IS Schoolgirl wants to come home

Previous Topic | Next Topic

Page 40 of 74 < 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 >

Stirlingsays 16 Apr 19 6.29pm
Originally posted by Badger11 So no surprise that this woman has got legal aid and Jezza is supporting her. Meanwhile on LBC the father of one of the six redcaps murdered in Iraq phoned in to complain that he and the other families have been fighting for justice for their sons and have been denied legal aid so they fight on alone. Same old same old the good are denied but there's plenty of money for the scum. Pretty much yep. 'Who are you and how did you get in here? I'm a locksmith. And, I'm a locksmith.' (Leslie Nielsen)
Alert a moderator to this post

Stirlingsays

16 Apr 19 6.29pm

Originally posted by Badger11

So no surprise that this woman has got legal aid and Jezza is supporting her.

Meanwhile on LBC the father of one of the six redcaps murdered in Iraq phoned in to complain that he and the other families have been fighting for justice for their sons and have been denied legal aid so they fight on alone.

Same old same old the good are denied but there's plenty of money for the scum.

Pretty much yep.

'Who are you and how did you get in here? I'm a locksmith. And, I'm a locksmith.' (Leslie Nielsen)

Alert a moderator to this post

Stirlingsays 16 Apr 19 6.35pm
Originally posted by Matov I appreciate that I am out of step with many of my fellow Travellers on the right over this, and it is a disgrace about the lack of legal aid for the parents of those poor military police men, but how we deal with our 'scum', is what defines us as a civilisation. This girl was 15 when she ran away. A child by our legal definition. If she was a day over 18, then I would be screaming and hollering with the rest of you without a single hesitation. But she was not. Now her age does not excuse her actions in the slightest. But it should define how we, as a nation, view her. She should be allowed back into British legal jurisdiction (perhaps a military base until such time she is deemed no longer a threat). Then returned to the UK and given a second chance, no matter how much it sticks in our collective gullets. Otherwise it makes us no better than the jihadi filth she ran away to join up with. We have to hold ourselves to higher standards than those we opposed. And effectively punishing children for mistakes they made when they were 15 is one of them, no matter how loathesome the circumstances are. Because otherwise what is the point? What is the point of trying to resist all that is going on if we cannot bring ourselves to offer a life-line to people who f***ed up before they were old enough to buy a drink in a pub? Or vote? There is validity to the 'second chance' argument. It probably comes down to what the crime is. Would you use the second chance argument for Jamie Bulger's murderers? What happened to that poor child was beyond horrific. Personally I don't think justice was even a tiny bit done there.....and the state continues to punish those who feel angry about it. These girls aided and abetted something directly linked to the murder of westerners. I have to admit....once her baby died, my concerns died along with it. Edited by Stirlingsays (16 Apr 2019 6.36pm) 'Who are you and how did you get in here? I'm a locksmith. And, I'm a locksmith.' (Leslie Nielsen)
Alert a moderator to this post

Stirlingsays

16 Apr 19 6.35pm

Originally posted by Matov

I appreciate that I am out of step with many of my fellow Travellers on the right over this, and it is a disgrace about the lack of legal aid for the parents of those poor military police men, but how we deal with our 'scum', is what defines us as a civilisation.

This girl was 15 when she ran away. A child by our legal definition. If she was a day over 18, then I would be screaming and hollering with the rest of you without a single hesitation. But she was not.

Now her age does not excuse her actions in the slightest. But it should define how we, as a nation, view her. She should be allowed back into British legal jurisdiction (perhaps a military base until such time she is deemed no longer a threat). Then returned to the UK and given a second chance, no matter how much it sticks in our collective gullets.

Otherwise it makes us no better than the jihadi filth she ran away to join up with.

We have to hold ourselves to higher standards than those we opposed. And effectively punishing children for mistakes they made when they were 15 is one of them, no matter how loathesome the circumstances are. Because otherwise what is the point? What is the point of trying to resist all that is going on if we cannot bring ourselves to offer a life-line to people who f***ed up before they were old enough to buy a drink in a pub? Or vote?

There is validity to the 'second chance' argument.

It probably comes down to what the crime is.

Would you use the second chance argument for Jamie Bulger's murderers? What happened to that poor child was beyond horrific. Personally I don't think justice was even a tiny bit done there.....and the state continues to punish those who feel angry about it.

These girls aided and abetted something directly linked to the murder of westerners.

I have to admit....once her baby died, my concerns died along with it.

