Another Brit ISIS recruit, "Jihadi Jack," wants to come back. He misses pasties and Dr Who

"JIHADI Jack" has today announced he wants to come home to the UK after being held for two years in a Kurdish prison.

Jack Letts, who was born in Oxford said he misses his mum and home comforts like pasties and watching Doctor Who.

Letts, who ran away to war-torn Syria in 2014 when he was just 18, said: "I miss my mum.

"I know that sounds a bit toddler-ish.

"What else do I miss? I miss pasties. It's not really English - sort of Scottish isn’t it? I miss pasties. And Doctor Who. Sounds a bit stupid… that’s all."

He apparently hasn't spoken to his parents in two years, but they face trial over claims that they funded terrorism by sending him money.

https://www.thesun.co.uk/news/8490254/brits-isis-terror-convert-jihadi-jack-home-drwho/

He sounds like a probably-harmless jackass, but I still think that if he comes back to the UK, it should be only to face justice for joining a terrorist organization.

I’d have preferred it if he’d said “I’ve been a cunt and know that killing people is cuntish and I completely want to spread the word”

Dr who and pasties? Fuck off mate.

Agreed, as with Shamima the only way I'd be happy letting him back in is if his marched straight into a UK prison.

And, again as with Shamima, getting back here is not our problem, they manage that themselves.

It sends an awful message if we allow IS coverts to just come back once they realise the dying death cult isn't all they imagined it'd be.

eddie wrote:I’d have preferred it if he’d said “I’ve been a cunt and know that killing people is cuntish and I completely want to spread the word”

Dr who and pasties? Fuck off mate.

Pasties are god's own food tbf. If I came back, it'd be for pasties too

Eilzel wrote:

eddie wrote:I’d have preferred it if he’d said “I’ve been a cunt and know that killing people is cuntish and I completely want to spread the word”

Dr who and pasties? Fuck off mate.

Pasties are god's own food tbf. If I came back, it'd be for pasties too

Oh you are such a bloody bloke.

Eilzel wrote:Agreed, as with Shamima the only way I'd be happy letting him back in is if his marched straight into a UK prison.

And, again as with Shamima, getting back here is not our problem, they manage that themselves.

It sends an awful message if we allow IS coverts to just come back once they realise the dying death cult isn't all they imagined it'd be.

Come back with no consequences? Of course not.

But come back to the chance of an objective investigation and trial. The priority should be getting these people out of circulation while proving to the likes of ISIS that Western democracy is a superior way of life to a brutal, twisted theocracy.

eddie wrote:

Eilzel wrote:

eddie wrote:I’d have preferred it if he’d said “I’ve been a cunt and know that killing people is cuntish and I completely want to spread the word”

Dr who and pasties? Fuck off mate.

Pasties are god's own food tbf. If I came back, it'd be for pasties too

Oh you are such a bloody bloke.

>THE Ben Reilly< wrote:

Eilzel wrote:Agreed, as with Shamima the only way I'd be happy letting him back in is if his marched straight into a UK prison.

And, again as with Shamima, getting back here is not our problem, they manage that themselves.

It sends an awful message if we allow IS coverts to just come back once they realise the dying death cult isn't all they imagined it'd be.

Come back with no consequences? Of course not.

But come back to the chance of an objective investigation and trial. The priority should be getting these people out of circulation while proving to the likes of ISIS that Western democracy is a superior way of life to a brutal, twisted theocracy.

I mean, they left the UK to join a terrorist organisation which is an enemy of our nation - one which has inspired terror attacks on UK soil. They are guilty at least of that. The only reason for a trial is to establish just what other crimes they committed while out there. They just be interrogated too for any useful information.

All again dependent on their own ability to get here in the first place.

Eilzel wrote:

>THE Ben Reilly< wrote:

Eilzel wrote:Agreed, as with Shamima the only way I'd be happy letting him back in is if his marched straight into a UK prison.

And, again as with Shamima, getting back here is not our problem, they manage that themselves.

It sends an awful message if we allow IS coverts to just come back once they realise the dying death cult isn't all they imagined it'd be.

Come back with no consequences? Of course not.

But come back to the chance of an objective investigation and trial. The priority should be getting these people out of circulation while proving to the likes of ISIS that Western democracy is a superior way of life to a brutal, twisted theocracy.

I mean, they left the UK to join a terrorist organisation which is an enemy of our nation - one which has inspired terror attacks on UK soil. They are guilty at least of that. The only reason for a trial is to establish just what other crimes they committed while out there. They just be interrogated too for any useful information.

All again dependent on their own ability to get here in the first place.

