Not sure if this has already been asked, but, regarding those people who have left this country for Iraq to fight with ISIS, should they be allowed back in if/when the decide to come home??
Not sure if this has already been asked, but, regarding those people who have left this country for Iraq to fight with ISIS, should they be allowed back in if/when the decide to come home??
If they hold a UK Passport it is not that easy, whilst there may be a way of revoking a passport issued to someone who has moved to the UK if you are born and bred British how can you remove their passport and ban them from re-entry ?
If they hold a UK Passport it is not that easy, whilst there may be a way of revoking a passport issued to someone who has moved to the UK if you are born and bred British how can you remove their passport and ban them from re-entry ?[/QUOTE]
If they hold a UK Passport it is not that easy, whilst there may be a way of revoking a passport issued to someone who has moved to the UK if you are born and bred British how can you remove their passport and ban them from re-entry ?[/QUOTE]
You have no right to a passport it is given at the Government's discretion. An issued passport can be revoked. What TM was proposing was stopping passports (or not issuing them) to people with past present or possible future involvement in terrorism. People who are already abroad engaging in terrorist activities I would suggest won't be too concerned if their passport is revoked. Of course if they are that concerned they could always come back and challenge the revocation in the courts ;-)
Inciting terrorism and racial hatred is an offence I believe! So if let back in they will get banged up!
It's strange how silent the whole war crimes crowd has been over this one, eh? Back when British troops were fighting in Iraq or Afghanistan you could hardly open a newspaper without prominent leftists calling for an investigation into crimes committed by British troops, massacres, tortures, civilian casualties, destruction of cultural heritage. And yet here are thousands of Brits going off to volunteer for an organisation who proudly post videos of themselves massacring prisoners in cold blood, crucifying and beheading civilians, raping and enslaving women, torturing captives, blowing up mosques, destroying sacred writing etc....all without a dicky bird spoken by the usual suspects.
It's enough to make you think that this whole human rights business was got up to be, at best, a hypocritical, money grubbing scam or even a huge treasonous enterprise isn't it?
Not sure if this has already been asked, but, regarding those people who have left this country for Iraq to fight with ISIS, should they be allowed back in if/when the decide to come home??
Only on the basis that they personally pay the financial costs of any security measures deemed necessary.
Being considerable, that in practice would mean no in most instances and probably all.
I've mentioned this in a couple of threads but I think this shows how messed up the whole governmental policy to the area is. We , as a country , supported the FSA backing them against Assad who we absolutely pilloried as a murderous dictator (I'm not saying he isn't ) . We also had the government trying to pass parliamentary authorisation to provide air support for the FSA which would almost certainly required sf ground troops to assist such as occurred in Libya . Not to mention logistical and , non lethal support for the rebels.
This week several media outlets , including the Times, reported because of the momentum behind ISIS large numbers of FSA troops are switching allegiances to ISIS. So potentially we now have people effectively encouraged to fight against Assad and with the tacit support of this country now being identified as bad guys ? By the way I'm no way supporting Isis far from it but are they still bad guys if they're fighting against asad not Iraq or is it just if they're in Iraq ? I just mean its a complete mess and we've helped create it.
I find it interesting that the former head of Mi6 stated earlier in the week that he's unconvinced on the threat of Isis and feels there has been perhaps an overreaction , I'm paraphrasing , to what is essentially to him a 'Muslim on Muslim' conflict.
As regards passports I find it amazing that football hooligans or those suspected of it have their passports almost seized with impunity when a tournament . Again I'm not saying everyone should have them seized as I'm not sure of the legality personally but it does seem they have no concerns or problems with another group.
I've mentioned this in a couple of threads but I think this shows how messed up the whole governmental policy to the area is. We , as a country , supported the FSA backing them against Assad who we absolutely pilloried as a murderous dictator (I'm not saying he isn't ) . We also had the government trying to pass parliamentary authorisation to provide air support for the FSA which would almost certainly required sf ground troops to assist such as occurred in Libya . Not to mention logistical and , non lethal support for the rebels.
This week several media outlets , including the Times, reported because of the momentum behind ISIS large numbers of FSA troops are switching allegiances to ISIS. So potentially we now have people effectively encouraged to fight against Assad and with the tacit support of this country now being identified as bad guys ? By the way I'm no way supporting Isis far from it but are they still bad guys if they're fighting against asad not Iraq or is it just if they're in Iraq ? I just mean its a complete mess and we've helped create it.
I find it interesting that the former head of Mi6 stated earlier in the week that he's unconvinced on the threat of Isis and feels there has been perhaps an overreaction , I'm paraphrasing , to what is essentially to him a 'Muslim on Muslim' conflict.
