• Welcome to the new Internet Infidels Discussion Board, formerly Talk Freethought.

Europe submits voluntarily

Status
Not open for further replies.
That doesn't mean it's right or desirable to recognise them as a state, which stripping domestic ISIS fighters of their citizenship with the justification that they were soldiers of a foreign nation, fighting under a foreign flag -- instead of declaring them members of a criminal organisation -- would implicitly do.

They certainly were fighting under a foreign flag.

And note that nobody wants their Daesh fighters back.

Nor does anyone want bad weather.

The question isn't about wanting, it's about legal options.

If the only alternative, according to British law and international obligations, is to recognise Daesh as a nation, then taking them back may well be the lesser evil, including for reasons of security (since legitimising them can be construed as a victory and thus might increase their appeal). The situation may be different for Morocco who hasn't signed the UN convention in question.
 
Meanwhile. .....

Geller Report
France foils TWO jihad terror attacks so far this year, plotting to strike a football squad and school
By Pamela Geller - on February 28, 2018
FRANCE
16
Ads by Revcontent
Facebook
Twitter
Google+
“Mr Collomb said that the terrorist threat to France would ‘endure for years to come’ and remained ‘high.'”

“Endure for years to come”? He is dreaming. It will endure for as long as there are people in France who believe that Allah commands them to make war against unbelievers and subjugate them under the rule of Sharia. It is the refusal of Collomb and other officials like him to admit that at least some Muslims believe this way that is prolonging the conflict. France has already foiled two jihad terror attacks this year? It hasn’t seen anything yet.

“France foils TWO terror attacks threatening to strike a football squad and school,” By Romina McGuinness, Express, February 26, 2018 (thanks to Mark):

FRANCE has foiled two terror attacks threatening to strike schoolchildren and a football squad as Emmanuel Macron’s interior minister warns ISIS is targeting the West as a result of the group’s military setbacks in Iraq and Syria.

French interior minister Gérard Collomb said intelligence services had foiled two terrorist attacks so far this year.

One of the two attack plotters arrested mid-January had planned to hit a “major sporting facility” in western France, Mr Collomb told Europe 1 radio.

France’s DGSI internal intelligence agency initially believed that the would-be attacker, an 18-year-old Islam convert, was “only” planning to flee to Syria, but discovered that his plans were a lot more sinister after conducting a raid on his home.

The youth had been planning to launch an attack on an “elite” football team and had already scouted out a football stadium, according to Europe 1. He was also trying to get hold of a weapon.

However the attack was still in its “planning stage” and “was in no way imminent,” France’s security chief said.

The second aspiring jihadist had been plotting a two-part attack: he had planned to target an anti-terror ‘Sentinelle’ troop on patrol and a school in south-eastern France.

The suspect, a 33-year-old Islam convert who had pledged allegiance to ISIS in a video recovered during the police raid, had already acquired bomb-making equipment and was looking to buy a weapon online, security officials said….

Mr Collomb said that the terrorist threat to France would “endure for years to come” and remained “high”.

Pamela Geller's shocking new book, "FATWA: HUNTED IN AMERICA" is now available on Amazon. It's Geller's tell all, her story - and it's every story - it's what happens when you stand for freedom today. Buy it. Now. Here.

Facebook
Twitter
Google+

Ads by Revcontent
TRENDING TODAY
Casinos Hate when You Do This, but This is Not Cheating!
Strange Link Between Eggs and Diabetes Will Stun You
1 Simple Method Removes Eye Bags & Vertical Upper Lip Lines
Remember Her? Take a Deep Breath Before You See What She Looks Like Now
35 Completely Unsettling Historical Photos. #13 is Chilling
20 Photos of Ivanka Trump That'll Make You Cringe

Pamela Geller is the President of the American Freedom Defense Initiative (AFDI), publisher of PamelaGeller.com and author of The Post-American Presidency: The Obama Administration’s War on America and Stop the Islamization of America: A Practical Guide to the Resistance.

