Does Britain have a jihadi problem?

[Thorgal]

*Messed up and deleted quotes edited out*

Quote : "Cameron declared that his nation is facing 'it's greatest and deepest terror threat'. Ironically, the actions of his governement and the US, created that threat under the umbrella of the NATO."

Same same is happening now in Iraq and Syria.

Call me from now on an apologist if you want...

[NeverSure]

The other "internation.law" is just guidelines; not enforceable and routinely ignored by most countries , especially the USA, when it suits them. Used as an excuse other times when wanting to critical of other or don't want to do something themselves.

So really; Cameron should show done back bone and do what needs to be done.

The real reason that the US won't follow international law is because it's always refused to sign onto any of it. It refused to sign any of the Geneva rules and declarations for instance. It would never give up its sovereignty to any group.

On your other point, I have no idea what enforcement would be available against any other nation which signed on but who violated those laws so I suspect you're right - nothing would happen beyond jaw boning and finger wagging.

[Richard W]

A country can remove the citizenship of a naturalized citizen. It (generally) can't remove the citizenship of a native born citizen. The UK has said they will strip citizenship from naturalized citizens even if it leaves them stateless.

Britain can and does remove the citizenship of native born citizens - if in law they have another citizenship. The most striking case is S1 and his sons T1, U1 and V1, who appear to have been keen to fight for Kashmiri independence from India. I don't know the names behind the court imposed aliases.

Parliament only allowed the government to strip citizenship from naturalized citizens leaving them stateless if the secretary of state reasonably believes they may acquire another nationality. Thus a naturalised Jew may be stripped of citizenship for spying for Israel, but probably not for not for bombing for the 'Real IRA'. (Jews do not have a right of return if they are a public danger.)

Stripping them of their citizenship is of little value if you can't deport them to somewhere and it would not be in anyone's interest to deport someone who is a terrorist.

If you can't convict them, HMG disagrees. The government's preferred option is to deprive suspected terrorists of citizenship while they're overseas.

[simple1]

I agree all the social aspects you mention above contribute to alienation that in turn provides a fertile breeding ground for Islamic extremism. The same factors exist in non Muslim UK, but they very rarely engage in organised extreme violence / cruelty against their own society or others. So there must be something stirred into the pot and that, from my POV, is Salafism, or to be more precise with those joining Islamic State, Salafi-Takfiris

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Takfiri

simple1 is pretty much the only Muslim poster that I pay much attention to on here. His posts are thoughtful and add real insights into the mindset of moderate Muslims. The other Muslims and their defenders do everything they can to distract from and minimize the hateful activities of the radicals, while claiming to not support them.

Thanks for the 'thoughtful' comment, but just to clarify I do not follow the Islamic faith. I have never believed in any mono-theological religion, not even during my childhood, thought it was nonsense. For four years I lived amongst a Thai Sunni Muslim community, in East Pattaya, during which I gained some knowledge Islam & how they followed the Islamic faith.

Out of all the philosophies I am most attracted to Vedanta.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vedanta

[simple1]

The other "internation.law" is just guidelines; not enforceable and routinely ignored by most countries , especially the USA, when it suits them. Used as an excuse other times when wanting to critical of other or don't want to do something themselves.

So really; Cameron should show done back bone and do what needs to be done.

The real reason that the US won't follow international law is because it's always refused to sign onto any of it. It refused to sign any of the Geneva rules and declarations for instance. It would never give up its sovereignty to any group.

On your other point, I have no idea what enforcement would be available against any other nation which signed on but who violated those laws so I suspect you're right - nothing would happen beyond jaw boning and finger wagging.

Again you are incorrect regarding the US ratification of the Geneva Convention. True not all protocols have been agreed to, but most have. From the URL below "the Conventions have been ratified by nearly every country in the world—194 states in total—including the United States"

To clearly understand aspects of the protocols that are in contention from a US legal POV...

http://www.cfr.org/international-law/united-states-geneva-conventions/p11485

[hawker9000]

Removing passports from jihadi UK born citizens returning home would breach UK common law and international law.

