ISIL, ISIS, Daesh discussion thread.

Amp34 · 31 Mar 2016 at 17:47

Raz said:
Bashar al-Assad says he is ready to hold elections in Syria 'if the people want it'

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/w...ian-president-if-people-want-it-a6961296.html

And still the insistence that Assad must go... Why don't they just go one step at a time. Assad is not going to stand down to be executed so why keep insisting it? How about thinking about your fellow Syrians and suck it up for a short time and do things in stages? At least the US is starting to realize this. We just need the rebels and Cameron to do so too and there may be a rep chance for the end of the civil war.

Alternatively they can keep fighting for decades and turn the entire country into more ruin than it is already...

Amp34 · 31 Mar 2016 at 17:51

scorza said:
In other words, you've got no response.

What about the the dead girl, was she not a "human"? The fact is this guy had no right to be in the country, he committed a crime, he should have been deported, but instead of judge in his ivory tower decided that the scumbags right to a family life was more important than all that. That's dumb, dumb, dumb.

Was the man arrested and sent to jail/punished like a British national? If so then the punishment has been served, and the fact he was here illegally (or legally) is another matter entirely.

You talk as if because he was from another country he didn't have to adhere to our laws and/or couldn't be punished. That isn't the case.

koolpc · 31 Mar 2016 at 18:35

Punished, then kicked out of the country back to place of birth unless born here of course! Or bring back prison ships and anchor them in the North Sea and put them in those ships for life!

Destination · 31 Mar 2016 at 18:40

Mr Jack said:
The Human Rights Act does exactly nothing but bring Human Rights into law; if you are against the Human Rights Act you are against Human Rights. There is no two ways about it.

This is a complete gubbins statement.
The act brings a version of what people think 'the extrapolated interpretation of rights might be' into law.
The right to family life, is a most often abused segment of such a series of laws.
I think broadly people would agree that you have a right to family life.
I think people also would agree that when you commit crimes some of your freedoms and rights should be removed.

The act uses the interpretation of what some judges think to be the law, and enforces it. Like the chap not deported because he had a cat.
Yes it is an extreme case, but when the law is utter broken, extreme cases are the ones which meet the press with vigour.

Either way it is nothing to do with fighting ISIS. Nor dealing with terrorism, its a complete aside and twaddle being spouted getting off the main topic.

SexyGreyFox · 31 Mar 2016 at 18:49

Hikari Kisugi said:
Like the chap not deported because he had a cat.

I thought I was on Facebook - http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-15171980

Mr Jack · 31 Mar 2016 at 19:19

scorza said:
In other words, you've got no response.

You can keep beating up on strawmen fantasies of your own if you like. Since I never said anything that remotely resembles what you're arguing with, you'll excuse me if I feel no need to respond to your "point".

What about the the dead girl, was she not a "human"?

What about her?

The fact is this guy had no right to be in the country, he committed a crime, he should have been deported, but instead of judge in his ivory tower decided that the scumbags right to a family life was more important than all that. That's dumb, dumb, dumb.

Clearly, he did have a right to be in the country; if he had no right to be in the country then he would have been deported.

Mr Jack · 31 Mar 2016 at 19:22

Hikari Kisugi said:
This is a complete gubbins statement.
The act brings a version of what people think 'the extrapolated interpretation of rights might be' into law.

This is entirely false. Go and read the law. It does exactly what I said it does.

The right to family life, is a most often abused segment of such a series of laws.
I think broadly people would agree that you have a right to family life.
I think people also would agree that when you commit crimes some of your freedoms and rights should be removed.

The Universal Convention on Human Rights allows for reasonable removal or suspension of rights. It does not allow capricious or arbitrary removal or suspension.

The act uses the interpretation of what some judges think to be the law, and enforces it. Like the chap not deported because he had a cat.

That's actual the perfect example of "crazy Human Rights" because it's not true (see SexyGreyFox's post above).

