Jihadi Jack wants to come back because he misses Dr Who

[Magnus McGinty]

Your recent posts have genuinely lost me.

What supposedly liberal position are you suggesting I'm arguing? (at least, I think that's what you're saying )

It’s somewhat strange that you decided to provide an intervention and then claim to not understand why you were intervening.

 

[andysays]

It’s somewhat strange that you decided to provide an intervention and then claim to not understand why you were intervening.

I wouldn't describe asking you to explain WTF you're on about as "deciding to to provide an intervention", TBH.

You have a tendency to over dramatize things which actually obscures whatever point you think you're making, but you carry on with your fantasies about liberals stopping a jet deporting foreign rapists from flying off while simultaneously fighting for Jihadi rape supporters to be returned to the UK if it helps you get through a boring Wednesday evening.

 

[Magnus McGinty]

I wouldn't describe asking you to explain WTF you're on about as "deciding to to provide an intervention", TBH.

You have a tendency to over dramatize things which actually obscures whatever point you think you're making, but you carry on with your fantasies about liberals stopping a jet deporting foreign rapists from flying off while simultaneously fighting for Jihadi rape supporters to be returned to the UK if it helps you get through a boring Wednesday evening.

It isn’t a fantasy. It happened recently. Lisa McKenzie was quite vocal about it so check her output.

But it’s true to me that liberal arguments can both:

1) state that it’s racist to deport foreign nationals as part of punitive measures for crime
2) state that it’s racist to not repatriate UK nationals as part of punitive measures for crime

Which seems contradictory.

 

[Serge Forward]

I thought the issue was about making someone stateless rather than repatriation.

 

[Combustible]

Cobblers. We can't execute them and we can't even guarantee they'd spend the rest of their lives in a UK prison.

So the British state can't do either these things, but expects others who are much less equipped for the task to do so, because of a situation which occurred because of the actions of the British government.

 

[andysays]

I thought the issue was about making someone stateless rather than repatriation.

In Magus's fevered imagination it seems to be all about "liberals" working 24/7 to keep foreign rapists here in the UK and repatriating rapists from elsewhere to swell their numbers.

Magnus seems to have a thing about liberals, foreigners and rapists, thinking that they're all in cahoots to undermine his traditional patriotic working class values, impose Sharia law and making it illegal to support England in the football...

 

[Spymaster]

So the British state can't do either these things, but expects others who are much less equipped for the task to do so, because of a situation which occurred because of the actions of the British government.

No they don’t expect anything of the sort. They can do whatever the fuck they want with them. They can let them go if they want. They’re not being placed under any obligation. Which actions of the British government are responsible for causing these people to join a rape and genocide cult?

 

[Spymaster]

I thought the issue was about making someone stateless rather than repatriation.

Neither Begum nor Letts have been made stateless by the UK gov.

 

[Combustible]

No they don’t expect anything of the sort. They can do whatever the fuck they want with them. They can let them go if they want. They’re not being placed under any obligation. Which actions of the British government are responsible for causing these people to join a rape and genocide cult?

I didn't say that the actions of the British government are responsible for them joining a rape and genocide cult, the actions of the British government in invading Iraq created the conditions that allowed the rape and genocide cult they went on to join, to commit mass rape and genocide.

The possible outcomes are either they are killed, imprisoned or let go. All three possibilities will create a burden on whatever region they occur in, and by revoking their passports the British government has shirked their responsibility and placed that burden on someone else. In Begum's case that is either an extra burden on the area of Syria she is now residing, or on Bangladesh, both of which are much more ill-equipped to deal with her then the UK. In the case of Lett's, if the Kurdish forces want to relieve themselves of the burden by handing him over, then there is no justification fir the UK refusing.

 

[Spymaster]

In the case of Lett's, if the Kurdish forces want to relieve themselves of the burden by handing him over, then there is no justification fir the UK refusing.

Wanna bet?

He is no longer a British citizen. That’s perfect justification.

Syria and the Kurds are perfectly equipped to deal with them at practically zero cost. Iraq has even offered to do so (for a fee) and that’s where most of their crimes were committed. Nobody is forcing anyone to feed these slugs.

 

[Spymaster]

It’s not just the UK doing this, btw. Other states are doing the same. France has been at it with particular gusto!

 

[LDC]

Wanna bet?

He is no longer a British citizen. That’s perfect justification.

