the situation.
my small self... like a book amongst the many on a shelf
And I already spoke to the challenges prosecution teams face and will face trying to convict these losers.
This situation is unprecedented.
So just kill them right there oh ok yeah that’s the way ...
Deep thoughts by Jack Handy?
I never said that. Now you're taking shots here? What the f**k do you suggest Mr. Smarty Pants?
Just leave them there don’t let them back that’s what I’ve stated but I’m def not on the side of just kill them and ask questions later ..why are you so uptight around these days I’m not attacking you ..
lol
I agree with the leave them there and let them reap what they have sown.
And to your questions: I don't know. I border on idiocy more often than not. Take care. All is good.
And I already spoke to the challenges prosecution teams face and will face trying to convict these losers.
This situation is unprecedented.
So just kill them right there oh ok yeah that’s the way ...
Deep thoughts by Jack Handy?
I never said that. Now you're taking shots here? What the f**k do you suggest Mr. Smarty Pants?
Just leave them there don’t let them back that’s what I’ve stated but I’m def not on the side of just kill them and ask questions later ..why are you so uptight around these days I’m not attacking you ..
lol
I agree with the leave them there and let them reap what they have sown.
And to your questions: I don't know. I border on idiocy more often than not. Take care. All is good.
No your one if the most sane posters here if anything I’m the idiot trying to keep up , all good here too ..
I don't even know how this is a discussion: you fight for the other team then you aren't allowed back. It is simple as that.
There’s room for discussion with some aspects The most important one, like I’ve said, is what we might learn that could prevent the next similar event. The other is for those who were children. There’s a well publicized case of a British 15 year old who wants to return. I can definitely see a 15 or 16 year old making a terribly misguided choice out of rebellion and regretting it pretty quickly, and I don’t think a 15 year old has the capacity to evaluate the situation.
Can you link the story you refer to?
At the risk of sounding callous, what if that 15 year old displayed exceptional cruelty as they exercised their poor choice?
At some point, that particular ideology needs to go away. ISIS, or any offshoots from it, should not be an aspect of life that people (in particular other Muslims) simply have to contend with.
And I already spoke to the challenges prosecution teams face and will face trying to convict these losers.
This situation is unprecedented.
So just kill them right there oh ok yeah that’s the way ...
Deep thoughts by Jack Handy?
I never said that. Now you're taking shots here? What the f**k do you suggest Mr. Smarty Pants?
Just leave them there don’t let them back that’s what I’ve stated but I’m def not on the side of just kill them and ask questions later ..why are you so uptight around these days I’m not attacking you ..
lol
I agree with the leave them there and let them reap what they have sown.
And to your questions: I don't know. I border on idiocy more often than not. Take care. All is good.
No your one if the most sane posters here if anything I’m the idiot trying to keep up , all good here too ..
I don't even know how this is a discussion: you fight for the other team then you aren't allowed back. It is simple as that.
There’s room for discussion with some aspects The most important one, like I’ve said, is what we might learn that could prevent the next similar event. The other is for those who were children. There’s a well publicized case of a British 15 year old who wants to return. I can definitely see a 15 or 16 year old making a terribly misguided choice out of rebellion and regretting it pretty quickly, and I don’t think a 15 year old has the capacity to evaluate the situation.
Agreed specially if that 15yr old finds persecution from his current country they might feel like they are under attack at school in courtyards , we just don’t know why some will radicalize and feel the need to go fight against civil society..
Shamima Begum left the UK at 15, along with two of her school friends, to join the Islamic State and was married to an ISIS fighter, a Dutch national. She had three children, all of whom died in infancy, the most recent only a few days ago at the age of 3 weeks, in a refugee camp. The UK had stripped her of citizenship and refused to allow her to return. It's been a major and contentious story in the UK.
I don't even know how this is a discussion: you fight for the other team then you aren't allowed back. It is simple as that.
I don't think leaving them there is a great option. How long did we just leave Bin Laden there? The last thing we need is some asshole survivor taking the torch and leading the next mass terrorist attack because we didn't follow through with dragging them through a trial where there isn't a 100% chance of a death sentence. You either need to come to terms with just killing them or holding them accountable for treason in court. It should not be that hard to prosecute these people based on all of the intelligence and resources at the disposal of the military and government.
Shamima Begum left the UK at 15, along with two of her school friends, to join the Islamic State and was married to an ISIS fighter, a Dutch national. She had three children, all of whom died in infancy, the most recent only a few days ago at the age of 3 weeks, in a refugee camp. The UK had stripped her of citizenship and refused to allow her to return. It's been a major and contentious story in the UK.
