question time 3 girls go to syria ..the AA grumpy column

AA grumpy · Post by **AA grumpy** » Fri Feb 27, 2015 2:02 pm

welcome to grumpy towers excuse the mess im having the place redecorated

did anyone catch question time last night?

i was surprised by that ukip fool mark reckless calling these girls groomed victims not terrorists..reckless by name reckless by nature. this of course prompted some left wing sheep bleating from the audience in support of this idiots comment although the majority of the audience agreed these girls were terrorists.

they made their beds so they can now lie on them for as soon as they stepped onto syrian soil they all commited treason against the uk by traveling to syria on british passports yet the police are over there trying to find them and bring them back at the tax payers expense or is it just an excuse for a paid police jolly.

of course they take the added risk of ending up with a government forces bullet in their skulls or swinging from a rope doing the flip flop dance with jhadi jhon as they all head for mecca...and not to play bingo either

FourPart · Post by **FourPart** » Sat Feb 28, 2015 1:23 am

Terrorists, certainly, but it's not as simple as that. The question is as to why they chose to become terrorists. It's not generally something that would suddenly pop into a young girl's mind - "I know, I think I'll go kill myself on a suicide mission for a cause I know nothing about in a country I know even less about". These girls have been groomed. The thing is that 'grooming' seems to be a recent 'P.C.' term which has only really come into recognised existence in the past 10 years, or so. However, only the word is new. The act has been around for Millenia. It's something more commonly known as Brainwashing. Now, replace the word 'Groomed' with 'Brainwashed' & does the idea of them being Victims seem quite so outrageous?

Bruv · Post by **Bruv** » Sat Feb 28, 2015 5:39 am

Brainwashed ? groomed ? but has anybody considered........deep thinking, inquisitive, soul searching, youthful rebellion ?

These kids are second/third generation immigrants, with a closeness to their parents culture.

They have grown with a foot in each culture, loyalties torn between two very different worlds, but with a heightened sense of injustice given to youth.

Many know a lot more than you and I about the events 'on the ground' in these troubled regions.

I don't believe these girls have gone to become terrorists, but to support the cause the terrorists are fighting for.

AnneBoleyn · Post by **AnneBoleyn** » Sat Feb 28, 2015 8:43 am

I think it's partly, or wholly, a school girl crush on a boy who is dangerous. They think they're in love & his beliefs become theirs. Teenage girls are generally nuts, especially if there are self-esteem issues regarding males.

Post by **spot** » Sat Feb 28, 2015 12:18 pm

England has a long tradition of killing teenage girls for being religious extremists who supported foreign fighters.

Burning Saint Joan at the stake springs to mind. We claimed even back then that we stuck to the letter of the law while doing it. We turned her into a religious martyr in the process, rallying the enemy sufficiently that they ended up victorious. People pray to her for intercession to this day. Some posters here seem not to have learned any lesson from this.

flopstock · Post by **flopstock** » Mon Mar 02, 2015 12:48 pm

I think the logical answer is to not allow these folks back into the country. Let them go if they feel that strongly about it.

Although if they couldn't keep them in would it be any easier keeping them out?

Post by **spot** » Mon Mar 02, 2015 7:02 pm

flopstock;1475088 wrote: I think the logical answer is to not allow these folks back into the country. Let them go if they feel that strongly about it.

Although if they couldn't keep them in would it be any easier keeping them out?

People tend not to know about nationality laws. It's against all sorts of international law to make a citizen stateless by revoking their nationality, and part of their nationality status is a right of residence in their country of birth. Are you quite sure you'd not rather just shoot them on their return and have done with it? We Brits have quasi-legally executed our own citizens both at home and abroad in the past so it's not an unknown solution. Perhaps Muslim could be the new Irish.

High Threshold · Post by **High Threshold** » Mon Mar 02, 2015 10:30 pm

AA grumpy;1474943 wrote: ...................... as soon as they stepped onto syrian soil they all commited treason against the uk by traveling to syria on british passports ...................

If it's not taking too much of your time could you explain that comment for me, please? Only the dots that connect syrian soil - treason - british passports. I can take a guess but I'd rather be sure.

High Threshold · Post by **High Threshold** » Mon Mar 02, 2015 10:34 pm

FourPart;1474965 wrote: .................... The thing is that 'grooming' ................... has been around for Millenia. It's something more commonly known as Brainwashing. Now, replace the word 'Groomed' with 'Brainwashed' & does the idea of them being Victims seem quite so outrageous?

Exactly!

- Patty Hearst.

- The children of the Khmer Rouge

- Liberia's child soldiers

FourPart · Post by **FourPart** » Tue Mar 03, 2015 1:12 am

spot;1475132 wrote: People tend not to know about nationality laws. It's against all sorts of international law to make a citizen stateless by revoking their nationality, and part of their nationality status is a right of residence in their country of birth. Are you quite sure you'd not rather just shoot them on their return and have done with it? We Brits have quasi-legally executed our own citizens both at home and abroad in the past so it's not an unknown solution. Perhaps Muslim could be the new Irish.
What about Exile? It boils down to the same thing.