You can't make a person stateless.

Misinformation and redirection at its best...

Removing passports doesn't make people stateless; it just makes them passportless (i.e., unable to travel internationally). A jihadist returning home from his atrocities overseas is flagged by his own immigration authority, his passport confiscated, and then he's optionally handed over to law enforcement for prosecution for whatever crimes he's committed. Simple, and certainly not a violation of any international law (and I doubt any UK "common law"). A passport is not a "human right".

My only comment about it is that as far as I'm concerned, such a jihadist has been committing acts of war, and by being a member of a jihadist organization is guilty of conspiracy and so equally guilty of committing acts of war. These acts of war also generally involve mass murder and so are crimes against humanity as well. Such persons belong in front of military tribunals empowered to execute summary judgment. I.e., he gets to return home only if his sentence isn't death...

[Credo]

A country can remove the citizenship of a naturalized citizen. It (generally) can't remove the citizenship of a native born citizen. The UK has said they will strip citizenship from naturalized citizens even if it leaves them stateless.

Britain can and does remove the citizenship of native born citizens - if in law they have another citizenship. The most striking case is S1 and his sons T1, U1 and V1, who appear to have been keen to fight for Kashmiri independence from India. I don't know the names behind the court imposed aliases.

Parliament only allowed the government to strip citizenship from naturalized citizens leaving them stateless if the secretary of state reasonably believes they may acquire another nationality. Thus a naturalised Jew may be stripped of citizenship for spying for Israel, but probably not for not for bombing for the 'Real IRA'. (Jews do not have a right of return if they are a public danger.)

Stripping them of their citizenship is of little value if you can't deport them to somewhere and it would not be in anyone's interest to deport someone who is a terrorist.

If you can't convict them, HMG disagrees. The government's preferred option is to deprive suspected terrorists of citizenship while they're overseas.

I don't know exactly how British law works, but I did add 'generally'. There are countries that don't allow dual nationality. There must be a legal process in removing the citizenship and if someone hasn't violated some law, I doubt that the UK goes around revoking citizenship without some legal process.

[NeverSure]

The other "internation.law" is just guidelines; not enforceable and routinely ignored by most countries , especially the USA, when it suits them. Used as an excuse other times when wanting to critical of other or don't want to do something themselves.

So really; Cameron should show done back bone and do what needs to be done.

The real reason that the US won't follow international law is because it's always refused to sign onto any of it. It refused to sign any of the Geneva rules and declarations for instance. It would never give up its sovereignty to any group.

On your other point, I have no idea what enforcement would be available against any other nation which signed on but who violated those laws so I suspect you're right - nothing would happen beyond jaw boning and finger wagging.

Again you are incorrect regarding the US ratification of the Geneva Convention. True not all protocols have been agreed to, but most have. From the URL below "the Conventions have been ratified by nearly every country in the world—194 states in total—including the United States"

To clearly understand aspects of the protocols that are in contention from a US legal POV...

http://www.cfr.org/international-law/united-states-geneva-conventions/p11485

You're right. My bad. I don't recall where I picked up that idea. Thanks for the link.

[mccw]

http://www.businessinsider.com/heres-what-made-4-americans-become-jihadists-2014-9

Can see here how the infection can flare up anywhere

[Thorgal]

A country can remove the citizenship of a naturalized citizen. It (generally) can't remove the citizenship of a native born citizen. The UK has said they will strip citizenship from naturalized citizens even if it leaves them stateless.

Britain can and does remove the citizenship of native born citizens - if in law they have another citizenship. The most striking case is S1 and his sons T1, U1 and V1, who appear to have been keen to fight for Kashmiri independence from India. I don't know the names behind the court imposed aliases.