Les, the reason for a trial is that everyone has the right to a trial. I don't care how open and shut the case is, everyone has that right.

>THE Ben Reilly< wrote:

Eilzel wrote:

>THE Ben Reilly< wrote:

Eilzel wrote:Agreed, as with Shamima the only way I'd be happy letting him back in is if his marched straight into a UK prison.

And, again as with Shamima, getting back here is not our problem, they manage that themselves.

It sends an awful message if we allow IS coverts to just come back once they realise the dying death cult isn't all they imagined it'd be.

Come back with no consequences? Of course not.

But come back to the chance of an objective investigation and trial. The priority should be getting these people out of circulation while proving to the likes of ISIS that Western democracy is a superior way of life to a brutal, twisted theocracy.

I mean, they left the UK to join a terrorist organisation which is an enemy of our nation - one which has inspired terror attacks on UK soil. They are guilty at least of that. The only reason for a trial is to establish just what other crimes they committed while out there. They just be interrogated too for any useful information.

All again dependent on their own ability to get here in the first place.

Les, the reason for a trial is that everyone has the right to a trial. I don't care how open and shut the case is, everyone has that right.

Of course they do. Of course, if some smart arse lawyer somehow got him free from a prison sentence, their greatest achievement would be in ensuring no one is ever allowed back from IS again.

They could have a trial. I'm confident they'd be found guilty anyway.

It's as simple as "did you notoriously run off and join a terrorist group or were we all hallucinating?"

But it always gets under my skin whenever someone suggests we shouldn't follow our own rule of law because of terrorism. I know that's not what you were saying, of course.

We saw that in the U.S. with the Guantanamo Bay debate. We were holding people without trial and torturing them, two things that violate the U.S. constitution. We have to show we're better than that to win the debate on terrorism.

Trials are all good and well as long as they’re not corrupt and as we keep seeing these days, the law is corrupt...is it not?

Or is it only when it’s Trump, it’s not corrupt?

>THE Ben Reilly< wrote:It's as simple as "did you notoriously run off and join a terrorist group or were we all hallucinating?"

But it always gets under my skin whenever someone suggests we  shouldn't follow our own rule of law because of terrorism. I know that's not what you were saying, of course.

We saw that in the U.S. with the Guantanamo Bay debate. We were holding people without trial and torturing them, two things that violate the U.S. constitution. We have to show we're better than that to win the debate on terrorism.

I understand all that.

I suppose I have to separate what I think should be done with my ideal outcome.

In our democratic reality there should be trial, in which he shoukd be found unquestionably guilty and the only question is how long the sentence. But yes a fair trial.

In the Benign Dictatorship of Eilzel, he/she lands at Heathrow (or whatever military air field or port) and is immediately frog-marched into a jail cell where he spends at least the next 10 years or more atoning for his treachery and being rehabilitated (or not, if it turns out he killed anyone).

What do you guys do with those home-grown terrorists, who commit terrorist acts at home?

Shouldn't they be treated same as these ISIS bitches who can't come home? Do you kick them out, and if so...where?

Can't understand why the Kurds took Prisoners, they knew what these murdering scum did. Should have been shot on the spot, it would save all this agonising over what to do with them !

nicko wrote:Can't understand why the Kurds took Prisoners,   they knew what these murdering scum did.   Should have been shot on the spot, it would save all this agonising over what to do with them !

Because unlike ISIS. The Kurd military forces are not murderers mate and ethnically miles morally better than ISIS

Original Quill wrote:What do you guys do with those home-grown terrorists, who commit terrorist acts at home?

Shouldn't they be treated same as these ISIS bitches who can't come home?  Do you kick them out, and if so...where?

You send them to prison for life for terrorism if born here to this country. Where it actually means life. They stay there until they rot.

Those members of ISIS have left the country to fight for a terrorist group that is at war with this country.

Different situation and hence why their citizenship can be revoked

Of course foreign born terrorists that is convicted of a terrorist related offense (ie supplying funds, weapons etc). Should also be deported to the country they came from and their citisenship revoked. To me we should have a claus on gaining citizenship to this country. That if convicted of a criminal act. That cluase then allows that citizenship to be immediatelly revoked and they are deported back to their country they came from. After they have served their sentence. If people come to this country, they need to respect the laws and if not, then they lose their right to be in this country. This would seperate the criminals from the many genuine immigrants that come here and work for a better life.

