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.

Thor wrote:

The Devil, You Know wrote:
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

The Devil, You Know wrote:

Thor wrote:

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

you seem to be on the side of the terrorists here. I leave arse licking to you. "Oh yes eddie I will click your ads as that 17cents is so important to you", slurp, slurp.
No one has ever licked my arse and nor would I want or expect them to.

nicko wrote:Now now head,  Eddie and Ben like him !

nicko wrote:Didge ,  How about looking up why American Marines rarely took prisoners in the Pacific War ?   Should make interesting reading for you !

nicko wrote:It wasn't cold, my blood was running hot !    I say again, [and this is the last time]  YOU WERE NOT THERE SO YOU HAVE NO RIGHT TO JUDGE ANYONE.   !

nicko wrote:Now now head,  Eddie and Ben like him !

Thor wrote:

nicko wrote:Now now head,  Eddie and Ben like him !

The do indeed, as we respect each other. I like them, is tha now somehow wrong

Hence the claim of arse licking is Deano acting all upset

As what advantage would I gain by supportin g their adds?

None

The point he fails to understand

Thor wrote:

nicko wrote:Didge ,  How about looking up why American Marines rarely took prisoners in the Pacific War ?   Should make interesting reading for you !

I have read about it, and the reason is very simple

They used to feign surrender in order to carry out suicidal attacks. In order to take out as many people as possible

Which then led to geuine people surrendering being wrongly shot

The reason, they were brainwashed into believeing that they would be shot on surrender and that it was cowardly to surrender

How is that okay then for you to shoot prisoners in cold blood?

The Devil, You Know wrote:

nicko wrote:Now now head,  Eddie and Ben like him !

see another case in point of the abuse propergated byt he admins.

look and it will be obvious

Thor wrote:Anyway, I knew Deano could never actually post up the Rules of engagement. As we are not privy to this information and hence I knew he would be running around like a headless chicken. There is a valid reason for this

"we never comment on the details of rules of engagement because it has operational
implications, but our objective in that process would be to ensure that the rules of
engagement are sufficiently robust for NATO to carry out its mission as set out in
the operational plan which has been agreed by all nations. As ever with rules of
engagement it will be a question of striking a balance between being able to achieve
military effect but also to be working within the law and also achieving the right sort
of political effect."

NATO allows countries to exercise “national caveats” from aspects of these rules of
engagement. MoD told us:

some national contingents will have caveats on the use of their forces. What NATO
is seeking to do is ensure that there are an absolute minimum number of caveats, and
that is what we are seeing from the bulk of the nations.

The Devil, You Know wrote:

Thor wrote:

I have read about it, and the reason is very simple

They used to feign surrender in order to carry out suicidal attacks. In order to take out as many people as possible

Which then led to geuine people surrendering being wrongly shot

The reason, they were brainwashed into believeing that they would be shot on surrender and that it was cowardly to surrender

How is that okay then for you to shoot prisoners in cold blood?

that's more or less ISIS ideology

The Devil, You Know wrote:

Thor wrote:Anyway, I knew Deano could never actually post up the Rules of engagement. As we are not privy to this information and hence I knew he would be running around like a headless chicken. There is a valid reason for this

"we never comment on the details of rules of engagement because it has operational
implications, but our objective in that process would be to ensure that the rules of
engagement are sufficiently robust for NATO to carry out its mission as set out in
the operational plan which has been agreed by all nations. As ever with rules of
engagement it will be a question of striking a balance between being able to achieve
military effect but also to be working within the law and also achieving the right sort
of political effect."

NATO allows countries to exercise “national caveats” from aspects of these rules of
engagement. MoD told us:

some national contingents will have caveats on the use of their forces. What NATO
is seeking to do is ensure that there are an absolute minimum number of caveats, and
that is what we are seeing from the bulk of the nations.

which is why you can only take news reports from those who were subject to it who you appear to think are lying.

Thor wrote:

The Devil, You Know wrote:
see another case in point of the abuse propergated byt he admins.

look and it will be obvious

Seems to me you are simple trying to stir up stuff for them

In fact I have defended you everytime when people have been abusive about your wife

Or did you conviently forget that?

I just defended smelly yesterday from abuse also

It shows i dont take sides

I have been doxed on here and nobody was banned for it

Though because of this the rules then changed

The Devil, You Know wrote:

Thor wrote:

Seems to me you are simple trying to stir up stuff for them

In fact I have defended you everytime when people have been abusive about your wife

Or did you conviently forget that?

I just defended smelly yesterday from abuse also

It shows i dont take sides

I have been doxed on here and nobody was banned for it

Though because of this the rules then changed

the admins of this site have set my name to be a form of abuse in the word censor. You may crawl to people, that is of course your right, but I don't need to.

Thor wrote:

The Devil, You Know wrote:
which is why you can only take news reports from those who were subject to it who you appear to think are lying.

They will be opinions, because such rules are censured

The Devil, You Know wrote:

Thor wrote:



They will be opinions, because such rules are censured

they wont be opinions, they will be statements from those subject to the rules of engagement. IT's not their opinion they cannot shoot people until the weapons are pointed at them .

you may love to play semantics to avoid a point, but it is easy to see through you. transparent as cellophane as just as tough

Thor wrote:

The Devil, You Know wrote:
the admins of this site have set my name to be a form of abuse in the word censor. You may crawl to people, that is of course your right, but I don't need to.

