Sydney Church Stabbing - Priest And...
News0 min ago
Briton On Trial For Fighting Daesh
51 Answers
https:/
Fingers crossed that despite the trial being held at the Old Bailey I’m hoping that as a Scouser he has a similar jury to the one assigned to the Ken Dodd trial.
Fingers crossed that despite the trial being held at the Old Bailey I’m hoping that as a Scouser he has a similar jury to the one assigned to the Ken Dodd trial.
Answers
The British Government, and the US President were only last week congratulati
09:02 Thu 04th Apr 2019
The PKK have been terrorists in Turkey for decades but happened to oppose the same people as we did on this occasion. This just shows how complex these proxy wars become. Once Syria is settled and they are no longer welcome there, the PKK will go back to being terrorists in Turkey, but I doubt they themselves see any change of allegiance.
//I remember Lawrence of Arabia being deemed a hero for doing something similar.//
joining daesh ? well it was a film as we well know
he was always an officer in the british army
( sorrta why when he had taken aqaba he went and reported to Allenby in Cairo - far faaaar away)
noel coward said of the film - he wore much more eye shadow it would have to called Florence of Arabia ....
joining daesh ? well it was a film as we well know
he was always an officer in the british army
( sorrta why when he had taken aqaba he went and reported to Allenby in Cairo - far faaaar away)
noel coward said of the film - he wore much more eye shadow it would have to called Florence of Arabia ....
retrocop - // I forgot you can't have any truck with revenge or retribution. Well some gentlemen find the decapitation of their fellow Englishmen abhorrent and have the cajones to try and stamp it out rather than sit back on Answerbank all their working life and criticise.He did what he thought was correct and made a good call. Sadly the bed wetting lefty liberals do not agree. Drone strikes only take out the baddys providing there are some who have the guts to provide the information of the baddys and go in theatre but I wonder if you disagree with the likes of the Beatles and Jihadi John being slotted? //
You do love to huff and puff your credentials as a ruffty tuffty no-nonsense shoote-em-all-let-God'sort-'em-out don't you, and pour scorn on any 'liberal lefties' who don't share your point of view.
// Well some gentlemen find the decapitation of their fellow Englishmen abhorrent and have the cajones to try and stamp it out rather than sit back on Answerbank all their working life and criticise.//
If you read my posts properly, instead of leaping in to stamp your no-nonsense patriotism all over the place, you would see that I have not criticised this gentleman at all.
The point I made was the willingness for some people to ignore the laws of this country if they think that someone is doing what they consider to be the right thing.
As an ex-policeman, I would have thought that you were in favour of the upholding of the law, rather than a nod and a wink for those who are being as rough and tough as you want to be, and breaking the law to do so - but maybe I am mistaken.
You do love to huff and puff your credentials as a ruffty tuffty no-nonsense shoote-em-all-let-God'sort-'em-out don't you, and pour scorn on any 'liberal lefties' who don't share your point of view.
// Well some gentlemen find the decapitation of their fellow Englishmen abhorrent and have the cajones to try and stamp it out rather than sit back on Answerbank all their working life and criticise.//
If you read my posts properly, instead of leaping in to stamp your no-nonsense patriotism all over the place, you would see that I have not criticised this gentleman at all.
The point I made was the willingness for some people to ignore the laws of this country if they think that someone is doing what they consider to be the right thing.
As an ex-policeman, I would have thought that you were in favour of the upholding of the law, rather than a nod and a wink for those who are being as rough and tough as you want to be, and breaking the law to do so - but maybe I am mistaken.
You don't need to 'guess' what I think I will tell you, and I have - your version is a made-up response that bears no resemblance to what I said whatsoever.
—————
Well given that it’s in the same theatre of operations it does, but your swerving the question provided the proof(as it it really were) needed.
As for applying anti terror laws selectively, given that he was fighting against a group renowned for attacks on Westerners and plotting acts of terror here I’d say they definitely should be applied as such.
But yet again, another waste of hundreds of thousands of pounds prosecuting someone who was no threat to this country or its citizens, quite the opposite.
—————
Well given that it’s in the same theatre of operations it does, but your swerving the question provided the proof(as it it really were) needed.
As for applying anti terror laws selectively, given that he was fighting against a group renowned for attacks on Westerners and plotting acts of terror here I’d say they definitely should be applied as such.
But yet again, another waste of hundreds of thousands of pounds prosecuting someone who was no threat to this country or its citizens, quite the opposite.
Let's put aside the circumstances which makes the prosecution of these cases problematical . (AB's greatest jurist has commented on those more than once citing the International Brigade, e.g. the difficulty of acquiring evidence which would pass the test of "beyond reasonable doubt" in a criminal court.)
The point about this prosecution is that it provides seeming confirmation of a common perception (and it may be just that, a "perception") that, when on the rare occasion they do decide to prosecute, it is the "member of an illegal..." (or whatevthe charge is) guy who poses the least threat to us rather than the rabid ISIS jihadist who ends up on trial.
Plenty of other examples which arouse these undoubtedly unworthy suspicions. Compa, for example, the speed with which Tommy Robinson got charged and banged up with the years it took to get Abu Hamza out of the country and to get Anjem Choudray inside for a couple of years.
These discrepancies require an explanation. Specific legal impediments in one case? Or an excess of zeal in the other?
The point about this prosecution is that it provides seeming confirmation of a common perception (and it may be just that, a "perception") that, when on the rare occasion they do decide to prosecute, it is the "member of an illegal..." (or whatevthe charge is) guy who poses the least threat to us rather than the rabid ISIS jihadist who ends up on trial.