ISIS were murderers , I saw the videos of the beheadings , the burning and drowning of men , the cutting off of children's heads and the raping of same.
I don't believe in" turning the other cheek"
so you can have that one slapped as well.
ISIS only took prisoners so they could torture them . They don't deserve to live !

nicko wrote:ISIS were murderers ,   I saw the videos of the beheadings , the burning and drowning of men , the cutting off of children's heads and the raping of same.
                    I don't believe in" turning the other cheek"
                     so you can have that one slapped as well.
                     ISIS only took prisoners so they could torture them .    They don't deserve to live !

That is fine if that is your perspective, but you cannot think or worse, force people to believe the same mate

Its what seperates up from ISIS

As we are nothing like them

To me you also have the fact that everytime we do kill any of them. They are seen as Martyrs, by their followers. If they are killed in combat, I have zero sympathy for them and the more taken out the better. As should be the case, but we have rules in engagement when people surrender. If we dont abide by that, then we become no better than they are. Like i say its what seperates us from them. That we value life, and they have no respect for life whatsoever. As they simple do not care about this life and look forward to dying and thinking it takes them to the next life. To me you deny them what they most of all yearn.

Martydom through excecution

"Rules of engagement" caused more deaths of Soldiers in Ireland . A terrorist points a gun at you and you have to shout "put down your Weapon" . By the time you'v shouted that, he's shot you !

nicko wrote:"Rules of engagement" caused more deaths of Soldiers in Ireland .   A terrorist points a gun at you and you have to shout "put down your Weapon" . By the time you'v shouted that, he's shot you !

That is an example of poor rules of engagement based more on what public opinion thought. Only relevant to the British in that one theater of operations. That method did cause more British troops to die and it was not based on listening to Military experts, but non-military politicians. 

I have not seen any military tacticians say we should execute prisoners in warfare

Respecting the surrender of people in combat, is a universal rule of engagement

Not only that its a self defeating and poor military tactic. If the opposition know you will shoot them out of hand, they will then fight to the death. Causing far more casulties for those fighting them. Its why the Waffen SS fought to the death in WW2 against the Russians, as they knew they would be shot if they surrendered. One of the reasons also that there was high Russian casulaties. In fact they shot many German prisoners out of hand, as much as the Germans did of the Russians. Where again this leads to vastly higher casulties, than was seen in the west. As people in the East more fought to the death. Hence its a poor military tactic that in the end leads to more casulties.

a big question should be why is the media trying to gain sympathy for these murderous people. you can just imagine them at Nuremberg trying to elicit sympathy for the nazis.

Thor wrote:

nicko wrote:"Rules of engagement" caused more deaths of Soldiers in Ireland .   A terrorist points a gun at you and you have to shout "put down your Weapon" . By the time you'v shouted that, he's shot you !

That is an example of poor rules of engagement based more on what public opinion thought. Only relevant to the British in that one theater of operations. That method did cause more British troops to die and it was not based on listening to Military experts, but non-military politicians. 

I have not seen any military tacticians say we should execute prisoners in warfare

Respecting the surrender of people in combat, is a universal rule of engagement

Not only that its a self defeating and poor military tactic. If the opposition know you will shoot them out of hand, they will then fight to the death. Causing far more casulties for those fighting them. Its why the Waffen SS fought to the death in WW2 against the Russians, as they knew they would be shot if they surrendered. One of the reasons also that there was high Russian casulaties. In fact they shot many German prisoners out of hand, as much as the Germans did of the Russians. Where again this leads to vastly higher casulties, than was seen in the west. As people in the East more fought to the death. Hence its a poor military tactic that in the end leads to more casulties.

it's not, similar rules applied in afghanistan and iraq. the way to stay alive is to shoot the bastards before they shoot you.

Original Quill wrote:What do you guys do with those home-grown terrorists, who commit terrorist acts at home?

Shouldn't they be treated same as these ISIS bitches who can't come home?  Do you kick them out, and if so...where?

yes we should kick them out when possible, but bastard lawyers like you spend years trying to stop it and they use taxpayers money to do it.
And then we finally do get them on a plane out some snowflake liberal kicks up a stink and gets them removed, although it doesn;t always work out well for the snowflake.

https://www.theguardian.com/world/2018/oct/19/elin-ersson-swedish-student-video-grounded-deportation-flight-prosecution
Sweden that time

internment until the war is over would solve the terrorist problem, give them the option of leaving or being locked up. I would like to see banishment reinstated for any undesirables.

Eilzel wrote:

>THE Ben Reilly< wrote:It's as simple as "did you notoriously run off and join a terrorist group or were we all hallucinating?"

But it always gets under my skin whenever someone suggests we  shouldn't follow our own rule of law because of terrorism. I know that's not what you were saying, of course.