Edited by Stirlingsays (16 Apr 2019 6.36pm)

'Who are you and how did you get in here? I'm a locksmith. And, I'm a locksmith.' (Leslie Nielsen)

Alert a moderator to this post

Hrolf The Ganger 16 Apr 19 6.43pm
Originally posted by Matov I appreciate that I am out of step with many of my fellow Travellers on the right over this, and it is a disgrace about the lack of legal aid for the parents of those poor military police men, but how we deal with our 'scum', is what defines us as a civilisation. This girl was 15 when she ran away. A child by our legal definition. If she was a day over 18, then I would be screaming and hollering with the rest of you without a single hesitation. But she was not. Now her age does not excuse her actions in the slightest. But it should define how we, as a nation, view her. She should be allowed back into British legal jurisdiction (perhaps a military base until such time she is deemed no longer a threat). Then returned to the UK and given a second chance, no matter how much it sticks in our collective gullets. Otherwise it makes us no better than the jihadi filth she ran away to join up with. We have to hold ourselves to higher standards than those we opposed. And effectively punishing children for mistakes they made when they were 15 is one of them, no matter how loathesome the circumstances are. Because otherwise what is the point? What is the point of trying to resist all that is going on if we cannot bring ourselves to offer a life-line to people who f***ed up before they were old enough to buy a drink in a pub? Or vote? I'd answer that by saying that in war, mortal ideals sometimes have to take second place to self preservation and a sense of justice. How far do you persist in trying to uphold moral principles in the face of a ruthless enemy? Ultimately, we could all die doing that and then who would be around to care what we believed in? She is just a girl who got indoctrinated with extremism but what of all the other IS members? Do we excuse them all because they were victims too? More importantly, why do you want to save her? To make yourself feel better or superior? Personally, I feel nothing toward her. Neither hate or pity. She doesn't figure in my list of anything.
Alert a moderator to this post

Hrolf The Ganger

16 Apr 19 6.43pm

Send a Private Message to Hrolf The Ganger

Originally posted by Matov

Otherwise it makes us no better than the jihadi filth she ran away to join up with.

I'd answer that by saying that in war, mortal ideals sometimes have to take second place to self preservation and a sense of justice.

How far do you persist in trying to uphold moral principles in the face of a ruthless enemy?
Ultimately, we could all die doing that and then who would be around to care what we believed in?

She is just a girl who got indoctrinated with extremism but what of all the other IS members? Do we excuse them all because they were victims too?
More importantly, why do you want to save her? To make yourself feel better or superior?

Personally, I feel nothing toward her. Neither hate or pity. She doesn't figure in my list of anything.

Alert a moderator to this post

Matov 16 Apr 19 6.45pm
Originally posted by Rudi Hedman In most circumstances I agree with this, however, when people stick their fingers up to the country and make it their enemy, only to want to return when their battle and army they joined with the aim to destroy us then I cannot bring myself to show the world how civilised we are by also making ourselves like complete suckers and fools these types see us as, and have and will take advantage at any opportunity given half the chance. A worse message is to say it�s alright and okay, we�re always here to forgive and forget. I�m more concerned about us being a national pushover and laughed at in private by people taking the p1ss than worrying about how a fewxmight think we�re uncivilised for a few moments in time before there�s new headlines. A day over 18 when they flee, then I am in full agreement with you. No issues at all. But 15? As I have stressed, this is not about her. This is about us, collectively, as a nation. And what we truly want it stand for. I loathe what this girl did, what she claims even now to believe in and have nothing but utter contempt for her family because as far as I am concerned they should be prosecuted for neglect. However, she was a child when she run away. So the country owes her, even now, a duty of care, no matter how much that sickens me to say. Nobody who went to join IS did so in ignorance of what they were up to. There are zero issues around that. But we are not IS. We are meant to be, as difficult as that is to believe at the moment, a country with the rule of law and democracy still in place. Western civilisation has to mean something. Has to stand in the face of every kind of abuse going. Because otherwise what fills the void is an abhorrence. And yes, I am about to commit a terrible case of hyperbole now but we fight or die on this. Let Islamic lunatics chop off the hands of kids for flying kites or make their daughters wrap up from head to toe in bandages. We don't. We give our kids real chances. Even moronic 15 year olds. And especially ones who would, under our system, be seen as victims in terms of sexual grooming. I would happily put a bullet into the head of that Dutch nonce she 'married', along with any and every other adult who went to join that murderous death cult. But she was a kid. And I don't want to be part of a civilisation that does not give kids second chances. "The Party told you to reject the evidence of your eyes and ears. It was their final, most essential command." - 1984 - George Orwell.
Alert a moderator to this post