As regards passports I find it amazing that football hooligans or those suspected of it have their passports almost seized with impunity when a tournament . Again I'm not saying everyone should have them seized as I'm not sure of the legality personally but it does seem they have no concerns or problems with another group.
The problem is how you interpret the facts and words. The facts are murky , and change. By some estimates only 20% of the opposition in Syria is secular. However, its a moslem country divided along sect lines so you would expect most of the opposition to be believers at least. On other estimates , ISIS only makes up about 6000 people - perhaps 5% of the opposition strength. In Iraq its estimated that ISIS is about 10% of the combatant opposition - the rest are Sunni tribesmen and Saddam hangovers.
Its perfectly possible to argue that supporting the moderates in Syria earlier might have produced a negotiated settlement by now - which would have allowed Government, opposition and Kurdish forces to destroy ISIS before now. Bombing Assad's airforce after he used chemical weapons, as planned, might well have swung the military balance towards a compromise. The problem is no one can know what will work, and many people just prefer to stand back rather than go for what may be the only workable policy. We now have a stronger ISIS, a more radicalised opposition, ISIS attacks on the neighbouring states, a stronger Assad, a continuing war, 40000 more dead, and are now doing what we talked about doing years ago arming and training the moderates. Doing nothing wasn't a great success either.
With the words its perfectly possible to argue that the ISIS threat is overplayed - in open country , they would die rapidly if anyone with significant airpower was let lose on them. Iraq is only now getting an airforce - courtesy of Russia and iran. There are not that many fanatics, fewer will survive, and not that many, from here, who might want to return and blow the UK up. However looked at the other way, it doesn't take many fanatical nutters to kill an awful lot of people if they used more effective tactics. And there's no way of knowing which returning fighter is going to be the one who plans mass murder.
the only answer is to charge them with joining the Syrian war and illegal organisations, and lock them up for as long as possible -although that may just make them more indoctrinated. - or just not let them back into the country - which might be difficult legally, and practically. .
The problem is how you interpret the facts and words. The facts are murky , and change. By some estimates only 20% of the opposition in Syria is secular. However, its a moslem country divided along sect lines so you would expect most of the opposition to be believers at least. On other estimates , ISIS only makes up about 6000 people - perhaps 5% of the opposition strength. In Iraq its estimated that ISIS is about 10% of the combatant opposition - the rest are Sunni tribesmen and Saddam hangovers.
Its perfectly possible to argue that supporting the moderates in Syria earlier might have produced a negotiated settlement by now - which would have allowed Government, opposition and Kurdish forces to destroy ISIS before now. Bombing Assad's airforce after he used chemical weapons, as planned, might well have swung the militray balance towards a compromise. The problem is no one can know, and many people just prefer to stand back rather than go for what may be the only workable policy. We now have a stronger ISIS, a more radicalised opposition, ISIS attacks on the neighbouring states, a stronger Assad, a continuing war, 40000 more dead, and are now doing what we talked about doing years ago arming and training the moderates. Doing nothing wasn't a great success either.
With the words its perfectly possible to argue that the ISIS threat is overplayed - in open country , they would die rapidly if anyone with significant airpower was let lose on them. Iraq is only now getting an airforce - courtesy of Russia and iran. There are not that many fanatics, fewer will survive, and not that many from here,who might want to return and blow the UK up. However looked at the other way, it doesn't take many fanatical nutters to kill an awful lot of people if they used more effective tactics. And there's no way of knowing which returning fighter is going to be the one who plans mass murder.
the only answer is to charge them with joining the Syrian war and illegal organisations, and lock them up for as long as possible -although that may just make them more indoctrinated. - or just not let them back into the country - which might be difficult legally, and practically. .
I don't disagree support of the more moderate elements , for ease let's called them FSA, may have led to a completely different situation but it didn't happen and we are where we are. It's also entirely possible , although equally unpalatable , to say you can see where the attraction for 'the west' was for decades with murderous dictators as they maintained the status quo although almost certainly massively contributed to the anti-western feeling throughout the region.
I do think though , if you seperate Iraq & Syria , that if you try to charge people with fighting against a dictator you yourselves sought to fight against it leads you further down a difficult road both legally and from a 'PR' perspective in a region where we are already almost universally 'disliked'.
I don't know what the answer is although , as you accept , it's pretty much impossible to deny citizens return to their own country.
