Islamic State kills Another US hostage

[BlueBearBoots]

If you apply that logic to all people fighting for someone other than the official forces of their nation - including Gurkhas, fair enough.

Doesn't strike me as sensible to exacerbate a conflict by refusing to allow people back who signed up for a different war than they ended up fighting. If people want to abandon Jihad, they should be encouraged, not pushed back into it by lack of options.

No, I'm not going to accept people who have been associated with multiple atrocities against civilians coming home and not facing the consequences of their actions, especially when they'll get back on the street and start trying to recruit youngsters to go and do the dirty work they evidently didn't have the balls to meet their fate over.

Like the army?

how can you ever compare the army, any army with terrorists?

 

[CTID1988]

No, I'm not going to accept people who have been associated with multiple atrocities against civilians coming home and not facing the consequences of their actions, especially when they'll get back on the street and start trying to recruit youngsters to go and do the dirty work they evidently didn't have the balls to meet their fate over.

Like the army?

how can you ever compare the army, any army with terrorists?

When they were fighting Assad they werent terrorists though...now they are against us they are.
To a lot of countrys im pretty sure the british and americans are terrorists

 

[tidyman]

No, I'm not going to accept people who have been associated with multiple atrocities against civilians coming home and not facing the consequences of their actions, especially when they'll get back on the street and start trying to recruit youngsters to go and do the dirty work they evidently didn't have the balls to meet their fate over.

Like the army?

how can you ever compare the army, any army with terrorists?

Give us your definition of a terrorist and your definition of an army.

 

[JoeMercer'sWay]

no, we may have crossed wires, I understand fully that whilst I don't like it (not one for violent measures), there is a understandable reason for an uprising and those who specifically fight against oppressive government forces, and who are not at all associated with the many rebel groups, even pre-this IS situation, who have committed atrocities against civilians, is something rather different. Maybe (though I think I was) I wasn't clear about seperating army from civilians, but I have been "trying" to make that distinction, and have referred to crimes against civilians in several posts.

You're full of shit then, you don't know what crimes these men have committed, if any. Men are held accountable for their own individual crimes, not simply being part of a group that committed crimes. Not that you even know what group they fought with. They might be a moderate FSA grouping for all you know.

then you're equally as full of shit, as you don't know either, yet want to allow them to come back without any recourse. If they want to come back, they can present themselves at the border and be questioned and scrutinised for what exactly they were up to. If they pass clean, they can go, if they don't, then they face the courts. Also, in this country, people are jailed for crimes they were complicit in or associated with, see:

<a class="postlink" href="http://www.liverpoolecho.co.uk/news/liverpool-news/shorty-mchugh-murder-five-liverpool-7359203" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;">http://www.liverpoolecho.co.uk/news/liv ... ol-7359203</a>

So being actively associated with a group whilst they committed crimes against civilians could well be seen as something worth prosecuting. So no, I'm not full of shit, I think I've been perfectly reasonable. If they are simply allowed back through the border any of them (or none of them) could reasonably be assumed to pose a threat to society, so it is not unreasonable that if they want to return, they should go through thorough questioning and protective measures because of the sensitivity of what they've been involved with, and if they've done nothing wrong, and have nothing to hide, they can go home. Now that, despite what you want to protest, is not "full of shit", and neither am I.

 

[lazerblue]

I know, get em all together and have a ticker tape parade down deansgate to Albert square with peters and lee singing welcome home ffs

 

[Gelsons Dad]

And still am. By legitimate international pressure. Not freelance mercenary wannabe terrorists pretending to be fighting for god. And the idea that these scumbags were acting with any legitimacy in Syria is a nonsense.

As I said to JMW earlier, as long as you apply that logic i.e. that no-one should fight for anyone other than the official armed forces of their country, equally, I don't have a problem with that argument per se. I just don't agree with it. The great George Orwell fought against the Communists and fascists in Spain. History shows him to be correct. You and JMW would have imprisoned him.

He fought against the fascists in a Marxist brigade and soon became disillusioned with the realities of communism. History shows he should have listened to the advice of Henry Miller and stayed the fuck out of it. And yes I would have had him face trial.

 

[BlueBearBoots]

Like the army?

how can you ever compare the army, any army with terrorists?

Give us your definition of a terrorist and your definition of an army.

Have been thinking about this since CTID1988 posted and realise my opinion may be naive having looked at the official definition of an "army". But in my mind an army is an organised military outfit that serve their country and are paid by their country (even if we dont agree with their government etc) So when we send our troops into Iran or Iraq or Afghanistan or wherever if we are fighting against the armed forces of the ruling government we are fighting against an army. Any armed force that are funded in other ways and dont serve their country are rebels or terrorists. Does that make sense?

 

[Rocket-footed kolarov]

No, I'm not going to accept people who have been associated with multiple atrocities against civilians coming home and not facing the consequences of their actions, especially when they'll get back on the street and start trying to recruit youngsters to go and do the dirty work they evidently didn't have the balls to meet their fate over.

Like the army?

how can you ever compare the army, any army with terrorists?

The legal definition of terrorism in the UK is the use of violence or threats of violence carried out for political purpose. not including those done and authorised by official state bodies.

However if we are being objective then the last bit is unacceptable.

Hiroshima and Nagasaki was a terrorist atrocity.

Much of the Vietnam and wider conflict in Indochina was also terrorism carried out to counter the misguided political assumption that communist states would set up like a pack of dominoes falling over on each over.

To quote Chomsky "there is no acceptable definition of terrorism....its what they do to us, but not what we do to them"

 

[m7mcfc]

My 4yr old has a muslim friend at school they are like Ronnie and Reggie thick as thieves. I cannot bring myself to tell him that in 10 years aqbal will no longer be his pal as they have gone separate ways. Live and let live. I don't hate anybody me and believe I have enough reason to hate.

 

[Tanzeylee]

Strange that they want to come back now they are getting a spanking, but they was ok staying when they were murdering civilians...