young jihadis

[andysays]

I wish I had an answer. There are clearly a lot of young men (yes, they seem to be mostly men) who feel alienated and under attack. I don't think it's a thing for cheap jokes.

So you've got no answer, not even the beginnings of an idea.

Let's start with this question then

I'm genuinely confused now. Do you support the measures proposed by the state?

or if asking you for a specific yes/no answer to that question is a bit too much, what might some of the things in favour of and against these proposals be?

 

[butchersapron]

No, I think being effectively stateless and forcibly separated from their family, friends and everyday life will further radicalise them.

I tell you what else further radicalises them - being shot at by YPG/YPJ communists defending their families and towns and others under attack. Maybe they better stop that silliness too stop being so naive? Stop doing ISIS' work for them?

 

[8115]

No you're not. You're not up to speed with it at all. In fact you know fuck all about it or you wouldn't be wittering on about stuff that happened 18 months ago and insisting that ISIS and JAN beardies are not "dangerous people".

Is "beardies" the new "pakis"?

I can't really be bothered to get into the rest of it, I don't think taking citizenship away is the way to go, maybe you do, I am not fully up to date with the conflict, maybe you are but I think you need to get some distance if you are dismissing what Assad did as "stuff that happened eighteen months ago" but anyway yeah "beardies".

Think about it a bit huh.

 

[bluescreen]

So you've got no answer, not even the beginnings of an idea.

Let's start with this question then


or if asking you for a specific yes/no answer to that question is a bit too much, what might some of the things in favour of and against these proposals be?

Why are you putting me on the spot when I am trying to find an answer from the
hive mind? Anyway, no, I don't think the government's proposals are helpful, but that's from first principles rather than a position of knowledge, which perhaps you have? I think this is an extraordinarily difficult and sensitive issue, where information is helpful and preconceptions absolutely bloody useless.

 

[butchersapron]

Is "beardies" the new "pakis"?

I can't really be bothered to get into the rest of it, I don't think taking citizenship away is the way to go, maybe you do, I am not fully up to date with the conflict, maybe you are but I think you need to get some distance if you are dismissing what Assad did as "stuff that happened eighteen months ago" but anyway yeah "beardies".

Think about it a bit huh.

Fuck off. Dangerous liberal on the loose. Go roll another one.

 

[8115]

Fuck off. Dangerous liberal on the loose. Go roll another one.

So, what, they stay abroad, your heroic communist fighters beat them, they give up, the government sees the error of its previous ways and there's the beginning of a homegrown just society?

Progaganda is propaganda even if it comes from the good guys.

 

[brogdale]

Why are you putting me on the spot

Perhaps because you posted the OP, and then admonished those posting 'gallows humour' by implying that these measures might preclude another 7/7?

So, it might have been better at the outset to say you thought that the measures will not be helpful.

 

[butchersapron]

So, what, they stay abroad, your heroic communist fighters beat them, they give up, the government sees the error of its previous ways and there's the beginning of a homegrown just society?

Progaganda is propaganda even if it comes from the good guys.

Also, dangerous people? Give me a break, even Bin Laden's biggest strength was what other people had built him up to be. You doing IS's marketing for them now?

After that post you really should have your posting rights taken away - and maybe your citizenship too.

 

[dylanredefined]

If they want to come back let them. I'm sure the security services can work out if they have got it out of their system or want to take part in more jihad.
If they can proved to have taken part in war crimes they should be prosecuted otherwise I wouldn't bother. Though I doubt Islamic State will let anyone still able to fight go free. So either we will get the badly wounded or the lucky ones back. Probably just as good at putting more people off war as anyone else.

 

[brogdale]

If they want to come back let them. I'm sure the security services can work out if they have got it out of their system or want to take part in more jihad.
If they can proved to have taken part in war crimes they should be prosecuted. I doubt Islamic State will let anyone still able to fight go free. So either we will get the badly wounded or the lucky ones back. Probably just as good at putting more people off war as anyone else.

This is all 'dog-whistle' stuff; they already have all the anti-terrorism legislation they need to arrest every man jack of them.

 

[butchersapron]

This is all 'dog-whistle' stuff; they already have all the anti-terrorism legislation they need to arrest every man jack of them.

The whole thing will be done to two agendas - if done at all. The one with an eye to PR that you mention and the one that the security services dictate regarding info gathering as a priority.

 

[andysays]

Why are you putting me on the spot when I am trying to find an answer from the
hive mind? Anyway, no, I don't think the government's proposals are helpful, but that's from first principles rather than a position of knowledge, which perhaps you have? I think this is an extraordinarily difficult and sensitive issue, where information is helpful and preconceptions absolutely bloody useless.

I'm not putting you on the spot - you started this thread, so I'm encouraging you to state some sort of opinion, however qualified, on the issue. And now you have

I don't consider that I have any detailed knowledge on this issue, but my basic position would be that if this is an issue (not saying it isn't, but I'd want the powers that be to demonstrate rather than assert it) I'd rather they dealt with it using existing legal mechanisms rather than bringing in new laws and/or powers which could

1. effectively render people stateless and
2. later be used on people many here would see as less deserving of such measures

Also, "hive mind"

 

[likesfish]

bbc3 shoot behead enslave.

if they come back then facing lots of difficult questions at the minimum they joined up to fight with is a nasty bunch of scumbags being stuck in syria facing the kurds or assads tanks tough.
Is make assad look reasonable and he is a nerve gas using tryant

 

[xenon]

What happens to UK citizens who went to fight against IS. If they joined one of those "vetted" lists of milicias who have been cleared to receive US military aid. (Read somewhere.) This might be a vanishingly small number. Maybe I'm looking in the wrong places. Not seen anything about peple going over from the UK, to fight against IS.