It's strange how silent the whole war crimes crowd has been over this one, eh? Back when British troops were fighting in Iraq or Afghanistan you could hardly open a newspaper without prominent leftists calling for an investigation into crimes committed by British troops, massacres, tortures, civilian casualties, destruction of cultural heritage. And yet here are thousands of Brits going off to volunteer for an organisation who proudly post videos of themselves massacring prisoners in cold blood, crucifying and beheading civilians, raping and enslaving women, torturing captives, blowing up mosques, destroying sacred writing etc....all without a dicky bird spoken by the usual suspects.
It's enough to make you think that this whole human rights business was got up to be, at best, a hypocritical, money grubbing scam or even a huge treasonous enterprise isn't it?
It's strange how silent the whole war crimes crowd has been over this one, eh? Back when British troops were fighting in Iraq or Afghanistan you could hardly open a newspaper without prominent leftists calling for an investigation into crimes committed by British troops, massacres, tortures, civilian casualties, destruction of cultural heritage. And yet here are thousands of Brits going off to volunteer for an organisation who proudly post videos of themselves massacring prisoners in cold blood, crucifying and beheading civilians, raping and enslaving women, torturing captives, blowing up mosques, destroying sacred writing etc....all without a dicky bird spoken by the usual suspects.
It's enough to make you think that this whole human rights business was got up to be, at best, a hypocritical, money grubbing scam or even a huge treasonous enterprise isn't it?
Pretty sure there was a very long thread about this very subject but please don't let actual facts get in the way of a bit of shameless point scoring.
For the record my view is that they should be charged and tried in a court of law and in front of s jury if/when they return.
It's strange how silent the whole war crimes crowd has been over this one, eh? Back when British troops were fighting in Iraq or Afghanistan you could hardly open a newspaper without prominent leftists calling for an investigation into crimes committed by British troops, massacres, tortures, civilian casualties, destruction of cultural heritage. And yet here are thousands of Brits going off to volunteer for an organisation who proudly post videos of themselves massacring prisoners in cold blood, crucifying and beheading civilians, raping and enslaving women, torturing captives, blowing up mosques, destroying sacred writing etc....all without a dicky bird spoken by the usual suspects.
It's enough to make you think that this whole human rights business was got up to be, at best, a hypocritical, money grubbing scam or even a huge treasonous enterprise isn't it?
No. It is such in the minds of the far Right though.
But isis were 'our' allies not long ago. Fighting Assad to overthrow a 'dangerous' regime. Had Cameron got his way, the west would be fighting alongside them. After all, they were funded and trained by America for the job.
The same as America created and funded Al Qaeda to fight the Russians in Afghanistan.
Maybe the Middle East would be a far better place without western interference?
But isis were 'our' allies not long ago. Fighting Assad to overthrow a 'dangerous' regime. Had Cameron got his way, the west would be fighting alongside them.
Quiet now Windy you know full well that you will just confuse people with those pesky facts.
But isis were 'our' allies not long ago. Fighting Assad to overthrow a 'dangerous' regime. Had Cameron got his way, the west would be fighting alongside them. After all, they were funded and trained by America for the job.
The same as America created and funded Al Qaeda to fight the Russians in Afghanistan.
Maybe the Middle East would be a far better place without western interference?
Exactly the point I made earlier , it honestly seems as we've done nothing but make things worse in almost every nation across the region .
ISIS are the bad guys so we're supporting the Iraqi government and they're the good guys , that's right isn't it ?
Iraqi security forces and government-affiliated militias appear to have executed at least 255 prisoners since 9 June, a human rights group says.
The killings appeared to be retaliation for attacks by the jihadist Islamic State in Iraq and the Levant (Isis), Human Rights Watch said in a statement.
The prisoners were all Sunni Muslims, while the majority of security forces and militia were Shia, they added.
Meanwhile, Iraqi Kurds have reportedly taken over two oilfields in the north.
Most of the executions took place as Iraqi forces fled advancing Isis fighters, HRW said in a statement.
The killings took place in six Iraqi villages: Mosul, Tal Afar, Baquba, Jumarkhe, Rawa and Hilla, HRW reported.
'Killing sprees'
"The mass extrajudicial killings may be evidence of war crimes or crimes against humanity, and appear to be revenge killings for atrocities by Isis," the statement said.
Comments
If they hold a UK Passport it is not that easy, whilst there may be a way of revoking a passport issued to someone who has moved to the UK if you are born and bred British how can you remove their passport and ban them from re-entry ?
Thanks very much, didn't see that...