CONNECT WITH US
Stay on top of the news the media censors and scrubs. Subscribe here (it's free). Follow Pamela Geller on Facebook here and Twitter here. Support the work and the website, it's critical to the fight - donate here.

POST NAVIGATION
PREVIOUS

JOIN PAMELA GELLER
SUBSCRIBE TO OUR NEWSLETTER
WHATFINGER NEWS
BANNED! GET IT!
Ad
CONTRIBUTE TO THE GELLER REPORT
Donation Form
Name *

First

Last
Email *

Donation Amount *

Credit Card *
Card Number

Security Code

Name on Card

Expiration
/
Submit
Contribute Monthly - Choose One

PayPal - The safer, easier way to pay online!
FUND THE FIGHT
YOU make the work possible.

DONATE TODAY
RECENT COMMENTS
Alleged-Comment on Islamic scholar with 109,000 Twitter followers calls for those who leave Islam to be killed
Ebayer on France foils TWO jihad terror attacks so far this year, plotting to strike a football squad and school
WittyWeasel on Islamic scholar with 109,000 Twitter followers calls for those who leave Islam to be killed
ed on SIGN THE PETITION: Protest the First Free Speech Arrest in Ontario
Willie Sam on France foils TWO jihad terror attacks so far this year, plotting to strike a football squad and school
 
How about you provide a link and copy the relevant quotes instead of spamming this forum with the likes of:
TRENDING TODAY
Casinos Hate when You Do This, but This is Not Cheating!
Strange Link Between Eggs and Diabetes Will Stun You
1 Simple Method Removes Eye Bags & Vertical Upper Lip Lines
Remember Her? Take a Deep Breath Before You See What She Looks Like Now
35 Completely Unsettling Historical Photos. #13 is Chilling
20 Photos of Ivanka Trump That'll Make You Cringe
 
And since you asked:

Total terrorism-related deaths in France in all of the 21st century: about 250, for an average of 14 annual deaths. As a death rate per 100,000 inhabitants, that's about 0.021, or 0.3 per 100,000 people of Muslim extraction.

Annual road fatalities in France (2016): 3,469, though I'll use the 2013 figure of 3,268 for comparison, which gives us a rate of 5.1 per 100,000 inhabitants, much higher than Germany's 4.3, Spain's 3.7, Italy's 3.3, or Britain's 2.9.

The excess death rate due to reckless driving compared to those countries is between around 40 (with Germany as the baseline) and 100 (compared to the UK) times higher than the death rate due to terrorism. That's not total traffic deaths, only the people who died who would still be alive if the French were driving as conscientiously as the Germans or Brits.

In absolute numbers, France suffered twice as many excess road fatalities compared to Germany in 2013 alone than it suffered terrorism victims in all of the century so far, or more than 5 times as many compared to Britain.

Indeed, France has a severe security issue, but it's French drivers, not French Muslims. To the extent that French Muslims are a significant security hazard, it's because the two groups overlap.

If actual threat levels were the yardstick, we'd be getting a couple dozen to a couple hundred reports about a narrowly prevented road accident in France to every report of a foiled terror plot.
 
According to jokodo, because the Road toll kills far more victims than Islamic jihadis, we safely disregard the savagery of Islam. I say that even one victim of this most violent, retrograde supremacist ideology is far too many! By the way, even blind as a bat to muslim savagery as Angela Merkel my have regretted opening the borders to millions of these savages was a mistake.


“No-go areas” do exist in Germany, Angela Merkel admitted in an interview, adding that the arrival of “so many refugees” in the country “has raised multiple questions.”

Speaking with RTL, Merkel acknowledged that there are areas in Germany where people cannot feel safe. She also made it clear that it’s time for the authorities to do something in order to ensure public safety.

“It’s always a point to me that [ensuring] domestic security is the state’s obligation, the state has the monopoly of power, the state has to make sure that people have the right to it whenever they meet and move in a public space,” Merkel argued.

