Islamic State kills Another US hostage

[JoeMercer'sWay]

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.

I never said that though. So, yes, you are full of shit, whereas you've changed your tune, previously you said they can stay there or they can come back and go to prison and you now say they can come back if there's no proof they've done anything.

you stated that you have a different opinion to me when I said that people who have been associated with atrocities against civilians should face the consequences of their actions. So you are, and I think it's fair to interpret that in this way, suggesting that they should be allowed back regardless of what they've done, and not face punishment.

Thus, if you accept the above, you are doing the same thing that you accuse me of (factually incorrectly as I clarified my stance in my 2nd post and have been consistent with it) just from the opposite point of view, making assumptions about who these people are and making a judgment on what should happen to them.

I haven't changed my tune, just expanded and clarified it, as it was clear my original post wasn't clear enough, i have been consistent throughout otherwise. I have referred to the civilian aspect ever since my clarification, and to RFK, I did state "actively" in a previous post regarding the civilian aspect, which at least to me means direct association and involvement.

 

[Skashion]

I think you will have a hard time proving these guys were "good terrorists" rather than "bad terrorists". I'd like to know how you know what the fuck they've been up to!

You'll have a hard time proving they're terrorists at all. I'd like to know how you know what the fuck they've been up to!

came to fight the regime and instead we are involved in gang warfare.

By their own admission.

Terrorists means terrorising civilians, it doesn't mean fighting other rebel groups, who are also militants.

 

[Skashion]

you stated that you have a different opinion to me when I said that people who have been associated with atrocities against civilians should face the consequences of their actions.

That is not what you said. You said they had committed atrocities, despite you having no evidence. As far as I'm concerned you advocating for convictions simply for being there and being part of a group - although you don't know who they were fighting for. You also said you worried about about them recruiting others. I disagree with that also. If they're disillusioned, they'll probably be the best spokespeople to stop potential Jihadists.

 

[Rocket-footed kolarov]

you stated that you have a different opinion to me when I said that people who have been associated with atrocities against civilians should face the consequences of their actions.

That is not what you said. You said they had committed atrocities, despite you having no evidence. As far as I'm concerned you advocating for convictions simply for being there and being part of a group - although you don't know who they were fighting for. You also said you worried about about them recruiting others. I disagree with that also. If they're disillusioned, they'll probably be the best spokespeople to stop potential Jihadists.

A case in point

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Maajid_Nawaz#Disenchantment_and_leaving_Hizb_ut-Tahrir

Former member of Islamist revolutionary group Hizb ut-Tahrir, now a Liberal Democrat candidate for Hampstead and Kilburn.

 

[Rocket-footed kolarov]

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.

I never said that though. So, yes, you are full of shit, whereas you've changed your tune, previously you said they can stay there or they can come back and go to prison and you now say they can come back if there's no proof they've done anything.

you stated that you have a different opinion to me when I said that people who have been associated with atrocities against civilians should face the consequences of their actions. So you are, and I think it's fair to interpret that in this way, suggesting that they should be allowed back regardless of what they've done, and not face punishment.

Thus, if you accept the above, you are doing the same thing that you accuse me of (factually incorrectly as I clarified my stance in my 2nd post and have been consistent with it) just from the opposite point of view, making assumptions about who these people are and making a judgment on what should happen to them.

I haven't changed my tune, just expanded and clarified it, as it was clear my original post wasn't clear enough, i have been consistent throughout otherwise. I have referred to the civilian aspect ever since my clarification, and to RFK, I did state "actively" in a previous post regarding the civilian aspect, which at least to me means direct association and involvement.

So not necessarily present on the scene then thank you for clarifying that, well "sort of" anyway.

 

[Blue Hefner]

Nobody who has gone abroad fighting, no matter what cause, should be allowed to swan back into the country just because they don't fancy it anymore

I think anyone, who has been fighting abroad with a terrorist group should be presumed guilty. They would need to provide very good information that could lead to the capture of the ring-leader, give a detailed account of what and where they have been up to and give details over websites and people who are recruiting and funding in this country.