Either way it is nothing to do with fighting ISIS. Nor dealing with terrorism, its a complete aside and twaddle being spouted getting off the main topic.

I agree. Human Rights law does not hinder the fight against terrorism.

scorza · 31 Mar 2016 at 19:27

Amp34 said:
Was the man arrested and sent to jail/punished like a British national? If so then the punishment has been served, and the fact he was here illegally (or legally) is another matter entirely.

You talk as if because he was from another country he didn't have to adhere to our laws and/or couldn't be punished. That isn't the case.

Lol - so weak. If someone is here illegally then they should be removed immediately, especially so if they've committed a serious crime. What happened to this country? We used to be so smart...

scorza · 31 Mar 2016 at 19:30

Mr Jack said:
I agree. Human Rights law does not hinder the fight against terrorism.

Sir Richard Dearlove (former head of MI6) disagrees.

Destination · 31 Mar 2016 at 19:38

SexyGreyFox said:
I thought I was on Facebook - http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-15171980

Must admit, I don't always check if government ministers are lying after the fact, Still matters not.
When we don't deport murderers and rapists, just because they have a family here. I feel our law is at fault, be it the human rights act, or any other act that is in place.
I feel they still have a right to family life, just elsewhere, or indeed, in certain cases, the punishment and removal of freedom for their crimes should encompass their removal from the UK where appropriate.

This still has nothing to do with ISIS or an ISIS thread.

scorza · 1 Apr 2016 at 13:15

Delivery driver from Luton convicted of plotting to kill a US airman in East Anglia.

Rroff · 2 Apr 2016 at 11:45

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-35947702 Obama thinks so :S

Personally outside of possibly a dirty bomb that would be more effective due to the emotive side when you talk about nuclear weapons than its actual impact I find it unlikely most terrorist groups would/could ever construct any kind of significantly functional radiological device.

Do agree with this sentiment though:

"There is no doubt that if these mad men ever got their hands on a nuclear bomb or nuclear material, they would certainly use it to kill as many people as possible," he said.

Chris Wilson · 2 Apr 2016 at 12:01

I see the BBC has started to use the term "irregular migrants" a term apparently coined by some nutcase in the increasingly ridiculous UN.

http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/news/c...ded-as-irregular-immigrants-the-un-thinks-so/

It was only a matter of time before the BBC cottoned on to the term and used it alongside photos of angelic ILLEGAL migrant kids clutching cuddly toys, no doubt whilst their kith and kin were trying to tear down some Macedonian fence. I have the cruel thought that how ironic it would be should Broadcasting House suffer an Islamic State attack. (Oops, sorry the *SO CALLED* Islamic State.... )

The Running Man · 2 Apr 2016 at 13:26

Mr Jack said:
This is entirely false. Go and read the law. It does exactly what I said it does.

The Universal Convention on Human Rights allows for reasonable removal or suspension of rights. It does not allow capricious or arbitrary removal or suspension.

That's actual the perfect example of "crazy Human Rights" because it's not true (see SexyGreyFox's post above).

I agree. Human Rights law does not hinder the fight against terrorism.

This case is one of the most retarded i have read. Guy stays here illegally and is allowed to stay because he has a relationship with a British girl? So what? Can they deport him the moment they have an argument and break up?

Has she applied for a visa for Bolivia? Has she even tried? The judge making jokes is even worse this is a serious matter.

If the relationship was built up during a period of illegal stay then he should be deported. He has a right to a family life sure. I.e we aren't castrating him or breaking his face, there is nothing to stop him from a family life in Bolivia.

At what point does someone argue that being put into prison for anything negates their right to a family life? I mean where does it begin and where does it end?

The law needs amending as it is being taken advantage of by an absurd amount.