She then took aim at “no-go areas,” which gained notoriety all across Europe during the refugee influx that reached its peak in 2015. Merkel bluntly dismissed the claim that ‘no-go areas’ are non-existent in Germany, stressing instead that “there are such spaces, and you have to call that by name and you have to do something about it.”

Merkel, who is steps away from her official fourth term as the Germany chancellor, said her government had a “tough time” in the past. She then referred to harsh criticism over her “open-door policy” and her reluctance to set an upper limit for the new refugee arrivals: “Of course, the arrival of so many refugees has raised multiple questions.”…

While the chancellor refrained from touching upon the subject of rising violent crime among refugees, her interview came several weeks after a government-sponsored study showed a drastic increase in violent crime committed by male migrants aged 14 to 30. The massive influx of asylum seekers led to a spike in violent criminal acts, the study, which was conducted by a group of criminologists and forensic experts, stated. The review was conducted at the request of the German Ministry of Family Affairs, Senior Citizens

Source, Jihadwatch
 
According to jokodo, because the Road toll kills far more victims than Islamic jihadis, we safely disregard the savagery of Islam. <snip>

You have been played by the terrorists.

Really, you have.

Terrorism, as the name implies, is a tactic that aims to instill terror in the opponent to reach a political goal. It doesn't matter to the terrorist how many people he manages to kill, it only matters how much fear he creates. If he can create a disproportionate amount of fear with a few attacks, only the better for the terrorist -- it's saving them money on explosives at least, and more likely giving them influence out of proportion to their actual capacities to inflict harm.

Yes, every death is a death to many, as the bonmot goes. But the same can be said about car accidents, lung cancer, and liver failure, all of which have a higher death toll than Islamic terrorism in Western Europe, by several orders of magnitude in each case. If you want to base actual policies on that bonmot, banning cars, tobacco and wine has priority to banning Muslims from entering the country. Especially cars, smokers and alcoholics mostly only kill themselves (though even the tobacco-related deaths among non-smokers probably outweigh terrrorism-related deaths).

I'm not suggesting that France, or any other country, should slash all counterterrorism measures. Though the fact that doing so might in fact improve overall public safety as long as the saving go towards increasing awareness and enforcement of traffic rules shows just how much you're blowing that thing out of proportion and thereby, I repeat, helping the terrorists.
 
Nor does anyone want bad weather.
But countries do not invite bad weather back, give them immunity and benefits.
Swedish city to offer returning Isis fighters housing and benefits in reintegration programme

The question isn't about wanting, it's about legal options.
Laws can change. For example, before Trudeau changed the law, it was possible to strip terrorists with Canadian citizenship of it.
'A Canadian Is a Canadian': Liberal Leader Says Terrorists Should Keep Their Citizenship
When Jihad Justin won, he changed that law.
Trudeau citizenship law is win for Toronto 18 terrorist and loss for Canada
A sane government could change it back.
There is nothing prohibiting European countries from passing laws dealing with the IS issue.
If the only alternative, according to British law and international obligations, is to recognise Daesh as a nation, then taking them back may well be the lesser evil, including for reasons of security (since legitimising them can be construed as a victory and thus might increase their appeal). The situation may be different for Morocco who hasn't signed the UN convention in question.
Why do you think that's the only alternative?
 
Comparing Wehrmacht soldiers to KKK members is a false equivalence. KKK is equivalent to the SS.

KKK has a Muslim division?
1485869725596.gif
 
That doesn't mean it's right or desirable to recognise them as a state, which stripping domestic ISIS fighters of their citizenship with the justification that they were soldiers of a foreign nation, fighting under a foreign flag -- instead of declaring them members of a criminal organisation -- would implicitly do.

This is the text of US statute on treason:

"Whoever, owing allegiance to the United States, levies war against them or adheres to their enemies, giving them aid and comfort within the United States or elsewhere, is guilty of treason and shall suffer death, or shall be imprisoned not less than five years and fined under this title but not less than $10,000; and shall be incapable of holding any office under the United States."

It only talks about "enemies", it does not state they have to be states, much less states recognized by US.
 
