don't let them back in the country!!!

by Guest Tue May 12, 2015 10:37 pm

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-3078579/Three-British-teenage-Jihadi-brides-married-militants-Iraq-run-Isis-escaping.html

they made their bed let them lie on it.

by Ben Reilly Tue May 12, 2015 10:55 pm

heavenlyfatheragain wrote:http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-3078579/Three-British-teenage-Jihadi-brides-married-militants-Iraq-run-Isis-escaping.html

they made their bed let them lie on it.

They're 16 -- that's a pretty cold thing to say about kids.

by Guest Tue May 12, 2015 11:06 pm

Ben_Reilly wrote:
heavenlyfatheragain wrote:http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-3078579/Three-British-teenage-Jihadi-brides-married-militants-Iraq-run-Isis-escaping.html

they made their bed let them lie on it.

They're 16 -- that's a pretty cold thing to say about kids.

they chose to leave they even sneaked away, they knew exactly what they were doing.

by Ben Reilly Tue May 12, 2015 11:06 pm

heavenlyfatheragain wrote:
Ben_Reilly wrote:
heavenlyfatheragain wrote:http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-3078579/Three-British-teenage-Jihadi-brides-married-militants-Iraq-run-Isis-escaping.html

they made their bed let them lie on it.

They're 16 -- that's a pretty cold thing to say about kids.
they chose to leave they even sneaked away, they knew exactly what they were doing.

You didn't make any bad choices at 16? They've obviously realized they made a huge mistake.

by Guest Tue May 12, 2015 11:08 pm

Ben_Reilly wrote:
heavenlyfatheragain wrote:
they chose to leave they even sneaked away, they knew exactly what they were doing.

You didn't make any bad choices at 16? They've obviously realized they made a huge mistake.

no of course not... for all we know they have been radicalised and are coming back on a mission to either harm others or encourage others to leave..

by Guest Tue May 12, 2015 11:11 pm

Ben_Reilly wrote:
heavenlyfatheragain wrote:http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-3078579/Three-British-teenage-Jihadi-brides-married-militants-Iraq-run-Isis-escaping.html

they made their bed let them lie on it.

They're 16 -- that's a pretty cold thing to say about kids.

Funny how the left are so uhmm...flexible again

I mean theres Ben saying oh they are only kids presumably he recons they should just be sent to the naughty step

the hilarious thing though is that the lefties want to give the vote to 16 YO's

talk about divergent interests

in this case on the one hand, they are too "young " (read stupid) to deserve to reap the rewards of their perfidity
on the other hand we will allow them to vote...

god alone knows what waffle will arise in ~~justifying~~ reconciling these two incompatible versions of the lefty truth???????

by Ben Reilly Tue May 12, 2015 11:13 pm

I can't believe you guys are so terrified of teenage girls. That's pathetic.

by Guest Tue May 12, 2015 11:14 pm

that doesnt answer my point....

by Guest Tue May 12, 2015 11:16 pm

or could the REAL answer be that they are from that certain religion the left worship and protect no matter what???

by Guest Tue May 12, 2015 11:20 pm

darknessss wrote:or could the REAL answer be that they are from that certain religion the left worship and protect no matter what???

i'm going with this answer.... Smile

by Guest Tue May 12, 2015 11:22 pm

Be careful of agreeing with me HF...

I'm a raving racist dontcha know....

and you being a man of colour.....It just wouldnt be right Laughing

by Ben Reilly Tue May 12, 2015 11:23 pm

darknessss wrote:that doesnt answer my point....

Sorry, I wasn't aware you had a point. I just learned from your post that the left in the UK want to lower the voting age, and that you think I would be too lenient on these girls who screwed up and are now on the run from ISIS. I assume this is because you don't even see how your own blinders work, due to being so deeply committed to your prejudice.

by Guest Tue May 12, 2015 11:24 pm

darknessss wrote:Be careful of agreeing with me HF...

I'm a raving racist dontcha know....

and you being a man of colour.....It just wouldnt be right

I'll take my chances, I prefer an honest racist to a dishonest science lover... Smile

should you even be talking to me... lol!

by Ben Reilly Tue May 12, 2015 11:26 pm

darknessss wrote:or could the REAL answer be that they are from that certain religion the left worship and protect no matter what???

