I see your point but they would only have known I was a (listed) member after they checked me, not before.
Shamima Begum, IS teen wants to come back to the UK
- Thread starter Tommy
- Start date
-
In the latest episode of the United Hour Podcast, Nik (@Rood) is joined by CEO Duncan Drasdo and Financial Director Andy Green from the Manchester United Supporters Trust for a special episode on all things behind the scenes at Old Trafford including a brief history of MUST and their aims today, views on INEOS and Sir Jim Ratcliffe so far, and the Old Trafford regeneration.
When you "drove" you took a ferry or the train? You had to register both car and passenger with name / licence plate ?
Oh yes, never thought of that. I felt quite unnoticed and insignificant at the time.
I thought it was documented that a number of known extremists that went on to commit terrorist attacks crossed the external EU border and internal borders numerous times without detection, some to go to training camps, or has it been tightened up since?
IIRC, the Bataclan terrorists passed through internal borders with loads of AK47s in their boot.
As there seems to only be me and thee posting do you think you could nip over to the Trump Investigation thread and explain some of my queries over there.....even if it’s only to tell me that I’m wrong. Much obliged.
Obviously it isn't perfect. Easily arguable that it isn't good enough yet, but that's no reason not to improve on it. Frontex has been massively expanded since then though.
May well be true, but again, would you demand border checks between England and Wales because IRA men have smuggled things from Scotland to England? Or between Michigan and Ohio because guns from Vegas gun shows are used in California massacres? It's a lot more effective to use that manpower to check suspicious people within your country than to check everyone at a known point. Those terrorists might not have carried their AK's across borders had there been checks, but that would have hardly stopped them?
I’m fine with that if it means I don’t go about the Internet making excuses for terrorist group members. No offense lolz #ISISsucks
Quote me where I made excuses for terrorists. Right fecking now.
You're testing my good will little man.
It may be the right thing to do but the lack of due process is shocking. I can scarcely believe our govt has the power to unilaterally revoke citizenship. That just feels wrong.
Just out of interest...do we have any admitted ISIS supporters on the forum? Be useful to hear their side of things occasionally. (Not too often mind, just occasionally).
Okay...
And as for this...
iluvoursolskjaer said:
I would have thought that external border checks would be especially significant.
There were recommendations made as far as I can tell from what I found quickly. Not sure what has actually changed mind.
https://www.theguardian.com/world/2...rity-failings-that-facilitated-terror-attacks
Okay...
And as for this...
So giving an alternative angle of consideration for contextual purposes is excusing terrorists?
Man you're dumber than I thought.
I've been polite, I've contributed to discussion, you've no right to treat me like a mug. I take what you said extremely seriously.
She should absolutely be allowed back.
Then tried, found guilty and hanged.
Then tried, found guilty and hanged.
Weren’t you drunk at the beginning of this thread...?
Oh is that what you're doing. Thanks for helping us out.
Though CR has been wilful at times, you seem to be the one turning this into a petty squabble because he doesn't abide by what you're saying.
Character assassination now, how pathetic are you? Let see stick to the content innit try keep up.
And for the record I made it clear that after having read some of the shit she said I found her revolting.
How am I turning it in to a squabble? I was partaking in discussion before he accused me of making excuses for terrorists!
Unbelievable, wallahi unbelievable.
You admitted to talking shit earlier in the thread because you were drunk, you also said basically “I said what I said and don’t have to defend it”, then said “you’re basic lolz”. I’m sorry if I misunderstood that I was supposed to talk all that seriously.
Ive no further interest in communicating with you.
But for a final sentence, I was drunk and upset cos of personal problems and for all which I apologised as clear as day in the quote you quoted.
Javid playing tough when he knows her appeal will be upheld, especially now that Bangladesh has denied her entry there. Britain won't see her stateless so I guess she'll get her wish and be allowed back in. Eventually.
Well, seems like me and @Abizzz got out of this thread just in time.
Now if the rest of you could just stop bickering the Trump Investigation thread could benefit from some input.
Now if the rest of you could just stop bickering the Trump Investigation thread could benefit from some input.
Is there any case though in which Bangladesh has to accept her because of their bloodline citizenship law?
Are you still drunk? That was in direct response to you posting:
Now that I wouldn't know, but a spokesman has already said they won't take her.
https://www.straitstimes.com/asia/s...er-shamima-begum-not-eligible-for-citizenship
His response to my post (which was about how I found the way the government were trying to wash their hands off what is our problem and chuck her to Bangladesh, disgusting) was how he found terrorists disgusting. How are they even remotely the same thing or related to each other? It also insinuated that I somehow don't find terrorists as/or disgusting.
At that point he was either trying to get a rise out of me (he used my 'truth be told' term to round it off) or he's just dumb. It's one or the other really. I went for the latter to give him the benefit of the doubt.
Oh and the drunk thing again, cheers. It's like no one can maleness a point around here without being condescending.
I'm quite far-left leaning, and haven't read too much into this, but I don't see what the big deal is with revoking her citizenship?
The big deal is that she doesn't hold another citizenship and international law says that no-one should be left "stateless". If she's not British and not Bangladeshi, where does she go?
If you are the bomb maker for terrorists you are still guilty of a crime.
If your argument is to prioritise the money, over the lives of innocents, then you are morally bankrupt
Could the Government not have brought her back on confidential conditions, one of which being a public televised interview where she speaks of what a big mistake she made, and how she would urge others thinking the same to not make the same mistake she did?
It could have been used as a useful weapon to help stop those being radicalized.
It could have been used as a useful weapon to help stop those being radicalized.
Nationality is given to descendents of Bangladeshis at the discretion of the Bangladeshi government.
Yes, just another bloody actor in the region
I can't speak for everyone, but for me it's mainly that it's just shifting the responsibility onto someone who's been having to fight these terrorists for life and death. I'm not British but these cases affect all western countries... we should take back our citizens and trial them and lock them away (or execute them, if that's within the laws). For once I actually agree with Trump (can't believe i'm saying it), but we have to take responsibility for those of them that grew up here and have our nationalities. They won't be any less dangerous if just "left" down there.
I've been thinking about this for a bit and the only other practical way I can see is if Assad takes them(a expert floated the idea on sky news yesterday, he said western governments might be hoping for this to happen). They'd face horrible fates but, with unease, I think I could live with that (considering who these people are and that they themselves went into his jurisdiction).
This all after you were being a dick at the beginning of the thread. You can't see why he might get a little short with you when you try to contradict him at every turn? I too find it a little odd that you are 'fuming' and 'disgusted' over the government revoking citizenship to a person who actively supports the beheading of it's citizens. Ultimately, a governments primary care should be to it's own, no? If that brings about lawful proceedings, let it be.
How can it be at the governments discretion? Surely there's an automatic criteria or else the government could leave a child stateless at birth?
Is every child born in Bangladesh automatically given Bangladeshi nationality/citzenship? (I am guessing no to this one).
Or is the criteria more like, every child born to a Bangladesh citizen automatically given Bangladeshi citizenship?
Would be worse than useless if perceived as insincere, which it probably would be considering the circumstances.
That’s the part I was talking about earlier. It seems that if Begum’s parents are Bangladeshi then based on their law she is too until she’s 21. I guess what Bangladesh is thinking of is preventing her from coming in until 21 then by technicality she forfeits her citizenship.
I don't know. I'm saying this from experience having known people who were denied bangladeshi citizenship because the government said no.
Good chat.