Matov

16 Apr 19 6.45pm

Originally posted by Rudi Hedman

In most circumstances I agree with this, however, when people stick their fingers up to the country and make it their enemy, only to want to return when their battle and army they joined with the aim to destroy us then I cannot bring myself to show the world how civilised we are by also making ourselves like complete suckers and fools these types see us as, and have and will take advantage at any opportunity given half the chance. A worse message is to say it�s alright and okay, we�re always here to forgive and forget. I�m more concerned about us being a national pushover and laughed at in private by people taking the p1ss than worrying about how a fewxmight think we�re uncivilised for a few moments in time before there�s new headlines.

A day over 18 when they flee, then I am in full agreement with you. No issues at all.

But 15? As I have stressed, this is not about her. This is about us, collectively, as a nation. And what we truly want it stand for. I loathe what this girl did, what she claims even now to believe in and have nothing but utter contempt for her family because as far as I am concerned they should be prosecuted for neglect.

However, she was a child when she run away. So the country owes her, even now, a duty of care, no matter how much that sickens me to say.

Nobody who went to join IS did so in ignorance of what they were up to. There are zero issues around that. But we are not IS. We are meant to be, as difficult as that is to believe at the moment, a country with the rule of law and democracy still in place. Western civilisation has to mean something. Has to stand in the face of every kind of abuse going. Because otherwise what fills the void is an abhorrence.

And yes, I am about to commit a terrible case of hyperbole now but we fight or die on this. Let Islamic lunatics chop off the hands of kids for flying kites or make their daughters wrap up from head to toe in bandages. We don't. We give our kids real chances.

Even moronic 15 year olds. And especially ones who would, under our system, be seen as victims in terms of sexual grooming. I would happily put a bullet into the head of that Dutch nonce she 'married', along with any and every other adult who went to join that murderous death cult.

But she was a kid. And I don't want to be part of a civilisation that does not give kids second chances.

"The Party told you to reject the evidence of your eyes and ears. It was their final, most essential command." - 1984 - George Orwell.

Alert a moderator to this post

Matov 16 Apr 19 7.08pm
Originally posted by Hrolf The Ganger More importantly, why do you want to save her? To make yourself feel better or superior? A fair question. Not sure I want to 'save' her. Not sure she can be saved. But I want to feel superior to what she run away to join. And I make no apologies about that. I want to believe in a society that has a collective care of duty impulse to its children. As I have stressed, this is not about her as an individual. Or what she goes on to do with the rest of her life, outside of whatever danger she poses. This is about us, in the West, hanging onto something. Something that does make us better. Something that does mean we can look down our noses as the likes of IS. I don't believe in cultural equality. I believe that Western Civilisation, when taken as a whole, is the pinnacle of mankind's evolution. I am a Western Chauvinist and I make no bones about that. But that comes with a price. Of having to swallow s* on occassion. And allowing this woman back to the UK is swallowing s. I make no bones about that nor pretend to like the taste. But we are better than them fers in their desert s*holes. That is the point. I refuse to allow them to bring me down to their level. "The Party told you to reject the evidence of your eyes and ears. It was their final, most essential command." - 1984 - George Orwell.
Alert a moderator to this post

Matov

16 Apr 19 7.08pm

Originally posted by Hrolf The Ganger

More importantly, why do you want to save her? To make yourself feel better or superior?

A fair question. Not sure I want to 'save' her. Not sure she can be saved. But I want to feel superior to what she run away to join. And I make no apologies about that. I want to believe in a society that has a collective care of duty impulse to its children.

As I have stressed, this is not about her as an individual. Or what she goes on to do with the rest of her life, outside of whatever danger she poses.

This is about us, in the West, hanging onto something. Something that does make us better. Something that does mean we can look down our noses as the likes of IS. I don't believe in cultural equality. I believe that Western Civilisation, when taken as a whole, is the pinnacle of mankind's evolution. I am a Western Chauvinist and I make no bones about that. But that comes with a price. Of having to swallow s*** on occassion.

And allowing this woman back to the UK is swallowing s***. I make no bones about that nor pretend to like the taste.

But we are better than them f***ers in their desert s***holes. That is the point. I refuse to allow them to bring me down to their level.