It's strange how silent the whole war crimes crowd has been over this one, eh? Back when British troops were fighting in Iraq or Afghanistan you could hardly open a newspaper without prominent leftists calling for an investigation into crimes committed by British troops, massacres, tortures, civilian casualties, destruction of cultural heritage. And yet here are thousands of Brits going off to volunteer for an organisation who proudly post videos of themselves massacring prisoners in cold blood, crucifying and beheading civilians, raping and enslaving women, torturing captives, blowing up mosques, destroying sacred writing etc....all without a dicky bird spoken by the usual suspects.
It's enough to make you think that this whole human rights business was got up to be, at best, a hypocritical, money grubbing scam or even a huge treasonous enterprise isn't it?
Only on the basis that they personally pay the financial costs of any security measures deemed necessary.
Being considerable, that in practice would mean no in most instances and probably all.
This week several media outlets , including the Times, reported because of the momentum behind ISIS large numbers of FSA troops are switching allegiances to ISIS. So potentially we now have people effectively encouraged to fight against Assad and with the tacit support of this country now being identified as bad guys ? By the way I'm no way supporting Isis far from it but are they still bad guys if they're fighting against asad not Iraq or is it just if they're in Iraq ? I just mean its a complete mess and we've helped create it.
I find it interesting that the former head of Mi6 stated earlier in the week that he's unconvinced on the threat of Isis and feels there has been perhaps an overreaction , I'm paraphrasing , to what is essentially to him a 'Muslim on Muslim' conflict.
As regards passports I find it amazing that football hooligans or those suspected of it have their passports almost seized with impunity when a tournament . Again I'm not saying everyone should have them seized as I'm not sure of the legality personally but it does seem they have no concerns or problems with another group.
The problem is how you interpret the facts and words. The facts are murky , and change. By some estimates only 20% of the opposition in Syria is secular. However, its a moslem country divided along sect lines so you would expect most of the opposition to be believers at least. On other estimates , ISIS only makes up about 6000 people - perhaps 5% of the opposition strength. In Iraq its estimated that ISIS is about 10% of the combatant opposition - the rest are Sunni tribesmen and Saddam hangovers.
Its perfectly possible to argue that supporting the moderates in Syria earlier might have produced a negotiated settlement by now - which would have allowed Government, opposition and Kurdish forces to destroy ISIS before now. Bombing Assad's airforce after he used chemical weapons, as planned, might well have swung the military balance towards a compromise. The problem is no one can know what will work, and many people just prefer to stand back rather than go for what may be the only workable policy. We now have a stronger ISIS, a more radicalised opposition, ISIS attacks on the neighbouring states, a stronger Assad, a continuing war, 40000 more dead, and are now doing what we talked about doing years ago arming and training the moderates. Doing nothing wasn't a great success either.
With the words its perfectly possible to argue that the ISIS threat is overplayed - in open country , they would die rapidly if anyone with significant airpower was let lose on them. Iraq is only now getting an airforce - courtesy of Russia and iran. There are not that many fanatics, fewer will survive, and not that many, from here, who might want to return and blow the UK up. However looked at the other way, it doesn't take many fanatical nutters to kill an awful lot of people if they used more effective tactics. And there's no way of knowing which returning fighter is going to be the one who plans mass murder.
the only answer is to charge them with joining the Syrian war and illegal organisations, and lock them up for as long as possible -although that may just make them more indoctrinated. - or just not let them back into the country - which might be difficult legally, and practically. .
I don't disagree support of the more moderate elements , for ease let's called them FSA, may have led to a completely different situation but it didn't happen and we are where we are. It's also entirely possible , although equally unpalatable , to say you can see where the attraction for 'the west' was for decades with murderous dictators as they maintained the status quo although almost certainly massively contributed to the anti-western feeling throughout the region.
I do think though , if you seperate Iraq & Syria , that if you try to charge people with fighting against a dictator you yourselves sought to fight against it leads you further down a difficult road both legally and from a 'PR' perspective in a region where we are already almost universally 'disliked'.
I don't know what the answer is although , as you accept , it's pretty much impossible to deny citizens return to their own country.
Very thought provoking ,grassmarket.
Pretty sure there was a very long thread about this very subject but please don't let actual facts get in the way of a bit of shameless point scoring.
For the record my view is that they should be charged and tried in a court of law and in front of s jury if/when they return.
ISIS are scum.
EITHER ONE SUITS ME
No. It is such in the minds of the far Right though.
The same as America created and funded Al Qaeda to fight the Russians in Afghanistan.
Maybe the Middle East would be a far better place without western interference?
Quiet now Windy you know full well that you will just confuse people with those pesky facts.
I know, sorry, just can't help myself sometimes.
Exactly the point I made earlier , it honestly seems as we've done nothing but make things worse in almost every nation across the region .
It's a mess