We saw that in the U.S. with the Guantanamo Bay debate. We were holding people without trial and torturing them, two things that violate the U.S. constitution. We have to show we're better than that to win the debate on terrorism.

I understand all that.

I suppose I have to separate what I think should be done with my ideal outcome.

In our democratic reality there should be trial, in which he shoukd be found unquestionably guilty and the only question is how long the sentence. But yes a fair trial.

In the Benign Dictatorship of Eilzel, he/she lands at Heathrow (or whatever military air field or port) and is immediately frog-marched into a jail cell where he spends at least the next 10 years or more atoning for his treachery and being rehabilitated (or not, if it turns out he killed anyone).

the problem with taking returning isis members to court is that most of the witnesses are dead or in syria

The Devil, You Know wrote:

Thor wrote:


That is an example of poor rules of engagement based more on what public opinion thought. Only relevant to the British in that one theater of operations. That method did cause more British troops to die and it was not based on listening to Military experts, but non-military politicians. 

I have not seen any military tacticians say we should execute prisoners in warfare

Respecting the surrender of people in combat, is a universal rule of engagement

Not only that its a self defeating and poor military tactic. If the opposition know you will shoot them out of hand, they will then fight to the death. Causing far more casulties for those fighting them. Its why the Waffen SS fought to the death in WW2 against the Russians, as they knew they would be shot if they surrendered. One of the reasons also that there was high Russian casulaties. In fact they shot many German prisoners out of hand, as much as the Germans did of the Russians. Where again this leads to vastly higher casulties, than was seen in the west. As people in the East more fought to the death. Hence its a poor military tactic that in the end leads to more casulties.

it's not, similar rules applied in afghanistan and iraq. the way to stay alive is to shoot the bastards before they shoot you.

Utter bullshit

Show those rules?

The Devil, You Know wrote:

Eilzel wrote:

I understand all that.

I suppose I have to separate what I think should be done with my ideal outcome.

In our democratic reality there should be trial, in which he shoukd be found unquestionably guilty and the only question is how long the sentence. But yes a fair trial.

In the Benign Dictatorship of Eilzel, he/she lands at Heathrow (or whatever military air field or port) and is immediately frog-marched into a jail cell where he spends at least the next 10 years or more atoning for his treachery and being rehabilitated (or not, if it turns out he killed anyone).

the problem with taking returning isis members to court is that most of the witnesses are dead or in syria

Even more utter bullshit

Many people have been freed from living under ISIS rule and many fled as refugees to Europe

They're never sorry about the crimes ISIS committed are they? They miss the UK, or they want to bring their baby up here, or whatever. They should have thought about that kind of thing before they ran off to join a bunch of murderers.

Thor wrote:

The Devil, You Know wrote:
the problem with taking returning isis members to court is that most of the witnesses are dead or in syria

Even more utter bullshit

Many people have been freed from living under ISIS rule and many fled as refugees to Europe

how are we going to try them for crimes in syria when getting witnesses will be hard or impossible. ISIS have not gone, they may have been destroyed as a state but they are still there intimidating and murdering people to keep them in line. you are as naive as comrade cob if you think that.

Thor wrote:

The Devil, You Know wrote:
it's not, similar rules applied in afghanistan and iraq. the way to stay alive is to shoot the bastards before they shoot you.

Utter bullshit

Show those rules?

https://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/home-news/british-soldiers-resort-to-baiting-taliban-to-beat-rules-of-engagement-8082165.html

they cannot shoot unless shot at first

The Devil, You Know wrote:

Thor wrote:


Even more utter bullshit

Many people have been freed from living under ISIS rule and many fled as refugees to Europe

how are we going to try them for crimes in syria when getting witnesses will be hard or impossible. ISIS have not gone, they may have been destroyed as a state but they are still there intimidating and murdering people to keep them in line. you are as naive as comrade cob if you think that.

How do you think we were able to convict many Nazi's

Seriously?

There are for example many Free Yazidi people

Thor wrote:

nicko wrote:Can't understand why the Kurds took Prisoners,   they knew what these murdering scum did.   Should have been shot on the spot, it would save all this agonising over what to do with them !

Because unlike ISIS. The Kurd military forces are not murderers mate and ethnically miles morally better than ISIS

ethnically they are much the same, ethically they are different sometimes.

The Devil, You Know wrote:

Thor wrote:


Utter bullshit

Show those rules?

https://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/home-news/british-soldiers-resort-to-baiting-taliban-to-beat-rules-of-engagement-8082165.html

they cannot shoot unless shot at first

Show me the rules of engagement

Not an opinion piece

Isn't it against the law in the UK to associate with ISIS? These people have admitted they have done so, so no further evidence is needed.