The real reason for me is that I see a trio of terrified children who messed up, where you see three subhuman members of your imaginary bloodthirsty Muslim horde out to kill you and let the squirrels proliferate ...

by Ben Reilly Tue May 12, 2015 11:26 pm

heavenlyfatheragain wrote:
darknessss wrote:Be careful of agreeing with me HF...

I'm a raving racist dontcha know....

and you being a man of colour.....It just wouldnt be right
I'll take my chances, I prefer an honest racist to a dishonest science lover...

should you even be talking to me...

What the hell is a "dishonest science lover"?

by Guest Tue May 12, 2015 11:27 pm

so which is it

either they are old enough to vote (and hence sufficiently "adult" to suffer any negative consequences of their actions)

OR

they are so young and stupid they should just get their wrists slapped(becasue thats all thats going to happen due to leftys) (and thus NOT sufficiently "mature enough" to sensibly vote)

there is no other path....

by Ben Reilly Tue May 12, 2015 11:30 pm

darknessss wrote:so which is it

either they are old enough to vote (and hence sufficiently "adult" to suffer any negative consequences of their actions)

OR

they are so young and stupid they should just get their wrists slapped(becasue thats all thats going to happen due to leftys) (and thus NOT sufficiently "mature enough" to sensibly vote)

there is no other path....

Where did I ever claim they were old enough to vote, Dark? I'm not in the UK, you know! For god's sake, am I now required to agree with everything the UK left says?

by Guest Tue May 12, 2015 11:33 pm

Ben_Reilly wrote:
darknessss wrote:or could the REAL answer be that they are from that certain religion the left worship and protect no matter what???

The real reason for me is that I see a trio of terrified children who messed up, where you see three subhuman members of your imaginary bloodthirsty Muslim horde out to kill you and let the squirrels proliferate ...

ah now you see thats where your lefty mind (inadequate as it is) cannot graps the simple fact that I disagree with you.

you see 3 terrified children who "messed up"

I see 3 people whom the left consider to be responsible adults of voting age who commited an act of treason....

see my problem ISNT what or who they are
My argument is )once again) with the happy duality of values that the left seem to be endlessly capable of producing

which is it

kids who messed up (and thus are NOT capable of voting)
OR

responsible adults capable of considered voting (and thus criminals who shoud suffer the results of their actions)

by Guest Tue May 12, 2015 11:33 pm

Ben_Reilly wrote:
darknessss wrote:so which is it

either they are old enough to vote (and hence sufficiently "adult" to suffer any negative consequences of their actions)

OR

they are so young and stupid they should just get their wrists slapped(becasue thats all thats going to happen due to leftys) (and thus NOT sufficiently "mature enough" to sensibly vote)

there is no other path....

Where did I ever claim they were old enough to vote, Dark? I'm not in the UK, you know! For god's sake, am I now required to agree with everything the UK left says?

I thought the left were a homogenous bunch

kinda like "grey goo"

by Ben Reilly Tue May 12, 2015 11:34 pm

darknessss wrote:
Ben_Reilly wrote:
darknessss wrote:so which is it

either they are old enough to vote (and hence sufficiently "adult" to suffer any negative consequences of their actions)

OR

they are so young and stupid they should just get their wrists slapped(becasue thats all thats going to happen due to leftys) (and thus NOT sufficiently "mature enough" to sensibly vote)

there is no other path....

Where did I ever claim they were old enough to vote, Dark? I'm not in the UK, you know! For god's sake, am I now required to agree with everything the UK left says?

I thought the left were a homogenous bunch

kinda like "grey goo"

Well see, that's where you took a wrong turn -- you "thought."

by Ben Reilly Tue May 12, 2015 11:37 pm

darknessss wrote:
Ben_Reilly wrote:
darknessss wrote:or could the REAL answer be that they are from that certain religion the left worship and protect no matter what???

The real reason for me is that I see a trio of terrified children who messed up, where you see three subhuman members of your imaginary bloodthirsty Muslim horde out to kill you and let the squirrels proliferate ...

ah now you see thats where your lefty mind (inadequate as it is) cannot graps the simple fact that I disagree with you.

you see 3 terrified children who "messed up"

I see 3 people whom the left consider to be responsible adults of voting age who commited an act of treason....

see my problem ISNT what or who they are
My argument is )once again) with the happy duality of values that the left seem to be endlessly capable of producing

which is it

kids who messed up (and thus are NOT capable of voting)
OR

responsible adults capable of considered voting (and thus criminals who shoud suffer the results of their actions)

I don't know which it is, Dark, that's for your country to figure out, right?