I have questions (and not necessarily for you given you wouldn't answer them anyways).
How did radicalization occur? At 15, how did she develop the mentality to leave the UK in pursuit of supporting the Islamic State?
Within her religious community, I'm assuming she came from a place of 'peace' and evolved to 'extremist'. Would that not be the natural progression unless she was borne into an extremist existence and had no need for adapting to such a doctrine?
Comments
Libtardaplorable©. And proud of it.
Brilliantati©
They chose to go over there. They knew what they were getting into. They can stay. Common sense- which is sorely lacking around here- should prevail. I don't want people with twisted ideologies lurking in rat holes in my country- plotting to kill children on sidewalks with rented vans.
We can't convict them, but we know what they did and commit resources to monitor and track their behaviours. Doesn't that seem odd? If they're innocent, then we should be all in on innocence and they should enjoy the freedom every other Canadian citizen enjoys without the concerns.
Veiled sympathy- or playing devil's advocate- for returning ISIS members isn't scoring points or making you appear dignified. Stick to the pee tape and collusion.
Libtardaplorable©. And proud of it.
Brilliantati©
”I have nothing to hide.”
”I’ll sit down and talk to anyone.”
”We do everything by the book.”
Libtardaplorable©. And proud of it.
Brilliantati©
This situation is unprecedented.
And I simply asked a simple question that you read an awful lot into and made a ton of assumptions about before going personal.
Libtardaplorable©. And proud of it.
Brilliantati©
Coupled with your evident tension around here lately, it appeared as passive aggression.
I re-read it and I don't see anything too personal outside of questioning your motive behind the vague line of questioning. I'm on your side way more than I am not.
I don't think we should toss away democracy either; however, these scumbags went to another country and committed grievous offences while there. They should face the consequences of their actions there before returning home. It shouldn't be up to us to try and convict them- especially with the inherent challenges of doing so and the seriousness of their crimes.
To boot, I do not want our courts, our newspaper headlines, and our tax dollars making any investment in treating these turds with any treatment more deserving than a turd. They made their beds... now go lie in them.
Libtardaplorable©. And proud of it.
Brilliantati©
Personally, I think any US citizen who supports or goes and fights for any terrorist organization should forfeit their citizenship. However, there should be some process whereby that happens and it should be legal and a known risk. Captured on the battlefield? Document it, create a record, transcripts of interviews, photographs, biometric evidence, witness interviews, etc. I’m not arguing for Miranda warnings and legal counsel. But what do you do with those that aren’t captured and return home? What if you suspect they fought for ISIS? Deport them? And what about those Americans or Canadians or Europeans who fought or are fighting with the Kurds? Do they get a pass? One man’s terrorist is another man’s freedom fighter.
Libtardaplorable©. And proud of it.
Brilliantati©
Okay look... I'm not into sparring with you on this issue. You have a deep history of very well articulated posts that leave little to the imagination. In this instance, you go all 'unsung' like and was misinterpreted.
You never bothered to even qualify your questions. You asked them in no more than three words. They came across as oppositional. This shouldn't be hard to understand. I'm trying to explain to you how I perceived them. I'm moving past this. There is no conflict here.
The situation is tricky. I don't have the answers that could satisfy everyone. You've clarified your position. I'm okay with it.
Deep thoughts by Jack Handy?
I never said that. Now you're taking shots here? What the f**k do you suggest Mr. Smarty Pants?
lol
I agree with the leave them there and let them reap what they have sown.
And to your questions: I don't know. I border on idiocy more often than not. Take care. All is good.
Can you link the story you refer to?
At the risk of sounding callous, what if that 15 year old displayed exceptional cruelty as they exercised their poor choice?
At some point, that particular ideology needs to go away. ISIS, or any offshoots from it, should not be an aspect of life that people (in particular other Muslims) simply have to contend with.
Cheers!
https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2019/mar/09/sajid-javid-denounced-shamima-begums-baby-dies-syria
Hmmm. Tough one.
I have questions (and not necessarily for you given you wouldn't answer them anyways).
How did radicalization occur? At 15, how did she develop the mentality to leave the UK in pursuit of supporting the Islamic State?
Within her religious community, I'm assuming she came from a place of 'peace' and evolved to 'extremist'. Would that not be the natural progression unless she was borne into an extremist existence and had no need for adapting to such a doctrine?
Libtardaplorable©. And proud of it.
Brilliantati©