Food & Drink1 min ago
Ah! Those Poor 'brainwashed' Jihadi Brides, Some Wish To Welcome Back Into Their Countries.
19 Answers
Answers
1 to 19 of 19
Best Answer
No best answer has yet been selected by anotheoldgit. Once a best answer has been selected, it will be shown here.
For more on marking an answer as the "Best Answer", please visit our FAQ.
you can never say die to a jihadia
Shameem was rebuked by the other hardliners in el-hole because she had appeared in front of the tele cameras with more than eyes showing
and during the interviews - she ( shemeem) never said 'o god what a fool I have been!' BUT
is there no propaganda value in this ? mother loses three children and says she cant wait to get back and have a few more!
are the children listening so thick ( you know like some Abers) they say 00- yeah! me too!
the white recruiter ( now the dead white recruiter ) who got shameem over said nothing about the air attacks - early child death and starvation - much more about the Garden of Paradise !
Shameem was rebuked by the other hardliners in el-hole because she had appeared in front of the tele cameras with more than eyes showing
and during the interviews - she ( shemeem) never said 'o god what a fool I have been!' BUT
is there no propaganda value in this ? mother loses three children and says she cant wait to get back and have a few more!
are the children listening so thick ( you know like some Abers) they say 00- yeah! me too!
the white recruiter ( now the dead white recruiter ) who got shameem over said nothing about the air attacks - early child death and starvation - much more about the Garden of Paradise !
I saw this on a foreign news programme. It's horrific. These women are deranged , brainwashed and radicalised. This is not a 9 days wonder of a problem though. Their countries don't want them back and left to their own devices the ISIS ideology will fester and grow.
This is a massive problem and unfortunately no-one seems to know how to deal with it.
This is a massive problem and unfortunately no-one seems to know how to deal with it.
The ideology of which you write, will have as little success in the future as it had now. Surviving extremists can complain, but neighbouring States are against terrorists invading their nations; and an existing nation backsliding into a more primitive society becomes difficult in an interconnected world. One may get the odd revolution where existing government is weak, but generally the world powers take a dim view of their supported smaller countries causing them issues on the world stage.
Invalid question.
Leave the traitors where they are. They can rant all they wish. Then allow time for the uncivilised groups to get with the times.
There's no magic wand to sort everything now, it takes generations of offspring realising that their parents' generation didn't quite get it right and gradually changing prevailing local opinion. Awareness of more peaceful countries via the Internet must help. One should want to replicate best practice for oneself to enjoy the better standard of life for all.
Leave the traitors where they are. They can rant all they wish. Then allow time for the uncivilised groups to get with the times.
There's no magic wand to sort everything now, it takes generations of offspring realising that their parents' generation didn't quite get it right and gradually changing prevailing local opinion. Awareness of more peaceful countries via the Internet must help. One should want to replicate best practice for oneself to enjoy the better standard of life for all.
Where is your evidence that "some wish to welcome back into their countries" these women?
There is a world of difference between accepting that they have citizenship of a country and putting them through the courts and 'welcoming' them.
There is also a degree of ownership and taking responsibility for what has happened. If people went from UK to join an organisation declared illegal by UK, very likely after being groomed and brainwashed in UK, how does that suddenly become (for example) Bangladesh's problem, particularly if the accused has never been there?
Much as we might like to, we don't strip citizenship from football hooligans who cause fights in other countries, nor from people who smuggle drugs from UK into other countries.
There is a world of difference between accepting that they have citizenship of a country and putting them through the courts and 'welcoming' them.
There is also a degree of ownership and taking responsibility for what has happened. If people went from UK to join an organisation declared illegal by UK, very likely after being groomed and brainwashed in UK, how does that suddenly become (for example) Bangladesh's problem, particularly if the accused has never been there?
Much as we might like to, we don't strip citizenship from football hooligans who cause fights in other countries, nor from people who smuggle drugs from UK into other countries.
https:/
An article from a left-leaning newspaper suggests Mr Corbyn said Ms Begum might need support. That's not quite the same as saying he wants to welcome her back.
He was clear that she will need to answer some questions. That means UK accepting some responsibility for the actions of its citizens, not washing their hands and dumping the problem on a country still fighting a civil war.
While we are deporting more undesirable wrongdoers than are returning to UK, it is not a good idea to set such a precedent.
An article from a left-leaning newspaper suggests Mr Corbyn said Ms Begum might need support. That's not quite the same as saying he wants to welcome her back.
He was clear that she will need to answer some questions. That means UK accepting some responsibility for the actions of its citizens, not washing their hands and dumping the problem on a country still fighting a civil war.
While we are deporting more undesirable wrongdoers than are returning to UK, it is not a good idea to set such a precedent.
JF85, //That means UK accepting some responsibility for the actions of its citizens, not washing their hands and dumping the problem on a country still fighting a civil war.//
The UK isn’t responsible for her actions and it didn’t dump her in Syria. She travelled there of her own volition, set up home with a Jihadist, gave birth to his children, and has no regrets. Her actions are her responsibility.
The UK isn’t responsible for her actions and it didn’t dump her in Syria. She travelled there of her own volition, set up home with a Jihadist, gave birth to his children, and has no regrets. Her actions are her responsibility.
We liberated Europe and rounded up our enemies who committed war crimes and imprisoned them or hung them. (Nuremburg)
The Kurds fought against Daesh who beheaded their fellow prisoners.Something that did not faze Begum as she regarded decapitated heads in the garbage as her enemies. The Kurds captured them. Let the Kurds deal with their captured enemies as they feel fit. If they have been deprived of UK citizenship then the UK should wash their hands of them. After all Begum and her ilk abandoned the UK when her new found buddies were decapitating UK Aid workers and plotting bomb outrages against the UK which she deemed justified. (Manchester)
No one bleated when Saddam did his shuffle. What's the difference.?
The Kurds fought against Daesh who beheaded their fellow prisoners.Something that did not faze Begum as she regarded decapitated heads in the garbage as her enemies. The Kurds captured them. Let the Kurds deal with their captured enemies as they feel fit. If they have been deprived of UK citizenship then the UK should wash their hands of them. After all Begum and her ilk abandoned the UK when her new found buddies were decapitating UK Aid workers and plotting bomb outrages against the UK which she deemed justified. (Manchester)
No one bleated when Saddam did his shuffle. What's the difference.?
1 to 19 of 19
Related Questions
Sorry, we can't find any related questions. Try using the search bar at the top of the page to search for some keywords, or choose a topic and submit your own question.