I wouldn't give these three the vote. Does that mean all UK 16-year-olds can't be trusted? I don't know, this is the first I've thought about it, since I just heard about the idea 10 minutes ago ... I bet some can be trusted and some can't, what do you think? Maybe the question is whether enough of them can be trusted?

Again, not my question to answer. Your country, your choice.

by Guest Tue May 12, 2015 11:41 pm

yeah but the evidence I have indicates so...i mean you agree with just about everything the "brit left" squalk about on here...

moreover since this is an issue that affects brit interests the voting plan is brit (as you point out) then I have to challenge it from a brit POV

more to the point since it is a brit issue I can rightly challenge an "outsider" who chucks in his/her opinion, on the basis of the situation here...

your statement against these "kids" getting their dues has to be taken in the light of the fact you are cognizant of the 16yo vote and presumably you're agreement with it..

otherwise you are just whistling in the wind

by Guest Tue May 12, 2015 11:43 pm

Ahhh...so you didnt know...ok fair enough...so now you do....

by Guest Tue May 12, 2015 11:45 pm

but I bet you are still of the same mind

see there are a lot of 18 and over who are probably not fit to be allowed near a ballot box

the difference is that they are held to "adult standards" in their everyday actions

see the difference?

If you vote you are claiming the rights of an "adult in your community"
If you are doing that you get lumped with the "responsibilities" of "an adult in your community"

by Ben Reilly Tue May 12, 2015 11:48 pm

darknessss wrote:yeah but the evidence I have indicates so...i mean you agree with just about everything the "brit left" squalk about on here...

moreover since this is an issue that affects brit interests the voting plan is brit (as you point out) then I have to challenge it from a brit POV

more to the point since it is a brit issue I can rightly challenge an "outsider" who chucks in his/her opinion, on the basis of the situation here...

your statement against these "kids" getting their dues has to be taken in the light of the fact you are cognizant of the 16yo vote and presumably you're agreement with it..

otherwise you are just whistling in the wind

Your sample size here is three people, Dark. If I were to judge the English on the basis of three members here ... you see where I'm going with that.

Now I don't know if 16-year-olds in general are mature enough to vote -- I've also met 16-year-olds who really had their acts together -- but again, it's not on my mind because it's a question being considered by your country, not mine.

I just jumped into this because they're very young and they haven't actually hurt anybody, so I don't think they need any more bad things to happen to them for a while, based on what I can tell. scratch

by Guest Tue May 12, 2015 11:50 pm

Oh I dunno

"if you cant be a good example
you will have to be a terrible warning"

or some such

by Guest Tue May 12, 2015 11:53 pm

of course, considering the foul nature of what they have done and its absolute indication of lack of mental faculty
Perhaps the best is that on return they should be incarcerated in some secure institution for the mentally incapable????

by Guest Wed May 13, 2015 12:12 am

Ben_Reilly wrote:
heavenlyfatheragain wrote:
they chose to leave they even sneaked away, they knew exactly what they were doing.

You didn't make any bad choices at 16? They've obviously realized they made a huge mistake.

Going to live with & supporting ISIS whilst knowing what that organization is doing is more than a huge mistake.In fact,it wasn't a mistake at all & was a planned,deliberate decision made by people who had access to all they needed to know about a murderous group.

It's not as if they were 4 year olds.

They knew what they were doing was wrong but they still went ahead and they knew they were running away to join ISIS...... Not the circus.

by Ben Reilly Wed May 13, 2015 2:23 am

Shady wrote:
Ben_Reilly wrote:
heavenlyfatheragain wrote:
they chose to leave they even sneaked away, they knew exactly what they were doing.

You didn't make any bad choices at 16? They've obviously realized they made a huge mistake.

Going to live with & supporting ISIS whilst knowing what that organization is doing is more than a huge mistake.In fact,it wasn't a mistake at all & was a planned,deliberate decision made by people who had access to all they needed to know about a murderous group.

It's not as if they were 4 year olds.

They knew what they were doing was wrong but they still went ahead and they knew they were running away to join ISIS...... Not the circus.