Plenty of other examples which arouse these undoubtedly unworthy suspicions. Compa, for example, the speed with which Tommy Robinson got charged and banged up with the years it took to get Abu Hamza out of the country and to get Anjem Choudray inside for a couple of years.
These discrepancies require an explanation. Specific legal impediments in one case? Or an excess of zeal in the other?
I am with Mr Hughes on this, unless approved by the UK National Security Forces anyone going abroad to fight should be tried. At the trial it may come to light they were not terrorists but that is for the evidence to show.
Remember one mans terrorist is another mans freedom fighter.
And as pointed out above, does anyone know how many ISIS fighters have been tried?
Remember one mans terrorist is another mans freedom fighter.
And as pointed out above, does anyone know how many ISIS fighters have been tried?
The British Government, and the US President were only last week congratulating the YPG on defeating ISIS in Syria. Though they were careful to euphemistically call the ‘US backed rebels’.
This prosecution demonstrates the British hypocrisy during the whole Syrian adventure. He should not be in court, we should be thanking him. A complete waste of money. I hope if he is found guilty, common sense will prevail, and no prison sentence imposed.
This prosecution demonstrates the British hypocrisy during the whole Syrian adventure. He should not be in court, we should be thanking him. A complete waste of money. I hope if he is found guilty, common sense will prevail, and no prison sentence imposed.
//When has being a 'Soldier of Fortune' been a crime? //
well the magazine of that name is constantly worrying that it will get screwed - or more accurately the assets of the owners will be retained/detained/sequestered under procees of crime
being a mercenary as a crime - oo a long long time but as v-e said there are evidential issues - none of the present ones joined 'armies'. The PKK is a proscribed organisation and he has been indicted for aiding such an org.
//I could understand this if he had fought against British forces, but he didn't, he fought against ISIS.//
because the law extends beyond 'fighting against British forces.
[ people do realise that under Stalin if you were russian it would be a ticket straight to a gulag, innit?) and THAT is covered by the Treason act 1348
as for the red herring of Thpain 1936
we have had this before
were any Brits indicted for serving in the international brigades ? La pasionara (*) said good bye to them, they sailed back to dear old blighty and were given heroes' welcomes ( innit)
Hemingway of course would NOT have been indicted ( o gawd but we are on AB) because he was american not angleesh ( jesus)
we have had this before
BUT
the thpanith refugees were interned in France in a camp and this was continued after the chute de France 1940 (bit of Fench there to enrage Balders and Nigh), but after the invasion of Vichy France in 1943, they ended up in Mauthausen !
trying goggling cien deportados Mauthausen
and THAT explains the thpanith banner of April 1945 outside mauthausen - "we thank our Yanqui liberatorth".
Kinda funny spanish if you think about it
so by and large it is a difficult area
and the statutes used are newish one since the older ones didnt seem to work proper
well the magazine of that name is constantly worrying that it will get screwed - or more accurately the assets of the owners will be retained/detained/sequestered under procees of crime
being a mercenary as a crime - oo a long long time but as v-e said there are evidential issues - none of the present ones joined 'armies'. The PKK is a proscribed organisation and he has been indicted for aiding such an org.
//I could understand this if he had fought against British forces, but he didn't, he fought against ISIS.//
because the law extends beyond 'fighting against British forces.
[ people do realise that under Stalin if you were russian it would be a ticket straight to a gulag, innit?) and THAT is covered by the Treason act 1348
as for the red herring of Thpain 1936
we have had this before
were any Brits indicted for serving in the international brigades ? La pasionara (*) said good bye to them, they sailed back to dear old blighty and were given heroes' welcomes ( innit)
Hemingway of course would NOT have been indicted ( o gawd but we are on AB) because he was american not angleesh ( jesus)
we have had this before
BUT
the thpanith refugees were interned in France in a camp and this was continued after the chute de France 1940 (bit of Fench there to enrage Balders and Nigh), but after the invasion of Vichy France in 1943, they ended up in Mauthausen !
trying goggling cien deportados Mauthausen
and THAT explains the thpanith banner of April 1945 outside mauthausen - "we thank our Yanqui liberatorth".
Kinda funny spanish if you think about it
so by and large it is a difficult area
and the statutes used are newish one since the older ones didnt seem to work proper
danny - // I could understand this if he had fought against British forces, but he didn't, he fought against ISIS. //
The point is, he fought for an organisation that is classed as a terrorist organisation under British law.
Anyone can find a justification why any law, large or small, should not be applied, and there seem to be a number of them posting on here.
Just because there is a perceived justification for this man's breaking the law, it does not excuse the fact that he did break the law, and there are consequences for that.
No amount of huffing and puffing about 'gentlemen being against decapitation' and similarly emotive, but irreverent nonsense detracts from the fact that we enforce our laws, we don't just enforce them when we decide that one person should be given a pass because we may like his motives.
It could be argued - and often is - that the law is wrong, but that does not prevent its application where it is in force, and this in this situation.
The point is, he fought for an organisation that is classed as a terrorist organisation under British law.
Anyone can find a justification why any law, large or small, should not be applied, and there seem to be a number of them posting on here.
Just because there is a perceived justification for this man's breaking the law, it does not excuse the fact that he did break the law, and there are consequences for that.
No amount of huffing and puffing about 'gentlemen being against decapitation' and similarly emotive, but irreverent nonsense detracts from the fact that we enforce our laws, we don't just enforce them when we decide that one person should be given a pass because we may like his motives.
It could be argued - and often is - that the law is wrong, but that does not prevent its application where it is in force, and this in this situation.
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.