The Devil, You Know wrote:

Thor wrote:


Because unlike ISIS. The Kurd military forces are not murderers mate and ethnically miles morally better than ISIS

ethnically they are much the same, ethically they are different sometimes.

Really?

Show me how Kurdish military forces are the same at times?

I never took a prisoner in NAM, after seeing what they did to captured Americans. Tied to a tree and skinned alive , and I should take such scum prisoner ?

nicko wrote: I never took a prisoner in NAM, after seeing what they did to captured Americans.   Tied to a tree and skinned alive , and I should take such scum prisoner ?

So you are admitting to war crimes then?

You'v never been near a shooting war, never been afraid for your life. It's a different thing when your in it. You'd never get in the SAS with those snowflake ideas. Kill or be killed is the way to win wars !

nicko wrote:You'v never been near a shooting war, never been afraid for your life. It's a different thing when your in it.   You'd never get in the SAS with those  snowflake ideas.  Kill or be killed is the way to win wars !

Irrelevant, as there is far more soldiers, that have never resorted to such war crimes

We have a standard that we live by in the west and i completely condemn your war crimes

Thor wrote:

The Devil, You Know wrote:
https://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/home-news/british-soldiers-resort-to-baiting-taliban-to-beat-rules-of-engagement-8082165.html

they cannot shoot unless shot at first

Show me the rules of engagement

Not an opinion piece

https://www.theguardian.com/uk/2008/jul/15/military.afghanistan
join the army/airforce/navy and you will get the full set of rules of engagement

Thor wrote:

The Devil, You Know wrote:
how are we going to try them for crimes in syria when getting witnesses will be hard or impossible. ISIS have not gone, they may have been destroyed as a state but they are still there intimidating and murdering people to keep them in line. you are as naive as comrade cob if you think that.

How do you think we were able to convict many Nazi's

Seriously?

There are for example many Free Yazidi people

well we were able to convict so many nazi's after the war because we controlled germany and the continent, we dont control syria

The Devil, You Know wrote:

Thor wrote:



Show me the rules of engagement

Not an opinion piece

https://www.theguardian.com/uk/2008/jul/15/military.afghanistan
join the army/airforce/navy and you will get the full set of rules of engagement

Why do you keep presenting left wing opinion articles?

Show me the actual rules of engagement

For the fourth time

Thor wrote:

The Devil, You Know wrote:
ethnically they are much the same, ethically they are different sometimes.

Really?

Show me how Kurdish military forces are the same at times?

I reckon I can make you argue the opposite of anything I say

The Devil, You Know wrote:

Thor wrote:

How do you think we were able to convict many Nazi's

Seriously?

There are for example many Free Yazidi people

well we were able to convict so many nazi's after the war because we controlled germany and the continent, we dont control syria

You mean all the ones that fled and were caught abroad

You wimple do not know what you are talking about

Thor wrote:

nicko wrote:You'v never been near a shooting war, never been afraid for your life. It's a different thing when your in it.   You'd never get in the SAS with those  snowflake ideas.  Kill or be killed is the way to win wars !

Irrelevant, as there is far more soldiers, that have never resorted to such war crimes

We have a standard that we live by in the west and i completely condemn your war crimes

I think you are talking about rules of engagement there.

The Devil, You Know wrote:

Thor wrote:

Really?

Show me how Kurdish military forces are the same at times?

I reckon I can make you argue the opposite of anything I say

Can you, then how is it we agree on other things

You just do not like me pulling you up when you make poor arguments


That problems lies within yourself

I am here to debate where at times I do not agree with you

If you come here for people to lick your arse, that was your forum, not here

Thor wrote:

The Devil, You Know wrote:
https://www.theguardian.com/uk/2008/jul/15/military.afghanistan
join the army/airforce/navy and you will get the full set of rules of engagement

Why do you keep presenting left wing opinion articles?

Show me the actual rules of engagement

For the fourth time

this explains why the full rules are not on general release. you seem to want to help the terrorists
https://nautilus.org/publications/books/australian-forces-abroad/afghanistan/rules-of-engagement-afghanistan-and-iraq/
australian I know, before you claim some outrage, but the principle applies.

the reason that ROE are not public knowledge is in the 2nd paragraph.

https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/1527921/British-troops-at-war-with-Taliban-after-change-to-rules-of-combat.html

Ha ha, so one is Australian and nothing from the MOD



Who wants to bet I can keep Deano searching all day long on google?