And now ... ?

by Tommy Monk Wed May 13, 2015 2:33 am

darknessss wrote:
Ben_Reilly wrote:

They're 16 -- that's a pretty cold thing to say about kids.

Funny how the left are so uhmm...flexible again

I mean theres Ben saying oh they are only kids presumably he recons they should just be sent to the naughty step

the hilarious thing though is that the lefties want to give the vote to 16 YO's

talk about divergent interests

in this case on the one hand, they are too "young " (read stupid) to deserve to reap the rewards of their perfidity
on the other hand we will allow them to vote...

god alone knows what waffle will arise in ~~justifying~~ reconciling these two incompatible versions of the lefty truth???????

Excellent point darkness!

They knew exactly what ISIS was all about and willingly made their own informed conscious decision to go out there and join the terrorists... following their own carefully planned route to do so...

They are now terrorists, exactly the same terrorists as those they went to join.

In fact they are potentially more dangerous as they are seeking to enter the UK and in all likelyhood have been trained And instructed to carry out terrorist attacks here.

Or do some here really think that after all this time imbedded with their strictly Islamic ISIS husbands as chattels, that they all suddenly woke up one day and decided that it wasn't for them, they didn't believe the version of Islam that the rest of ISIS believe, then after telling their ISIS husbands this apostasy, and announcing their intentions to leave, that they were firstly not themselves killed, secondly this was actually accepted in a reasonable way, and thirdly they were not only free to leave but actually helped to freedom, ie their choice to leave the land of perfect Islam to instead live among the infidels in UK was just happily accepted and permitted...!!!???

If You seriously think they just chose to leave and this was ok and they don't have some ulterior motive then you are mental!!!!

by Guest Wed May 13, 2015 5:22 am

So let me get this straight.
The whole concept of the argument here is down to responsibility is it not?
So if a woman makes a mistake they are thus responsible for this mistake?
So every poster here who believes they are responsible for this mistake, thinks any female that marries a wife beater is their own mistake and that it is tough shit they married the wrong person?

That is the bases of the argument here on responsibility is it not?

So if a female marries a wife beater and is then murdered by this person, it was their own mistake for wrongly thinking it was the right decision?

How many females have wrongly known a person was bad news and still because of love still ended up marrying such people because they are blinded by love?

by Guest Wed May 13, 2015 5:28 am

To place my last point into context:

The flight to Syria of three London teenagers in a bid to become ‘jihadi brides’ has prompted a storm of media coverage in Britain. The reasons for their choice are complex and may never be properly understood but the lure of a bad boy with a gun (and a religiously sanctioned bad boy at that) to girls from devout families should not be underestimated. They are said to now be living in ISIS-held Syria, which has, to put it mildly, very different attitudes to teenage girls than those evident in Britain, attitudes that have been characterised in the popular press as ‘medieval’ in a pejorative sense. With regard to the view of ISIS concerning girls and young women, however, the comparison is not entirely redundant, when one considers certain aspects of women’s lives in medieval Europe. The modern concept of a teenager as we understand it in the West holds little or no sway over there.
The term ‘teenager’ itself is a post-industrial construct that emerged in the last century in western nations, most notably in the US. This idea that childhood stretches into post-puberty, when one ‘becomes’ a teenager, is one that would not only be alien to the jihadists of Syria but, until fairly recently, would have been unknown in Europe itself.
Although debate still rages over the meaning and understanding of medieval concepts of childhood and adolescence, there certainly was not the same understanding and empathetic attitude towards adolescents and teenagers as exists today. To a large extent, children were seen as ‘proto adults’ and the rush was on to join the adult world. This rush was facilitated and encouraged by the age at which marriage was deemed appropriate by the Catholic Church in the medieval West: 12 for girls, 14 for boys. Well-known examples of young brides include Margaret Beaufort, who was married at 12 and became a mother at 13, and Eleanor of Aquitaine, who was married at 15 to Louis VI of France.

http://www.historytoday.com/gillian-kenny/world-without-teenagers-jihadi-brides-syria

by Raggamuffin Wed May 13, 2015 8:33 am

Ben_Reilly wrote:
darknessss wrote:or could the REAL answer be that they are from that certain religion the left worship and protect no matter what???

The real reason for me is that I see a trio of terrified children who messed up, where you see three subhuman members of your imaginary bloodthirsty Muslim horde out to kill you and let the squirrels proliferate ...