"The Party told you to reject the evidence of your eyes and ears. It was their final, most essential command." - 1984 - George Orwell.

Alert a moderator to this post

Hrolf The Ganger 16 Apr 19 7.24pm
Originally posted by Matov A fair question. Not sure I want to 'save' her. Not sure she can be saved. But I want to feel superior to what she run away to join. And I make no apologies about that. I want to believe in a society that has a collective care of duty impulse to its children. As I have stressed, this is not about her as an individual. Or what she goes on to do with the rest of her life, outside of whatever danger she poses. This is about us, in the West, hanging onto something. Something that does make us better. Something that does mean we can look down our noses as the likes of IS. I don't believe in cultural equality. I believe that Western Civilisation, when taken as a whole, is the pinnacle of mankind's evolution. I am a Western Chauvinist and I make no bones about that. But that comes with a price. Of having to swallow s* on occassion. And allowing this woman back to the UK is swallowing s. I make no bones about that nor pretend to like the taste. But we are better than them fers in their desert s*holes. That is the point. I refuse to allow them to bring me down to their level. I understand your argument completely but put in it's simplest terms, it seems to me that you cannot defeat 'evil' with 'good'. History shows that you have to defeat evil with evil to preserve a way of life. Now you might argue that generalisations do not necessarily have to apply to a specifc set of circumstances like a 15 year old girl gone rogue, but if we are rescuing her from her own stupidity to uphold some kind of moral principle then we better understand what that principle could cost us if we apply it universally. If we don't apply it universally then how do we justify applying it selectively? Her age is an issue but are we really saying that she was too young to know that what she was doing was morally corrupt? I don't believe that for a second.
Alert a moderator to this post

Hrolf The Ganger

16 Apr 19 7.24pm

Originally posted by Matov

As I have stressed, this is not about her as an individual. Or what she goes on to do with the rest of her life, outside of whatever danger she poses.

And allowing this woman back to the UK is swallowing s***. I make no bones about that nor pretend to like the taste.

But we are better than them f***ers in their desert s***holes. That is the point. I refuse to allow them to bring me down to their level.

I understand your argument completely but put in it's simplest terms, it seems to me that you cannot defeat 'evil' with 'good'.
History shows that you have to defeat evil with evil to preserve a way of life.
Now you might argue that generalisations do not necessarily have to apply to a specifc set of circumstances like a 15 year old girl gone rogue, but if we are rescuing her from her own stupidity to uphold some kind of moral principle then we better understand what that principle could cost us if we apply it universally. If we don't apply it universally then how do we justify applying it selectively?

Her age is an issue but are we really saying that she was too young to know that what she was doing was morally corrupt?
I don't believe that for a second.

Alert a moderator to this post

Rudi Hedman Caterham 16 Apr 19 7.25pm
Hardly their level though is it? Refusing entry back in after declaring we�re her enemy compared to stoning people to death, beheading or cutting hands off etc for being themselves. Edited by Rudi Hedman (16 Apr 2019 7.31pm) COYP
Alert a moderator to this post

Rudi Hedman

Caterham 16 Apr 19 7.25pm

Hardly their level though is it? Refusing entry back in after declaring we�re her enemy compared to stoning people to death, beheading or cutting hands off etc for being themselves.

Edited by Rudi Hedman (16 Apr 2019 7.31pm)

COYP

Alert a moderator to this post

Stirlingsays 16 Apr 19 7.32pm
The problem with operating at a higher moral level to an enemy is that they just take advantage of it. The higher moral positioning means very little to those that hate you anyway. This can be seen with the rules of engagement via the IRA through to the noble act of trying to avoid the bombing of Mosques in recent wars. It's certainly true that a principle isn't a principle until it costs you. However, for me, that principle stops if it means you risk more body bags. 'Who are you and how did you get in here? I'm a locksmith. And, I'm a locksmith.' (Leslie Nielsen)
Alert a moderator to this post

Stirlingsays

16 Apr 19 7.32pm

The problem with operating at a higher moral level to an enemy is that they just take advantage of it.

The higher moral positioning means very little to those that hate you anyway.

This can be seen with the rules of engagement via the IRA through to the noble act of trying to avoid the bombing of Mosques in recent wars.

It's certainly true that a principle isn't a principle until it costs you. However, for me, that principle stops if it means you risk more body bags.