As far as can reasonably be ascertained, if someone's coming back after fighting for IS, they at a minimum need to be investigated, monitord, restricted. If there's strong evidence they've committed a war crime, send them to the Hague. Last bit probably completely impracticle re evidence gathering in the current circumstances though admittedly.

 

[Pickman's model]

If there's strong evidence they've committed a war crime, send them to the Hague.

 

[Pickman's model]

Is "beardies" the new "pakis"?

i don't believe hipsters are the oppressed minority you may consider them to be.

incidentally, it should be ARE 'beardies' the new 'pakis'?, there being more than one beardy.

 

[butchersapron]

What happens to UK citizens who went to fight against IS. If they joined one of those "vetted" lists of milicias who have been cleared to receive US military aid. (Read somewhere.) This might be a vanishingly small number. Maybe I'm looking in the wrong places. Not seen anything about peple going over from the UK, to fight against IS.


As far as can reasonably be ascertained, if someone's coming back after fighting for IS, they at a minimum need to be investigated, monitord, restricted. If there's strong evidence they've committed a war crime, send them to the Hague. Last bit probably completely impracticle re evidence gathering in the current circumstances though admittedly.

Participation in overseas conflict is blanket against the law. But that doesn't mean you'll be charged regardless. Section 5 of the Terrorism Act is being used, i think, to differentiate - on one side i expect you'll find those who take part in good overseas conflicts not to be charged at all and those who take part in bad overseas conflict to be subject to that section of the terrorism act in the first instance.

 

[8115]

Morphology

i don't believe hipsters are the oppressed minority you may consider them to be.

incidentally, it should be ARE 'beardies' the new 'pakis'?, there being more than one beardy.

Incidentally, no it shouldn't. "Beardies" the insult is singular.

"Is "mice" spelt with a c or an s".

eta I think you are confusing semantic and grammatical properties. Or lexicology or something.

 

[Pickman's model]

Morphology
Incidentally, no it shouldn't. "Beardies" the insult is singular.

"Is "mice" spelt with a c or an s".

eta I think you are confusing semantic and grammatical properties. Or lexicology or something.

remedial english too advanced for you

very simple: despite your protestations the word 'beardies' is not singular, any more than the word pakis (or even pakistanis) is singular. they are what we call plural, as there is more than one beardy (or beardie).

 

[8115]

remedial english too advanced for you

I was right on a point of language, hon.

 

[Pickman's model]

I was right on a point of language, hon.

no, you weren't. this is a new low for urban, having to point out to someone they were using a plural.

see, inter alia, http://www.ramsgrovebeardies.com/, http://www.beardedcollies.org.uk/portal/ and http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/wor...itants-deny-being-behind-marathon-attack.html

 

[8115]

no, you weren't. this is a new low for urban, having to point out to someone they were using a plural.

It was grammatically correct.

 

[J Ed]

Do liberals think they should be allowed tobring their yazidi slaves with them as well?

 

[andysays]

Should we be discussing removal of citizenship for acts of terrorism against the English language here, or would that be better on its own thread?

 

[Pickman's model]

It was grammatically correct.

no, it wasn't. 'is beardies the new pakis'? you're saying pakis is singular? hang your head in shame.tell you what, here's a little trick. words which are plural in english often end with an s - for example, cats, dogs, beardies, twats. there are things which can be singular and plural - e.g. sheep. but those sorts of words are rare.

 

[Pickman's model]

Should we be discussing removal of citizenship for acts of terrorism against the English language here, or would that be better on its own thread?

frankly i'd rather not discuss the intricacies of the english language here. sadly it seems at least one of us is confused by the simplest things.

 

[8115]

no, it wasn't. 'is beardies the new pakis'? you're saying pakis is singular? hang your head in shame.tell you what, here's a little trick. words which are plural in english often end with an s - for example, cats, dogs, twats.

Ok. It was stylistically inelegant. Incorrect if you think style can be right or wrong.

 

[bluescreen]

"Is make assad look reasonable and he is a nerve gas using tryant"

Well, quite. It's not easy, is it. Those people who think there's an easy answer can go off and amuse themselves privately.

 

[xenon]

Participation in overseas conflict is blanket against the law. But that doesn't mean you'll be charged regardless. Section 5 of the Terrorism Act is being used, i think, to differentiate - on one side i expect you'll find those who take part in good overseas conflicts not to be charged at all and those who take part in bad overseas conflict to be subject to that section of the terrorism act in the first instance.

Thanks. Plenty of room for legal wrangling and mess.

I nneed to read some more about this all TBF.

 

[8115]

Interestingly, given the actual topic of the thread, I think that stylistic inelegance vs incorrectness may be a significant difference between English and Arabic.

Anyway. Tangent.