Terrified children? They went out there to marry terrorists and murderers.

by Raggamuffin Wed May 13, 2015 8:41 am

Ben_Reilly wrote:
heavenlyfatheragain wrote:
they chose to leave they even sneaked away, they knew exactly what they were doing.

You didn't make any bad choices at 16? They've obviously realized they made a huge mistake.

Nevertheless, they committed a criminal act, and should be subject to the law if they return to the UK.

by Raggamuffin Wed May 13, 2015 9:02 am

Ben_Reilly wrote:I can't believe you guys are so terrified of teenage girls. That's pathetic.

Well we have to be careful about anyone claiming they made a mistake when they went off to join ISIS. They might be coming back here to recruit others, or to plan terrorist attacks. What better cover than to be a 16-year old girl? You certainly seem to assume that they must be harmless.

by Raggamuffin Wed May 13, 2015 9:29 am

Tommy Monk wrote:
darknessss wrote:

Funny how the left are so uhmm...flexible again

I mean theres Ben saying oh they are only kids presumably he recons they should just be sent to the naughty step

the hilarious thing though is that the lefties want to give the vote to 16 YO's

talk about divergent interests

in this case on the one hand, they are too "young " (read stupid) to deserve to reap the rewards of their perfidity
on the other hand we will allow them to vote...

god alone knows what waffle will arise in ~~justifying~~ reconciling these two incompatible versions of the lefty truth???????

Excellent point darkness!

They knew exactly what ISIS was all about and willingly made their own informed conscious decision to go out there and join the terrorists... following their own carefully planned route to do so...

They are now terrorists, exactly the same terrorists as those they went to join.

In fact they are potentially more dangerous as they are seeking to enter the UK and in all likelyhood have been trained And instructed to carry out terrorist attacks here.

Or do some here really think that after all this time imbedded with their strictly Islamic ISIS husbands as chattels, that they all suddenly woke up one day and decided that it wasn't for them, they didn't believe the version of Islam that the rest of ISIS believe, then after telling their ISIS husbands this apostasy, and announcing their intentions to leave, that they were firstly not themselves killed, secondly this was actually accepted in a reasonable way, and thirdly they were not only free to leave but actually helped to freedom, ie their choice to leave the land of perfect Islam to instead live among the infidels in UK was just happily accepted and permitted...!!!???

If You seriously think they just chose to leave and this was ok and they don't have some ulterior motive then you are mental!!!!

It's not known if the three girls involved are the same ones who were in the news not long back, or even if the story is actually true. However, there have been many cases of people going off to join ISIS and then coming back here with their tails between their legs, so it's possible.

Anyone who joins ISIS and then returns must not be treated as victims, they must be treated as suspects. I don't know if anyone has gone to prison for joining ISIS and then returning here - I don't think they have. However, they must absolutely be watched for years and years because they might not be genuinely sorry they went, they might be coming back here to recruit others or to plan some kind of terrorist attack.

I don't want to wake up one morning to the news that there's been a terrorist attack here carried out by people who went out there and then returned, having claimed to be disillusioned. The people who blew up the underground were not considered to be dangerous beforehand either.

by Guest Wed May 13, 2015 11:02 am

Amazing. These girls were under sixteen and they were groomed on line. Now, if a paedophile had groomed them, everyone would have recognised them as being children and victims and all that that implies. But through the words 'Muslim' and 'terrorists' into the mix and the blinds come down. Only a fool would say they should not be kept under surveillance, but these were children, no matter what they did and no matter how grown up they looked.

Sometimes, the depths of people's hatred shocks me.

by Raggamuffin Wed May 13, 2015 11:21 am

risingsun wrote:Amazing. These girls were under sixteen and they were groomed on line. Now, if a paedophile had groomed them, everyone would have recognised them as being children and victims and all that that implies. But through the words 'Muslim' and 'terrorists' into the mix and the blinds come down. Only a fool would say they should not be kept under surveillance, but these were children, no matter what they did and no matter how grown up they looked.

Sometimes, the depths of people's hatred shocks me.

It's not the same thing Sassy.

Just as an aside, a paedophile is attracted to prepubescent children, not merely girls under the age of 16.