Parliament only allowed the government to strip citizenship from naturalized citizens leaving them stateless if the secretary of state reasonably believes they may acquire another nationality. Thus a naturalised Jew may be stripped of citizenship for spying for Israel, but probably not for not for bombing for the 'Real IRA'. (Jews do not have a right of return if they are a public danger.)

Stripping them of their citizenship is of little value if you can't deport them to somewhere and it would not be in anyone's interest to deport someone who is a terrorist.

If you can't convict them, HMG disagrees. The government's preferred option is to deprive suspected terrorists of citizenship while they're overseas.

I don't know exactly how British law works, but I did add 'generally'. There are countries that don't allow dual nationality. There must be a legal process in removing the citizenship and if someone hasn't violated some law, I doubt that the UK goes around revoking citizenship without some legal process.

Any legislation that grants the government the ability to strip citizenship from UK native born citizens is a serious matter raising significant constitutional issues.

Indeed like you've pointed correctly they will have to revoke citizenship with some legal process.

There is no UK jurisdiction in Iraq and Syria. Only the Iraqi and Syrian court has legal authority within its legal boundaries.

It will be difficult to provide a fair trial is there's no extradition clause between both countries.

Any arrest in the UK is subjected to prove law violation. Defence has to provide like all general regular law cases proof of law violation.

Starting air strikes on own civilians without arrest or judgement is constitutionaly...illegal.

Defining them by law as terrorist means they need to be judged by law supported by proof or evidence of their acts. Bombing them is criminal. There's no death penalty in the UK.

[mccw]

Thorgal; your post contains large amounts of confusion and imagination.

Fail

F-

[nontabury]

It's not only Britain with this problem. Many posts previously have shown the jihad problem also affects many other developed, civilized countries, including now Germany.

"After supporters of ISIS were found patrolling the streets of West Germany enforcing Sharia Law earlier this month, Germany has made the decision to criminalize all forms of support for the terrorist organization."

http://www.funker530.com/germany-bans-all-isis-support-after-sharia-police-were-found-patrolling-german-streets/

You mention "now germany;" it is even darker then this. Sweden is a foregone conclusion. Sweden does not even have a chance, UK does. Norway, France... it is a sad, tragic list.

This is population jihad, otherwise known in Islamic jurisprudence as "Hijra[h]." This migration jihad is exactly what is taking place so when you have an occasion to wonder why so many pieces of the jihad puzzle keep falling into place, add this to your deliberations and ask yourself "Really? Could this all possibly be coincidence?" If the answer is yes, return to the field and insert head in soil. If the answer is no, educate yourself and educate those around you. What seeks to destroy you is not procrastinating; nor should you.

Indeed many of the foot soldiers of multiculturalism are in effect hastening their own demise by name calling or obstructing those who are warning of its danger. I once read a book called 'Eat the rich' by Gore Vidal, it covered Sweden as an example of good socialism. Since then the once homogeneous nature of Sweden, which allowed its generous welfare state to function has been rapidly collapsing due to a flood of Muslim immigrants. Now they have no go zones, soaring crime, the OECD's highest rape statistics and bankrupt local governments. Yet anyone who complains is called a racist and hung out to dry in a manner some totalitarian Countries would struggle to beat.

It is vital to citizens of the UK to look to other European countries and their incorporation of mulsims into their fabric. This will be a very good indicator of what is in store for UK. Sweden is a prime example, and if may suggest IMO, the last place on earth one would expect this.

Multiculturalism is a political tool to dilute the glue that binds sovereign peoples. Its goal is to make null the glue that prevents subordination of people to regional and global governance (tradition, the land, the ancestors, endemic religion, fraternity); clearly the subject of another topic. However, it is in this vacuum, created by the marginalizing of the host and making relative all ethics and behavior, that islam ascends. Islam is not ascending because it is an agreeable ideology or superior polity. Islam ascends in the west because the west have corrupted their own wretched house and like a parasite it feeds off the host; the main point here is it is not symbiotic- it will destroy the host! Just wake up every day for 2 weeks and read the news for one hour, twice a day. Draw your own conclusions about if UK has a jihad problem.