Recruiters for ISIS targetting Westerners (and that includes Westerners with an ethnic background) don't want their targets to exchange themselves with their local mosques. They know that would likely move them away from their interpretation of Islam, and carry the risk of them being reported to the authorities if they defend it explicitly. The details differ when the target is not a Christian but someone who already identified as a Muslim prior to contact, but the rough outlines are the same: They'll do what they can to isolate him from his community and family and paint those as apostates.
Depends on the mosque. Especially in Europe, there are plenty of extremist mosques. Maybe that mosque in rural Washington was not extremist, but many are.

Also, about Faisal: why was he not deported back in 1995? Why was he only given a relatively short prison sentence and then allowed to live in the UK and recruit for IS from there? It should be much easier to deport terrorists and extremists!

And about Alex, she first became aware of IS from the beheading video of a journalist. And yet she willingly let herself be sucked into the IS world. I have no sympathy for her.
 
Afghanistan has a population of 34.6 million (as of 2016) and suffered 3,500 civilian casualties due to the insurgency in 2016. In deaths per 100,000 inhabitants, that's 10.0. Adding that figure to Afghanistan's homicide rate as per the list I gave you gives us 16.55 deaths per 100,000 inhabitants, or no more than 15.2% of El Salvador's murder rate of 108.54 per 100,000 - and that's assuming that none of the terrorism victims are already counted as murder victims.
So are you saying that Afghanistan is safe enough to finally deport all those illegal Afghan migrants that have come, and are still coming into Europe for economic reasons? Can Australia empty Manaus and other camps by sending all those illegal Afghans back, because Afghanistan is safe enough?
Because the Left does not want any illegal Afghans to be deported, even if they have committed crimes.
 
Afghanistan has a population of 34.6 million (as of 2016) and suffered 3,500 civilian casualties due to the insurgency in 2016. In deaths per 100,000 inhabitants, that's 10.0. Adding that figure to Afghanistan's homicide rate as per the list I gave you gives us 16.55 deaths per 100,000 inhabitants, or no more than 15.2% of El Salvador's murder rate of 108.54 per 100,000 - and that's assuming that none of the terrorism victims are already counted as murder victims.
So are you saying that Afghanistan is safe enough to finally deport all those illegal Afghan migrants that have come, and are still coming into Europe for economic reasons?

I'm saying Afghanistan is safer than El Salvador, because it is.

I did not say that makes Afghanistan is safe enough to justify deporting people back there, nor did I say that El Salvador is unsafe enough to flee from there and have a valid claim to asylum even though the country is nominally at "peace". If forced to choose, I'll go with the latter, but that wasn't the topic of the conversation at that point.

The topic was to demonstrate that angelo's claim that "most of the turmoil and violence everywhere" is caused by Islam is a flat-earthism.

Because it is.
 
But countries do not invite bad weather back, give them immunity and benefits.

Every Brit who ever returned from an overseas vacation has invited bad weather back into his life willingly and knowingly.

Therefore they should invite jihadists back too? is that the kind of "logic" your islamophilia has degenerated into?
 
That doesn't mean it's right or desirable to recognise them as a state, which stripping domestic ISIS fighters of their citizenship with the justification that they were soldiers of a foreign nation, fighting under a foreign flag -- instead of declaring them members of a criminal organisation -- would implicitly do.

This is the text of US statute on treason:

<snip>


The text of the US statute is irrelevant when we talk about the options European countries and in particular Britain have in dealing with returning Daesh fighters. Britain is not a province of the US.

It's worth noting though that the text you quoted doesn't actually mention rescinding citizenships. It only says that a traitor "shall be incapable of holding any office under the United States" which is not the same thing.
 
Recruiters for ISIS targetting Westerners (and that includes Westerners with an ethnic background) don't want their targets to exchange themselves with their local mosques. They know that would likely move them away from their interpretation of Islam, and carry the risk of them being reported to the authorities if they defend it explicitly. The details differ when the target is not a Christian but someone who already identified as a Muslim prior to contact, but the rough outlines are the same: They'll do what they can to isolate him from his community and family and paint those as apostates.
Depends on the mosque. Especially in Europe, there are plenty of extremist mosques.