Anyway, they have broken the law themselves, whereas being groomed by a paedophile is not against the law. They made a choice to go to Syria, and we don't know that they were "groomed" at all. In any case, being "groomed" is not an excuse to break the law and hook up with murderers and terrorists. They're not babies, they are capable of making their own minds up.

There is a lot at stake here - the safety of citizens of the UK, and that comes before any daft posturing about these girls being "children".

by Guest Wed May 13, 2015 11:27 am

Raggamuffin wrote:
risingsun wrote:Amazing. These girls were under sixteen and they were groomed on line. Now, if a paedophile had groomed them, everyone would have recognised them as being children and victims and all that that implies. But through the words 'Muslim' and 'terrorists' into the mix and the blinds come down. Only a fool would say they should not be kept under surveillance, but these were children, no matter what they did and no matter how grown up they looked.

Sometimes, the depths of people's hatred shocks me.

It's not the same thing Sassy.

Just as an aside, a paedophile is attracted to prepubescent children, not merely girls under the age of 16.

Anyway, they have broken the law themselves, whereas being groomed by a paedophile is not against the law. They made a choice to go to Syria, and we don't know that they were "groomed" at all. In any case, being "groomed" is not an excuse to break the law and hook up with murderers and terrorists. They're not babies, they are capable of making their own minds up.

There is a lot at stake here - the safety of citizens of the UK, and that comes before any daft posturing about these girls being "children".

They are minors and yes it is the same as being groomed.
If they have been brought up in a conservative view point within their religion, of which ISIS certainly provides a view to marry younger, this is being used to entice young girls to join. It is the lure of being treated as older, which many younger girls want to be seen as, of which you fail to understand. Its the bad boy attitude that younger girls have been in many cases attracted to. What you are saying is that no girl is not naive, when the simple case is sadly some very much are. It is also where they may not fit in well within a society, of which ISIS plays very much onto.
Sassy makes a very good point on this, where this is how in fact ISIS does in fact groom younger giorls with the view they are being enticed to come into a world of acceptance. You need to factor in the religious aspect and how through isolotaion young girls can easily be enticed. The same thing happens with grooming itself,m where drugs are used, where again it is of being accepted, where the scum child offenders play on.

by Guest Wed May 13, 2015 11:36 am

Raggamuffin wrote:
risingsun wrote:Amazing. These girls were under sixteen and they were groomed on line. Now, if a paedophile had groomed them, everyone would have recognised them as being children and victims and all that that implies. But through the words 'Muslim' and 'terrorists' into the mix and the blinds come down. Only a fool would say they should not be kept under surveillance, but these were children, no matter what they did and no matter how grown up they looked.

Sometimes, the depths of people's hatred shocks me.

It's not the same thing Sassy.

Just as an aside, a paedophile is attracted to prepubescent children, not merely girls under the age of 16.

Anyway, they have broken the law themselves, whereas being groomed by a paedophile is not against the law. They made a choice to go to Syria, and we don't know that they were "groomed" at all. In any case, being "groomed" is not an excuse to break the law and hook up with murderers and terrorists. They're not babies, they are capable of making their own minds up.

There is a lot at stake here - the safety of citizens of the UK, and that comes before any daft posturing about these girls being "children".

It's exactly the same thing, doesn't matter what they were groomed for, they were groomed, and in any other situation they would be seen as victims, but mention ISIS and people's judgement goes out the window.

by Raggamuffin Wed May 13, 2015 11:42 am

risingsun wrote:
Raggamuffin wrote:

It's not the same thing Sassy.

Just as an aside, a paedophile is attracted to prepubescent children, not merely girls under the age of 16.

Anyway, they have broken the law themselves, whereas being groomed by a paedophile is not against the law. They made a choice to go to Syria, and we don't know that they were "groomed" at all. In any case, being "groomed" is not an excuse to break the law and hook up with murderers and terrorists. They're not babies, they are capable of making their own minds up.

There is a lot at stake here - the safety of citizens of the UK, and that comes before any daft posturing about these girls being "children".

It's exactly the same thing, doesn't matter what they were groomed for, they were groomed, and in any other situation they would be seen as victims, but mention ISIS and people's judgement goes out the window.

Of course it matters!

People are dying at the hands of ISIS - other Muslims. What do you think these girls were told? They didn't get drunk and go home with some old bloke, they broke the law and went out there to hook up with terrorists. It is against the law to associate with or support ISIS - quite rightly.