Swedish Social Democratic political party is a populist far-right wing group with roots in Swedish neo Nazi movements.

This resulted in protest and agression from both groups as soon as their popularity grew. Not the way around like in your youtube video...

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/europe/sweden/11095675/Swedens-Social-Democrats-set-to-reclaim-power-as-far-right-make-historic-gains.html

https://libcom.org/news/rise-swedish-fascism-30052014

There have been several arson attacks on Malmo mosque and resulted in protest and agression.

http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Malmö_Mosque

Cartoonist Lars Vills made the prophet look like a dog and resulted in protest and agression.

http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lars_Vilks_Muhammad_drawings_controversy

Is your footage not pure ultra right political Swedish propaganda and not really a good example to make any projection to the UK jihadi issue in OP ?

As you will know there are many Swedes who prefer to live in Thailand, one of the main reasons being the more likeable weather here. Another reason I have learnt after taking with some of these Swedes, is that they are far from happy with the way Sweden is changing, they complain that they are now treated as 2nd class citizens in their own country, and these are not ultra right people.

[Thorgal]

Thorgal; your post contains large amounts of confusion and imagination.

Fail

F-

Perhaps not :

http://www.jewsnews.co.il/2014/09/20/<deleted>-america-democratic-senator-blocks-bill-that-would-strip-citizenship-of-isis-fighters-returning-to-states/

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/comment/11072731/British-jihadis-Keep-calm-and-carry-on.html

Defence rejected !

[mccw]

Johns than Russell's piece in the telegraph link you provided is a bit soft compared to my view for the way to change. He does a fair job of criticism on the previous blind eyes turned to the rapes in Rotherham and the Birmingham school take overs plot.

But ....

None of the article backs up or excuses your terribly confusion based bit of imagination that I marked at F--

[Thorgal]

I saw on the news the other day that IS were issueing passports for thier own people/ fighters so they can move around thier areas check points wtc. Just coz they no good for inter travel not our problem. UK prerogative is to keep out these horrible excuses for humans; these ethnic cleansers ; they should be kept out and any supporters inside the country found and deported to join their mates. Drop em off at 30,000 feet only joking. Let them walk from turkey across the desert past all the poor Kurdis refugees currently trekking the other way; with no weapons of course, in nothing but hand cuffs and under pants with IS supporters sign hanging round their necks. Fair enough? Considering the genocide and ethnic cleansing they are supporting to carry out; and the innocents prepared to kill anywhere in the world. The supporters are not innocent at all. See if they can make it walking to their dream of Islamic state

Please provide the legal version next time...not confusion or your imagination...

[mccw]

On the First link ; now I see a little where your confusion is coming from.

This thread is about Britians Jihad problem.

But that link is about US "constitutional issue" ; where as UK can not have any such issues because we have no written constitution.

There's more to say but a bit long and boring; I'm sure everybody knows what a load of nonsense your chatting already

[Thorgal]

On the First link ; now I see a little where your confusion is coming from.

This thread is about Britians Jihad problem.

But that link is about US "constitutional issue" ; where as UK can not have any such issues because we have no written constitution.

There's more to say but a bit long and boring; I'm sure everybody knows what a load of nonsense your chatting already

I've provided 2 separate links so that you can clearly see that UK and US have serious gaps in their legal system if they want to strip citizenship.

I had to provide feedback from both countries because -like mentioned by your own post #1165 ??? - UK can (il)legally rely on US laws as they did previously, under allied forces...

None of these countries can endorse legally to kill or bomb their own civilians without arrest or trial...

[Mosha]

Where Canada leads may others follow

http://www.thaivisa.com/forum/topic/762141-canadian-government-invalidating-passports-of-canadians-who-joined-extremist-groups/

[H1w4yR1da]

Where Canada leads may others follow

http://www.thaivisa.com/forum/topic/762141-canadian-government-invalidating-passports-of-canadians-who-joined-extremist-groups/

Hear hear!