And you sure have plenty of data to back that up?

Maybe that mosque in rural Washington was not extremist, but many are.

Also, about Faisal: why was he not deported back in 1995? Why was he only given a relatively short prison sentence and then allowed to live in the UK and recruit for IS from there? It should be much easier to deport terrorists and extremists!

And about Alex, she first became aware of IS from the beheading video of a journalist. And yet she willingly let herself be sucked into the IS world. I have no sympathy for her.

I didn't post it to raise sympathies for Alex. I posted it to show how IS thrives best in an ecosystem with little mainstream Islamic influence.
 
Every Brit who ever returned from an overseas vacation has invited bad weather back into his life willingly and knowingly.

Therefore they should invite jihadists back too? is that the kind of "logic" your islamophilia has degenerated into?

Again not what I'm saying. I'm saying that we don't live in a world where you can reasonably avoid everything you don't want. Most people learn that in kindergarten.

The reasons why inviting them back might prove the lesser evil are manifold, not least because it would set a dangerous precedent if we allow the government to wantonly retract citizenships for political reasons. But even that wasn't really the point.

The point was that Vork presented liberals who want to take back Daesh fighters as the epitome of liberal folly, when in fact it's the only thing consistent with extant British law. If he thinks that law should be changed, he's invited to draft a better one with no obvious downsides, but pretending that we already have one which liberals insist on ignoring won't get him any points.
 
Another point about this revoking citizenship business: You can't apply laws retroactively. Even if parliament decides today unanimously that the best thing would be to have the option of revoking citizenships in those cases, if that option didn't exist in British law at the time they fought for ISIS, there isn't much one can do (short of recognising ISIS as a nation, with all its drawbacks); you'd still have to prove on an individual basis that the person in question was involved in fighting after the law passed in order apply it to them.

Same if France decides to impose prison time for speeding to lower its road fatality rate, it can't incarcerate people who were caught speeding before the law went in effect.

It's a rather central pillar of modern Western law. If you prefer justice to be decided by the Qadi's gut feeling or the village assembly's common sense rather than by law and precedent, there is probably quite a few places on this planet where you might be satisfied (Somalia comes to mind), but don't say you're defending Western values when you want to demolish this pillar of our system.
 
Of course jihadis should be allowed back after perhaps fighting Western allied troops . Also they should be paid back pay of their welfare payments for the time they were away, correct?
 
Of course jihadis should be allowed back after perhaps fighting Western allied troops . Also they should be paid back pay of their welfare payments for the time they were away, correct?

Do you believe it should be possible for the legislative branch of government to retroactively change laws, and for the judicial branch (or even for the executive branch without involving the judicial) to apply them without evidence, and without a possibility to appeal? Yes or no, no changing the topic pleases!

Because if you do, that's a rather severe attack on Western values, as represented in our legal system. Which is OK, a legal system isn't god-given and unchangeable, just be the fuck explicit about it!

If so, should this possibility be open for responding to misdoings by all citizens, or only to those with funny names?

If you want citizenship to come in two flavours, one of which is whites-only, and/or if you want to put an end to the Rule of Law and replace a legal system where courts and law enforcement agencies are bound by laws and precedents, don't be a coward and just say so!

ETA: There's nothing wrong with advocating for fascism (well there is a lot, but as far as I know its illegal neither in Australia nor in the US where this forum is based). Pretending to defend democracy while advocating fascism, however, is a rather clearcut case of fraud!

--

I don't know about other countries, but at least where I live there is no reason to concern yourself about back payments for welfare. Everyone who is on welfare has to report to the national job service about once every month to six weeks (more often when they suspect you aren't trying hard enough to find a job), and all payments are frozen when you don't show up even once until you report back in with a note from your physician that you were unable to attend. They're also frozen everytime you go abroad unless you can prove that you went for a job interview for a limited time.
 
Last edited:
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top Bottom