They are not victims, they are suspects and lawbreakers. The age of criminal responsibility here is 10. Do you think that anyone under the age of 18 is incapable of committing a crime?

What do you think should happen to them if they return? Do you think they should be patted on the back and left to carry on regardless?

A 14-year old boy was arrested for plotting with terrorists, so why should these girls be treated any differently?

by Guest Wed May 13, 2015 11:45 am

If you note my first post, I said they should be kept under close surveillance, but they were groomed, whether you like it or not, and any other type of grooming would recognise them as children and victims.

by Raggamuffin Wed May 13, 2015 11:51 am

risingsun wrote:If you note my first post, I said they should be kept under close surveillance, but they were groomed, whether you like it or not, and any other type of grooming would recognise them as children and victims.

They should be arrested and questioned very thoroughly. If there is any hint that they have any kind of leaning towards ISIS generally, they should be detained. They should be asked why they came back. If they say it's because they were mistreated personally, they should be told about what ISIS to do other people and asked how they feel about that.

After all that, if they are released, they should be put under surveillance for a very long time in case they turn out to be "sleepers". If you think they can be groomed here, you must also acknowledge that they could have been "groomed" by ISIS and persuaded to come back here with nefarious intentions.

I do not think that "grooming" is ever an excuse to do something rotten or illegal.

by Guest Wed May 13, 2015 11:53 am

Ok, guess you believe that every child groomed on line by paedophiles should be told it's their own fault then and shown what paedophiles have done to others.

by Raggamuffin Wed May 13, 2015 11:58 am

risingsun wrote:Ok, guess you believe that every child groomed on line by paedophiles should be told it's their own fault then and shown what paedophiles have done to others.

There is no comparison whatsoever. You do know that it's against the law to associate with or support ISIS here don't you?

If there is ever a terrorist attack here which is associated with ISIS, I hope you won't be so hypocritical as to sympathise with the victims.

by Guest Wed May 13, 2015 12:07 pm

Sexual grooming of children over the internet is most prevalent (99% of cases) amongst the 13–17 age group, particularly the 13–14 years old children (48%). The majority of them are girls. The majority of the victimization occurs over the mobile phone support. Children and teenagers with behavioral issues such as higher attention seekers have a much higher risk than others

Now lets see how ISIS does the same.
Sassy or Korben, you can use this if need be as she has me on ignore:

Three vulnerable and highly impressionable teenage girls, groomed online by ISIS predators, were allowed to leave the UK, fly to Istanbul and be monitored on CCTV in Turkey for a further 36 hours before crossing the border into Syria – again unchallenged – to meet up with, effectively, their captors. The combined UK and Turkish authorities – police, counter-terrorism units, an array of intelligence agencies, etc – demonstrated catastrophic incompetence in their failure to intervene and help these girls. Much of the blame for this failure must be laid at the door of the British Government, which, over many months, practised a confused and confusing policy in regard to young Britons who were victims of ISIS propaganda.

Young, impressionable Muslim teenagers are no different from young, impressionable non-Muslim teenagers: they are at an age when they question authority, their parents, the prevailing norms of society. This is normal – even desirable. They feel disengaged from society, alienated and trapped. They may also be seeking adventure, or are angry at the interventions of the US and UK in Muslim countries. Add into that mix the temptations offered online and the cultural challenges that many Muslims face in Britain and it is not surprising that some Muslim teenagers will end up falling victim to the enticements of ISIS.

The threat of gaol, as tweeted as a warning to the three girls by the rights group Cage, did not help the plight of the three girls. Instead, what was needed was the intervention of a neutral authority to provide sanctuary.

Now, too late, the UK Government is beginning to realise that it has to adopt a very different strategy when dealing with young Britons heading for Syria. This strategy should be no different to that used to help vulnerable teenagers who are being groomed in Britain so that they will be sexually abused. The problem here, of course, is that for decades the authorities across the country – in Rotherham, Derby and Rochdale – and now in Oxford – have not only failed vulnerable teenagers, but have turned a blind eye to what was happening or even colluded in the crimes. If UK authorities continue to similarly fail to protect impressionable teenagers from joining ISIS, then those authorities will also be guilty of collusion in their crimes.

https://undercoverinfo.wordpress.com/2015/03/02/sexual-grooming-of-teenagers-isis-grooming-of-teenagers-spot-the-difference/

by Guest Wed May 13, 2015 12:43 pm

Raggamuffin wrote:
risingsun wrote:Ok, guess you believe that every child groomed on line by paedophiles should be told it's their own fault then and shown what paedophiles have done to others.