'Who are you and how did you get in here? I'm a locksmith. And, I'm a locksmith.' (Leslie Nielsen)

Alert a moderator to this post

Matov 16 Apr 19 7.47pm
Originally posted by Hrolf The Ganger I understand your argument completely but put in it's simplest terms, it seems to me that you cannot defeat 'evil' with 'good'. History shows that you have to defeat evil with evil to preserve a way of life. Now you might argue that generalisations do not necessarily have to apply to a specifc set of circumstances like a 15 year old girl gone rogue, but if we are rescuing her from her own stupidity to uphold some kind of moral principle then we better understand what that principle could cost us if we apply it universally. If we don't apply it universally then how do we justify applying it selectively? Her age is an issue but are we really saying that she was too young to know that what she was doing was morally corrupt? I don't believe that for a second. When the conflict was going on, I had no issue around our forces using any and every means to defeat them. And whilst I might baulk at deliberately targetting a child with missles, if she had been killed during the course of wider air-strikes aimed at British adults who had joined IS, I would not have shed any kind of metaphorical tear. Nobody has claimed she was mentally challenged and I have no doubts that she was more than aware of what she was joining up. But now that is over. And how we treat her is nothing to do with her as an individual. It is about something far bigger than that. For better or worse we have an age of full legal responsibility of 18. She was 15 when she left. And based solely on that, I believe that our society is stronger and better by acknowledging that it still has a duty of care to bring her back here now and deal with her accordingly. And yes, that will be a bitter, bitter pill to swallow. But I am utterly convinced that we are the better for it. "The Party told you to reject the evidence of your eyes and ears. It was their final, most essential command." - 1984 - George Orwell.
Alert a moderator to this post

Matov

16 Apr 19 7.47pm

Originally posted by Hrolf The Ganger

Her age is an issue but are we really saying that she was too young to know that what she was doing was morally corrupt?
I don't believe that for a second.

When the conflict was going on, I had no issue around our forces using any and every means to defeat them. And whilst I might baulk at deliberately targetting a child with missles, if she had been killed during the course of wider air-strikes aimed at British adults who had joined IS, I would not have shed any kind of metaphorical tear. Nobody has claimed she was mentally challenged and I have no doubts that she was more than aware of what she was joining up.

But now that is over. And how we treat her is nothing to do with her as an individual. It is about something far bigger than that.

For better or worse we have an age of full legal responsibility of 18. She was 15 when she left. And based solely on that, I believe that our society is stronger and better by acknowledging that it still has a duty of care to bring her back here now and deal with her accordingly.

And yes, that will be a bitter, bitter pill to swallow. But I am utterly convinced that we are the better for it.

"The Party told you to reject the evidence of your eyes and ears. It was their final, most essential command." - 1984 - George Orwell.

Alert a moderator to this post

Jimenez SELHURSTPARKCHESTER,DA BRONX 16 Apr 19 11.20pm
Amazing how these scumbags always seem to snag legal aid? Let some benefactor bank roll her if she wants to fight her case in the courts, also all benefactors should be legally bound to reveal themselves. Pro USA & Israel
Alert a moderator to this post

Jimenez

SELHURSTPARKCHESTER,DA BRONX 16 Apr 19 11.20pm

Amazing how these scumbags always seem to snag legal aid? Let some benefactor bank roll her if she wants to fight her case in the courts, also all benefactors should be legally bound to reveal themselves.

Pro USA & Israel

Alert a moderator to this post

ChrisGC Wantage 16 Apr 19 11.23pm
Would you ride it tho? Imagine the man points.
Alert a moderator to this post

ChrisGC

Wantage 16 Apr 19 11.23pm

Would you ride it tho?
Imagine the man points.

Alert a moderator to this post

Jimenez SELHURSTPARKCHESTER,DA BRONX 13 Sep 19 10.52pm
Apparently seconded back into the UK & has Cheri Blair representing her. Rumours on Twitter that it was pressure from the EU!! Pro USA & Israel
Alert a moderator to this post

Jimenez

SELHURSTPARKCHESTER,DA BRONX 13 Sep 19 10.52pm

Apparently seconded back into the UK & has Cheri Blair representing her. Rumours on Twitter that it was pressure from the EU!!

Pro USA & Israel

Alert a moderator to this post

Page 40 of 74 < 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 >

Previous Topic | Next Topic

Crystal Palace FC Supporters' Website - The Holmesdale Online

IS Schoolgirl wants to come home

Site Map

Sponsors