Skunkworks · 2 Apr 2016 at 15:18

Chris Wilson said:
I see the BBC has started to use the term "irregular migrants" a term apparently coined by some nutcase in the increasingly ridiculous UN.

http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/news/c...ded-as-irregular-immigrants-the-un-thinks-so/

It was only a matter of time before the BBC cottoned on to the term and used it alongside photos of angelic ILLEGAL migrant kids clutching cuddly toys, no doubt whilst their kith and kin were trying to tear down some Macedonian fence. I have the cruel thought that how ironic it would be should Broadcasting House suffer an Islamic State attack. (Oops, sorry the *SO CALLED* Islamic State.... )

They should be called invading crime-bots.

The BBC’s lies through omission over the migrant stuff was a real eye-opener.

StriderX · 2 Apr 2016 at 15:27

Rroff said:
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-35947702 Obama thinks so :S

Personally outside of possibly a dirty bomb that would be more effective due to the emotive side when you talk about nuclear weapons than its actual impact I find it unlikely most terrorist groups would/could ever construct any kind of significantly functional radiological device.

Do agree with this sentiment though:

Considering ISIS has had nuclear engineers come over to them, I don't think it's too far beyond their ability.

Amp34 · 2 Apr 2016 at 17:10

scorza said:
Lol - so weak. If someone is here illegally then they should be removed immediately, especially so if they've committed a serious crime. What happened to this country? We used to be so smart...

If they are here illegally then yes, they should be deported (not withstanding certain caveats). Arguing that the girls "human rights" had been breached because someone that had been here illegally was not deported after he had been punished in the standard way by the government for her death completely nonsensical.

What has happened to this country is that opinions like koolpcs regarding prison ships and life imprisonment are no longer regarded as modern, sensible or legal propositions .

koolpc · 2 Apr 2016 at 18:58

Amp34 said:
If they are here illegally then yes, they should be deported (not withstanding certain caveats). Arguing that the girls "human rights" had been breached because someone that had been here illegally was not deported after he had been punished in the standard way by the government for her death completely nonsensical.

What has happened to this country is that opinions like koolpcs regarding prison ships and life imprisonment are no longer regarded as modern, sensible or legal propositions .

But, be great if they were brought back! All the scumbags could be herded together in Elizabethan conditions and punishments!

scorza · 5 Apr 2016 at 13:06

French PM: Extremist Islam is winning

This is what I've been saying for a while now. We need fresh new ideas on how to combat this form of terrorism. I'll re-iterate my five-point plan as a starting point:

1. No planning permission to be granted for any mosque with a minaret
2. Separate Muslim inmates at Her Majesty's Prisons from the rest of the population
3. Ban on face coverings in public
4. New criminal offence of operating a Sharia law court in the UK
5. UK restaurants/food retailers must clearly label, and offer an alternative to Halal meat

No more of this pandering, where we are scared of doing anything we think the jihadis won't like in case it boosts their recruitment. Clearly they're having no problems recruiting at the moment.

Mr Jack · 5 Apr 2016 at 13:16

scorza said:
I'll re-iterate my five-point plan as a starting point:

Well, this should be interesting and not at all a list of... reads list... oh well...

1. No planning permission to be granted for any mosque with a minaret

What, on earth, does this have to do with fighting extremism?

2. Separate Muslim inmates at Her Majesty's Prisons from the rest of the population

So.... You think you can fight extremism by instituting religious discrimination in prisons? How does putting all the Muslim prisoners together help? I don't even know what you think you're trying with this.

3. Ban on face coverings in public

How does this fight extremism, exactly? Why is limiting personal freedoms a step forward?

4. New criminal offence of operating a Sharia law court in the UK

More religious discrimination. How does it help fight extremism, exactly?

5. UK restaurants/food retailers must clearly label, and offer an alternative to Halal meat

How, exactly, does this benefit anyone? And how, exactly, does it prevent extremism?

Not one of your "points" will do a single thing to combat extremism and every single one of them will provide an easy recruitment opportunity for elements who wish to radicalise the impressionable. You're playing right into ISIS's "us-vs-them" narrative here.