There is no comparison whatsoever. You do know that it's against the law to associate with or support ISIS here don't you?

If there is ever a terrorist attack here which is associated with ISIS, I hope you won't be so hypocritical as to sympathise with the victims.

Now you are just being silly, really. It's against the law to be a paedophile as well. And we recognise children can be groomed and that they are vunerable to it. Once again, nobody has suggested they shouldn't be under surveillance.

by Raggamuffin Wed May 13, 2015 12:50 pm

risingsun wrote:
Raggamuffin wrote:

There is no comparison whatsoever. You do know that it's against the law to associate with or support ISIS here don't you?

If there is ever a terrorist attack here which is associated with ISIS, I hope you won't be so hypocritical as to sympathise with the victims.

Now you are just being silly, really. It's against the law to be a paedophile as well. And we recognise children can be groomed and that they are vunerable to it. Once again, nobody has suggested they shouldn't be under surveillance.

This is nothing to do with paedophiles whatsoever. Why are you introducing this red herring?

Do you think that these girls should have the internet taken away from them, or have their online activities monitored in case they get "groomed" again? Do you also think they could have been "groomed" by ISIS to come back here and pretend to be disillusioned?

This is about national security and the safety of our citizens. We can't afford to get all sentimental over a few girls who are actually old enough to commit a crime and who actively went to support murderers and extremists. If they're capable of going all that way to marry some disgusting terrorist, they should be treated with great suspicion for a very long time, and not treated as victims.

by Guest Wed May 13, 2015 12:51 pm

Nemesis wrote:Sexual grooming of children over the internet is most prevalent (99% of cases) amongst the 13–17 age group, particularly the 13–14 years old children (48%). The majority of them are girls. The majority of the victimization occurs over the mobile phone support. Children and teenagers with behavioral issues such as higher attention seekers have a much higher risk than others

Now lets see how ISIS does the same.
Korben, if you would be so kind to post so Rags can learn please:

Three vulnerable and highly impressionable teenage girls, groomed online by ISIS predators, were allowed to leave the UK, fly to Istanbul and be monitored on CCTV in Turkey for a further 36 hours before crossing the border into Syria – again unchallenged – to meet up with, effectively, their captors. The combined UK and Turkish authorities – police, counter-terrorism units, an array of intelligence agencies, etc – demonstrated catastrophic incompetence in their failure to intervene and help these girls. Much of the blame for this failure must be laid at the door of the British Government, which, over many months, practised a confused and confusing policy in regard to young Britons who were victims of ISIS propaganda.

Young, impressionable Muslim teenagers are no different from young, impressionable non-Muslim teenagers: they are at an age when they question authority, their parents, the prevailing norms of society. This is normal – even desirable. They feel disengaged from society, alienated and trapped. They may also be seeking adventure, or are angry at the interventions of the US and UK in Muslim countries. Add into that mix the temptations offered online and the cultural challenges that many Muslims face in Britain and it is not surprising that some Muslim teenagers will end up falling victim to the enticements of ISIS.

The threat of gaol, as tweeted as a warning to the three girls by the rights group Cage, did not help the plight of the three girls. Instead, what was needed was the intervention of a neutral authority to provide sanctuary.

Now, too late, the UK Government is beginning to realise that it has to adopt a very different strategy when dealing with young Britons heading for Syria. This strategy should be no different to that used to help vulnerable teenagers who are being groomed in Britain so that they will be sexually abused. The problem here, of course, is that for decades the authorities across the country – in Rotherham, Derby and Rochdale – and now in Oxford – have not only failed vulnerable teenagers, but have turned a blind eye to what was happening or even colluded in the crimes. If UK authorities continue to similarly fail to protect impressionable teenagers from joining ISIS, then those authorities will also be guilty of collusion in their crimes.

https://undercoverinfo.wordpress.com/2015/03/02/sexual-grooming-of-teenagers-isis-grooming-of-teenagers-spot-the-difference/

by Raggamuffin Wed May 13, 2015 12:53 pm

Furthermore, would you say the same thing about teenage boys who go out to join ISIS?

by Sponsored content