[H1w4yR1da]

None of these countries can endorse legally to kill or bomb their own civilians without arrest or trial...

Whatever! When they're on the battlefield, dressed in IS rags, the Apache helicopter's 50 cal. doesn't really give a damn about nationally, does it?

[NeverSure]

On the First link ; now I see a little where your confusion is coming from.

This thread is about Britians Jihad problem.

But that link is about US "constitutional issue" ; where as UK can not have any such issues because we have no written constitution.

There's more to say but a bit long and boring; I'm sure everybody knows what a load of nonsense your chatting already

I've provided 2 separate links so that you can clearly see that UK and US have serious gaps in their legal system if they want to strip citizenship.

I had to provide feedback from both countries because -like mentioned by your own post #1165 ??? - UK can (il)legally rely on US laws as they did previously, under allied forces...

None of these countries can endorse legally to kill or bomb their own civilians without arrest or trial...

I think it's easier than that and the new Canadian announcement above shows the way. They will invalidate passports of anyone who is away from the country participating with the jihadists.

That leaves the jihadists stuck in the country where they are and unable to even travel "home."

Slick move.

[hawker9000]

Any legislation that grants the government the ability to strip citizenship from UK native born citizens is a serious matter raising significant constitutional issues.

Indeed like you've pointed correctly they will have to revoke citizenship with some legal process.

There is no UK jurisdiction in Iraq and Syria. Only the Iraqi and Syrian court has legal authority within its legal boundaries.

It will be difficult to provide a fair trial is there's no extradition clause between both countries.

Any arrest in the UK is subjected to prove law violation. Defence has to provide like all general regular law cases proof of law violation.

Starting air strikes on own civilians without arrest or judgement is constitutionaly...illegal.

Defining them by law as terrorist means they need to be judged by law supported by proof or evidence of their acts. Bombing them is criminal. There's no death penalty in the UK.

Nope. Committing acts of war entitles you to be treated according to the laws of armed conflict, liberalism and multiculturalism and terrorist sympathies notwithstanding. You're just a soldier on the battlefield, and a courtroom trial isn't required to open fire on, and kill, the enemy in war. Airstrikes on enemy targets, including enemy combatants, are well within the "rules". The fact that you happen to have taken up arms against your own country, or allies of your own country, and are now fighting alongside the enemies of your own country, certainly doesn't win you some magic exemption from this treatment (it just makes you a traitor, in time of war...). The idea that this is all "criminal activity" subject to "due process" rather than asymmetric military ops and civil war is just foolishness perpetrated on the mindless sheep by the wacko but ever inventive left (who probably can't believe their success in actually getting people to buy into this nonsense).

[Steely Dan]

Any legislation that grants the government the ability to strip citizenship from UK native born citizens is a serious matter raising significant constitutional issues.

Indeed like you've pointed correctly they will have to revoke citizenship with some legal process.

There is no UK jurisdiction in Iraq and Syria. Only the Iraqi and Syrian court has legal authority within its legal boundaries.

It will be difficult to provide a fair trial is there's no extradition clause between both countries.

Any arrest in the UK is subjected to prove law violation. Defence has to provide like all general regular law cases proof of law violation.

Starting air strikes on own civilians without arrest or judgement is constitutionaly...illegal.

Defining them by law as terrorist means they need to be judged by law supported by proof or evidence of their acts. Bombing them is criminal. There's no death penalty in the UK.

Nope. Committing acts of war entitles you to be treated according to the laws of armed conflict, liberalism and multiculturalism and terrorist sympathies notwithstanding. You're just a soldier on the battlefield, and a courtroom trial isn't required to open fire on, and kill, the enemy in war. Airstrikes on enemy targets, including enemy combatants, are well within the "rules". The fact that you happen to have taken up arms against your own country, or allies of your own country, and are now fighting alongside the enemies of your own country, certainly doesn't win you some magic exemption from this treatment (it just makes you a traitor, in time of war...). The idea that this is all "criminal activity" subject to "due process" rather than asymmetric military ops and civil war is just foolishness perpetrated on the mindless sheep by the wacko but ever inventive left (who probably can't believe their success in actually getting people to buy into this nonsense).