If that information is verified, if the aurthorities are happy(as they can be) they haven't committed any crimes, only then would I let them out and that would be on an indefinate ag/license.

If they aren't happy with that, they can stay over there or go to jail(solitary) for the rest of their lives

 

[lazerblue]

You'll have a hard time proving they're terrorists at all. I'd like to know how you know what the fuck they've been up to!

came to fight the regime and instead we are involved in gang warfare.

By their own admission.

Terrorists means terrorising civilians, it doesn't mean fighting other rebel groups, who are also militants.

The civilians must be havin a fuckin whale of a time then

 

[shadygiz]

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.

This last paragraph is interesting, do you mean crimes committed whilst they were present on the scene as part of a group, or crimes committed on the other side of the conflict region which they had minimum information about such events passed to them? They may even have joined up with one of the more moderate groups and become disillusioned with the conflict when the more extreme groups like ISIS came to the fore.

Should the entire US Army have been held account for the My Lai massacre?

It's mainly a UK only law and goes back some 250-300 years. However, its only been enforced in courts more recently and was re-introduced to combat the amount of kids/gangs on the streets

 

[JoeMercer'sWay]

you stated that you have a different opinion to me when I said that people who have been associated with atrocities against civilians should face the consequences of their actions.

That is not what you said. You said they had committed atrocities, despite you having no evidence. As far as I'm concerned you advocating for convictions simply for being there and being part of a group - although you don't know who they were fighting for. You also said you worried about about them recruiting others. I disagree with that also. If they're disillusioned, they'll probably be the best spokespeople to stop potential Jihadists.

No I didn't, part 1 of post 1 was personal opinion of people giving up on a cause because the situation has become not what they expected/more difficult. Part 2 of post 1 was a comment that the situation regarding the rebels is far more complex than just the likes of IS and that there were sectors before this situation that were committing civilian atrocities. In post 2 I expanded and clarified on what I meant, specifically expressing the civilian aspect as I had (wrongly) failed to distinguish between the two different groups in post 1, and having re-read previous posts, had realised that I had overlooked differentiating between the two like others had.

I have since continued consistently with my POV, to which you stated you had a different opinion to my view in post 2, which specifically expressed the civilian point, and I have also clarified, completely against your point, about direct involvement and association, whilst you also have been judgmental about what they may or may not have been involved in. I also believe that limited case studies over recruitment are exactly that, limited, and that it is reasonable in my view for the government to be cautious and proactive against the potential threat of each individual returning.

Some may be disillusioned and want to end it, some might just want out because they don't have the bottle, have been involved in civilian atrocities and want to recruit others to do their dirty work for them. Both options are open to any individual returning without first establishing the facts of what they were involved in.

 

[JoeMercer'sWay]

I never said that though. So, yes, you are full of shit, whereas you've changed your tune, previously you said they can stay there or they can come back and go to prison and you now say they can come back if there's no proof they've done anything.

you stated that you have a different opinion to me when I said that people who have been associated with atrocities against civilians should face the consequences of their actions. So you are, and I think it's fair to interpret that in this way, suggesting that they should be allowed back regardless of what they've done, and not face punishment.

Thus, if you accept the above, you are doing the same thing that you accuse me of (factually incorrectly as I clarified my stance in my 2nd post and have been consistent with it) just from the opposite point of view, making assumptions about who these people are and making a judgment on what should happen to them.

I haven't changed my tune, just expanded and clarified it, as it was clear my original post wasn't clear enough, i have been consistent throughout otherwise. I have referred to the civilian aspect ever since my clarification, and to RFK, I did state "actively" in a previous post regarding the civilian aspect, which at least to me means direct association and involvement.

So not necessarily present on the scene then thank you for clarifying that, well "sort of" anyway.

"direct association and involvement", but if you and Skash want to continue telling me what I've said, rather than respond to what I've actually said, then suit yourselves, I won't be engaging further.