Its to protect your real name

So was i crawling to smelly and you when I saw something as wrong and spoke out against this?

Of course not

Your sulking is hilarious

Thor wrote:

The Devil, You Know wrote:
the admins of this site have set my name to be a form of abuse in the word censor. You may crawl to people, that is of course your right, but I don't need to.

Its to protect your real name

So was i crawling to smelly and you when I saw something as wrong and spoke out against this?

Of course not

Your sulking is hilarious

The Devil, You Know wrote:

Thor wrote:

Its to protect your real name

So was i crawling to smelly and you when I saw something as wrong and spoke out against this?

Of course not

Your sulking is hilarious

your hypocrisy is not, it is predictable though

Thor wrote:

The Devil, You Know wrote:
they wont be opinions, they will be statements from those subject to the rules of engagement. IT's not their opinion they cannot shoot people until the weapons are pointed at them .

you may love to play semantics to avoid a point, but it is easy to see through you. transparent as cellophane as just as tough

They are opinions and even your articles state as such

Did you bother to actually read them?

The Devil, You Know wrote:

Thor wrote:

Its to protect your real name

So was i crawling to smelly and you when I saw something as wrong and spoke out against this?

Of course not

Your sulking is hilarious

then change it to the Devil, you know, which is my login name here. you really are clutching at straws.

Thor wrote:

The Devil, You Know wrote:
your hypocrisy is not, it is predictable though

lol, so you are sulking

Bless

I shall leave you to sulk then

Enjoy

The Devil, You Know wrote:

Thor wrote:

They are opinions and even your articles state as such

Did you bother to actually read them?

they are part of the rules of engagement. That is well known and has been repeated by many serving and ex soldiers. yours is opinion.

Thor wrote:

The Devil, You Know wrote:
they are part of the rules of engagement. That is well known and has been repeated by many serving and ex soldiers. yours is opinion.

Oh dear again, you posted up opinion articles

Rules of engagement are not privy to the likes of me and you

I mean when an SAS sniper has taken out Jihadi's with as clearly seen no threat to himself. Does that make your claim utterly false?

Thor wrote:

The Devil, You Know wrote:
they are part of the rules of engagement. That is well known and has been repeated by many serving and ex soldiers. yours is opinion.

Oh dear again, you posted up opinion articles

Rules of engagement are not privy to the likes of me and you

I mean when an SAS sniper has taken out Jihadi's with as clearly seen no threat to himself. Does that make your claim utterly false?

The Devil, You Know wrote:

Thor wrote:

Oh dear again, you posted up opinion articles

Rules of engagement are not privy to the likes of me and you

I mean when an SAS sniper has taken out Jihadi's with as clearly seen no threat to himself. Does that make your claim utterly false?

It does not have to be a direct to him, it can be a threat to civilians or other troops, you really must keep up with modern thinking and technology. Although some leftwing fools do seem to think that snipers should shout a warning first

The Devil, You Know wrote:before you claim more lies or opinion
https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/12107164/British-sniper-investigated-for-not-shouting-warning-in-Iraq.html

Thor wrote:

The Devil, You Know wrote:before you claim more lies or opinion
https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/12107164/British-sniper-investigated-for-not-shouting-warning-in-Iraq.html

That is blood sucking lawyers,  not rules of engagement

Have made threads about them on here

Two seperate issues

The Devil, You Know wrote:

Thor wrote:

That is blood sucking lawyers,  not rules of engagement

Have made threads about them on here

Two seperate issues

he was following the rules of engagement. He shot him when he became a direct threat

The Devil, You Know wrote:a big question should be why is the media trying to gain sympathy for these murderous people.

Thor wrote:

The Devil, You Know wrote:
he was following the rules of engagement. He shot him when he became a direct threat

Never disagreed with that, I said he was not a direct threat to the shooter, showing your claims on the rules is opinion based. The SAS was right to shoot to kill and in fact saved up to 20 lives doing so

Hence the problem is some blood sucking lawyers making false claims

For example

https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2017/jan/30/lawyer-phil-shiner-ignored-rules-british-soldiers-human-rights-iraq-tribunal

eddie wrote:

The Devil, You Know wrote:a big question should be why is the media trying to gain sympathy for these murderous people.

So they can keep the public angry. They like an angry public.
Or
So they can keep the public distracted. They like a distracted public.

The Devil, You Know wrote:

Thor wrote:

Never disagreed with that, I said he was not a direct threat to the shooter, showing your claims on the rules is opinion based. The SAS was right to shoot to kill and in fact saved up to 20 lives doing so

Hence the problem is some blood sucking lawyers making false claims

For example

https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2017/jan/30/lawyer-phil-shiner-ignored-rules-british-soldiers-human-rights-iraq-tribunal

you dont have to be a direct threat to be shot by a soldier, you have to be a direct threat to any soldiers or civilians, that applies to all soldiers. thats why they cannot shoot the enemy until they open fire or are about to open fire. Waiting those few seconds can be the difference between you or your mates living or dying.