Anyone born as a National who turns against the country of their Nationality, especially in time of war or conflict is, by definition, a Traitor & should be treated accordingly. Anyone who is an immigrant, legally naturalised or not, & turns against their host country in my view automatically forfeits that right of Nationality & after being dealt with by our own legal system should be kicked out of the country, with absolutely no regard for 'Human Rights' if they face Torture & Execution in their own country. Human Rights & International Law are all very well & good in their place, but cannot be permitted to be used as a shield against us.

Post by **spot** » Tue Mar 03, 2015 1:38 am

FourPart;1475141 wrote: What about Exile? It boils down to the same thing.

Anyone born as a National who turns against the country of their Nationality, especially in time of war or conflict is, by definition, a Traitor & should be treated accordingly. Anyone who is an immigrant, legally naturalised or not, & turns against their host country in my view automatically forfeits that right of Nationality & after being dealt with by our own legal system should be kicked out of the country, with absolutely no regard for 'Human Rights' if they face Torture & Execution in their own country. Human Rights & International Law are all very well & good in their place, but cannot be permitted to be used as a shield against us.

If you can find a current law on the statute books authorizing exile, I'll eat my hat.

There's nothing treasonous in "turns against the country of their Nationality" either, in wartime or peacetime. Treason[1] requires an act against the state, not a frame of mind.

None of the three children mentioned in the OP are immigrants, either, they're British born - all this clack about "host country" is sheer prejudice on your part. They're British, their nationality is British, their passports are British, their place of birth is Britain and they've traveled to Syria, a country the UK is not in fact at war with. I could say exactly the same of my own daughter.

To the best of anyone's knowledge, they've committed no crime other than traveling under age without permission, in at least one case on a stolen passport.

[1] The current legal definition of treason dates from 1351 and was last amended in 2013. I've bolded the only relevant text. I think a court would need to test "giving" and "open deed" and "King's Enemies". George Orwell did more than merely travel to a war zone but nobody described him as a traitor, then or since. The chance of this legislation being applied to the three children is absolutely none at all.

ITEM, Whereas divers Opinions have been before this Time in what Case Treason shall be said, and in what not; the King, at the Request of the Lords and of the Commons, hath made a Declaration in the Manner as hereafter followeth, that is to say; When a Man doth compass or imagine the Death of our Lord the King, or of our Lady his Queen or of their eldest Son and Heir; or if a Man do violate the King’s Companion, or the King’s eldest Daughter unmarried, or the Wife the King’s eldest Son and Heir; or if a Man do levy War against our Lord the King in his Realm, or be adherent to the King’s Enemies in his Realm, giving to them Aid and Comfort in the Realm, or elsewhere, and thereof be attainted of open Deed by the People of their Condition: . . . , and if a Man slea the Chancellor, Treasurer, or the King’s Justices of the one Bench or the other, Justices in Eyre, or Justices of Assise, and all other Justices assigned to hear and determine, being in their Places, doing their Offices: And it is to be understood, that in the Cases above rehearsed, that ought to be judged Treason which extends to our Lord the King, and his Royal Majesty.

http://www.legislation.gov.uk/aep/Edw3S ... section/II

FourPart · Post by **FourPart** » Tue Mar 03, 2015 6:24 am

spot;1475144 wrote:

None of the three children mentioned in the OP are immigrants, either, they're British born - all this clack about "host country" is sheer prejudice on your part. They're British, their nationality is British, their passports are British, their place of birth is Britain and they've traveled to Syria, a country the UK is not in fact at war with. I could say exactly the same of my own daughter.

I never said they were. You might even note that my first sentence referred to Nationals turning against their country of birth. That does not even imply their being immigrants. My mention of immigrants, be they legal or otherwise, refers to anyone else in an overall generic fashion, such as Abu Hamza, for instance. Look how much trouble we had kicking him out of the country because of 'Human Rights'.

High Threshold · Post by **High Threshold** » Tue Mar 03, 2015 6:36 am

FourPart;1475141 wrote: ..... Anyone born as a National who turns against the country of their Nationality, especially in time of war or conflict is, by definition, a Traitor & should be treated accordingly. .....

I agree with your phrasing but you failed to set the parameters round what constitutes “turning against your country. If you feel that going abroad to join any entity (of which its legitimacy your own government denies) is "turning against your country" then I must disagree with you. I am still waiting for AA grumpy's clarification on the point but if you'd like to do the honour in his absence - then please do.

Post by **spot** » Tue Mar 03, 2015 6:38 am

FourPart;1475151 wrote: My mention of immigrants, be they legal or otherwise, refers to anyone else in an overall generic fashion
No. In the context of this thread the comment is directed at the three girls we're discussing.