And how very revealing to play advocate for these vermin.

[Steely Dan]

Here is an essay written by a British expat living in Thailand, not me I hasten to add.

http://gatesofvienna.net/2014/09/why-i-left-englands-mean-and-unpleasant-land/

[Thorgal]

Here is an essay written by a British expat living in Thailand, not me I hasten to add.

http://gatesofvienna.net/2014/09/why-i-left-englands-mean-and-unpleasant-land/

What is the link with the jihadi Britons fighting overseas from original post ?

[simple1]

On the First link ; now I see a little where your confusion is coming from.

This thread is about Britians Jihad problem.

But that link is about US "constitutional issue" ; where as UK can not have any such issues because we have no written constitution.

There's more to say but a bit long and boring; I'm sure everybody knows what a load of nonsense your chatting already

I've provided 2 separate links so that you can clearly see that UK and US have serious gaps in their legal system if they want to strip citizenship.

I had to provide feedback from both countries because -like mentioned by your own post #1165 ??? - UK can (il)legally rely on US laws as they did previously, under allied forces...

None of these countries can endorse legally to kill or bomb their own civilians without arrest or trial...

I think it's easier than that and the new Canadian announcement above shows the way. They will invalidate passports of anyone who is away from the country participating with the jihadists.

That leaves the jihadists stuck in the country where they are and unable to even travel "home."

Slick move.

I'm not so sure I agree with this POV that's shared by a number of TV members. If our security forces know citizens are Jihadi participants & refused entry back to the homeland they will be committing appalling acts against innocents where they are located. Would it not be better to arrest them at point of entry, when returning, with very severe sentencing?

[Thorgal]

On the First link ; now I see a little where your confusion is coming from.

This thread is about Britians Jihad problem.

But that link is about US "constitutional issue" ; where as UK can not have any such issues because we have no written constitution.

There's more to say but a bit long and boring; I'm sure everybody knows what a load of nonsense your chatting already

I've provided 2 separate links so that you can clearly see that UK and US have serious gaps in their legal system if they want to strip citizenship.

I had to provide feedback from both countries because -like mentioned by your own post #1165 ??? - UK can (il)legally rely on US laws as they did previously, under allied forces...

None of these countries can endorse legally to kill or bomb their own civilians without arrest or trial...

I think it's easier than that and the new Canadian announcement above shows the way. They will invalidate passports of anyone who is away from the country participating with the jihadists.

That leaves the jihadists stuck in the country where they are and unable to even travel "home."

Slick move.

I'm not so sure I agree with this POV that's shared by a number of TV members. If our security forces know citizens are Jihadi participants & refused entry back to the homeland they will be committing appalling acts against innocents where they are located. Would it not be better to arrest them at point of entry, when returning, with very severe sentencing?

Indeed, fractions of IS in North Africa and others will recruit them back for other wars.

IS has also been found in Algeria, Lybia, Morocco and Tunis...

[Munsterman]

Love this thread. Julius Streicher's spirit is alive and well and living online in Thailand. But still haven't found anyone calling for forced sterilisations of the jihadis. Well, not yet.

[Ulysses G.]

Julius Streicher would have been on the side of the Islamic radicals. They have adopted much of his rhetoric to justify jihad.

[Steely Dan]

Here is an essay written by a British expat living in Thailand, not me I hasten to add.

http://gatesofvienna.net/2014/09/why-i-left-englands-mean-and-unpleasant-land/

What is the link with the jihadi Britons fighting overseas from original post ?

I suggest you acquaint yourself with the full scope of Jihad, not just the head chopping variety, it came in with the Trojan horse of multiculturalism. Britons escaping overseas will be an inevitable consequence of it, just as 'Britons' going on overseas jihad is.