Syria and the Kurds are perfectly equipped to deal with them at practically zero cost. Iraq has even offered to do so. Nobody is forcing anyone to feed these slugs.

There's also a fairly well established attempt at de-radicalising some of these people in Syrian Kurdish custody, no idea who does and who doesn't get to enter that program, nor how effective it is. But it is there.

 

[butchersapron]

I didn't say that the actions of the British government are responsible for them joining a rape and genocide cult, the actions of the British government in invading Iraq created the conditions that allowed the rape and genocide cult they went on to join, to commit mass rape and genocide.

The possible outcomes are either they are killed, imprisoned or let go. All three possibilities will create a burden on whatever region they occur in, and by revoking their passports the British government has shirked their responsibility and placed that burden on someone else. In Begum's case that is either an extra burden on the area of Syria she is now residing, or on Bangladesh, both of which are much more ill-equipped to deal with her then the UK. In the case of Lett's, if the Kurdish forces want to relieve themselves of the burden by handing him over, then there is no justification fir the UK refusing.

So the kurds (represented solely by the pkk here) get to decide alone what should happen to people involved in horrific crimes across all of Syria, mostly in areas that they have never controlled or fought in? What about the victims of those crimes getting some sort of say or participation, or are they going to dissappear in the post revolution period in some sort of reverse imperialism, in the same way that they were dissappeared in the revolutionary days. All just the actions of states and proto states.

 

[Combustible]

So the kurds (represented solely by the pkk here) get to decide alone what should happen to people involved in horrific crimes across all of Syria, mostly in areas that they have never controlled or fought in? What about the victims of those crimes getting some sort of say or participation, or are they going to dissappear in the post revolution period in some sort of reverse imperialism, in the same way that they were dissappeared in the revolutionary days. All just the actions of states and proto states.

That's a fair point, and I wasn't intending to suggest that. I only mentioned the Kurds in relation to Lett's because it was my understanding that he was in their custody. And I was only saying that if they want to be rid of the burden then the UK should not prevent his return, if the Kurdish forces or others in the region want to hold him to account then that is different.

 

[Spymaster]

That's a fair point, and I wasn't intending to suggest that. I only mentioned the Kurds in relation to Lett's because it was my understanding that he was in their custody. And I was only saying that if they want to be rid of the burden then the UK should not prevent his return, if the Kurdish forces or others in the region want to hold him to account then that is different.

How about Iraq?

 

[Serge Forward]

Neither Begum nor Letts have been made stateless by the UK gov.

In the case of Begum, I think you'll find they have. In the Letts case, we'll see what happens.

 

[Spymaster]

In the case of Begum, I think you'll find they have. In the Letts case, we'll see what happens.

Begum was a Bangladeshi citizen according to the laws of Bangladesh. She was therefore not made stateless by the UK. Letts is absolutely indisputably Canadian/British.

 

[Combustible]

How about Iraq?

Of course the Iraqi government can choose to prosecute him if he comes under their jurisdiction, that has nothing to do with whether his British citizenship is revoked. The question only arises if he is able to leave Iraq/Syria (possibly after imprisonment) to return 'home', and that is where the British state is shirking their responsibility by revoking his citizenship. If it is the case that he will be detained for the rest of his life, then revoking his citizenship does nothing anyway. Begum is an even worse example of this both because of her more tenuous links to Bangladesh, and because Bangladesh is much less equipped to deal with such people. Not being illegal under international law is not justification for an action.

 

[Serge Forward]

Begum was a Bangladeshi citizen according to the laws of Bangladesh. She was therefore not made stateless by the UK. Letts is absolutely indisputably Canadian/British.

Fine. Bangladesh says otherwise, as well you know.

 

[Spymaster]

Fine. Bangladesh says otherwise, as well you know.

A Bangladeshi politician said otherwise in a blatant contradiction of his own country's very clearly stated laws and the views of multiple immigration lawyers. If it was illegal it could be legally challenged.

How's that going?

 

[Serge Forward]

A Bangladeshi politician once disagreed. Well spotted You think Begum is in a position to legally challenge this shit? She's a fucking idiot and poorly counselled, as well as being a nasty piece of work. To be honest, I don't give a fuck enough about her to argue further but your positive response to Javid's playing to the Daily Mail gallery is frankly fucking bobbins.

 

[Spymaster]

Well I was only commenting on your “Bangladesh says otherwise” comment.

Javid’s just doing what any half way competent HS would do. Top chap, what, what?