What should happen to the ISIS Brides?

[DrZoidberg]

Apples and oranges. It doesn't apply here. Supporting ISIS is an ideological stance. Not a criminal act. Branding it a terrorist organisation and then treating all its supporters as guilty of terrorism is a cop out. In that case everybody who supports USA is a terrorist and should have their American citizenship revoked because [insert any war USA has been in]. Great Britain went to war fighting the Nazis on ideological grounds. So we're obviously fine with people going to war on ideological grounds to fight what they believe in... sometimes. The fact that you pick a side that wins doesn't exonerate your sides war crimes.

We have to be magnanimous to the losing side of an ideological war or we have learned nothing from history. Best way to kill an ideology is to be nice to them when they lose. We learned that from WW2.

Staying in the west and saying "Up with ISIS" doesn't make you a terrorist. Going and joining them over there does.

What? What's the difference? Both are doing their part in supporting a belligerent in a war.

BTW, I'm not going to call ISIS terrorists because the word terrorist has become absurdly watered down today. All it means today is a side in a conflict you don't agree with. I'm not an ISIS apologist. I just don't think that branding them a terrorist organisation is helping to clarify anything.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

Staying in the west and saying "Up with ISIS" doesn't make you a terrorist. Going and joining them over there does.

What? What's the difference? Both are doing their part in supporting a belligerent in a war.

BTW, I'm not going to call ISIS terrorists because the word terrorist has become absurdly watered down today. All it means today is a side in a conflict you don't agree with. I'm not an ISIS apologist. I just don't think that branding them a terrorist organisation is helping to clarify anything.

Words don't make you a terrorist. Actively aiding them does.

And I call them terrorists because they use terror tactics. They had an explicit strategy of recruitment by making it too dangerous not to join.

 

[DrZoidberg]

Staying in the west and saying "Up with ISIS" doesn't make you a terrorist. Going and joining them over there does.

What? What's the difference? Both are doing their part in supporting a belligerent in a war.

BTW, I'm not going to call ISIS terrorists because the word terrorist has become absurdly watered down today. All it means today is a side in a conflict you don't agree with. I'm not an ISIS apologist. I just don't think that branding them a terrorist organisation is helping to clarify anything.

Words don't make you a terrorist. Actively aiding them does.

And I call them terrorists because they use terror tactics. They had an explicit strategy of recruitment by making it too dangerous not to join.

In 2001 belligerents stopped committing war crimes. Instead terrorism shot up. Wonder why this is? Hint, nothing changed but the labelling. It's common that belligerents on the losing side use terror tactics to win wars. It's more serious than terrorism because civilians are more vulnerable when there's a full blown war on. I suggest we start calling them war crimes again. Because calling them terrorists actually makes what they're doing sound less serious. When ISIS enslaved and exterminated the Yazidis it wasn't to scare them. It was genocide.

The post 9/11 focus on Islamic terrorism allowed any dictator to clean house by branding their political enemies as terrorism, and they were suddenly USA's ally in the war on terror and the media and news consumers fell for it.

Today "terrorism" has become a catch all label of badness. It's today equivalent with calling something "bad". 200 years ago we'd scare people with the devil. After world war 2 anybody we didn't like was like Hitler. And today they're supporting terrorism.

In the west today we have plenty of fascist parties. They're currently having a bit of an upsurge in popularity. ISIS is just an Islamic version of good old European fascism. Viktor Orban is using the law and police to terrorise Jews and Gypsies in Hungary today. Turkey today has become a fascist state under Erdogan. Not an Islamo-fascist state. But I think it's only a matter of time. He terrorises his political opponents and the more secular elements of society. Yet, we are ONLY discussing revoking passports when it comes to supporters of ISIS. Not Europeans who have moved to Hungary or Turkey.

I think it's double standards.

 

[steve_bank]

xxx

 

[steve_bank]

Revocation of green card or passport/citizenship. If

Pass legislation that if you go abroad and take up arms against the USA or support it you loose any right to be here.

 

[DrZoidberg]

Revocation of green card or passport/citizenship. If

Pass legislation that if you go abroad and take up arms against the USA or support it you loose any right to be here.

So then Americans can't move to any other country or lose citizenship? BA-dum-TSCH

Proving that somebody took up arms in another country is notoriously hard to prove. Wars, by their nature, are messy. There's an old saying that the first causality of war is the truth. Right now fighters who have fought for ISIS will just say they went to Syria to do humanitarian work and good luck proving they didn't. And they do have all the correctly rubber-stamped official paperwork. Just proving what side they fought on is damn near impossible. Even if they were taken as prisoners of war... like I said... wars are messy. If somebody shoots at you, you are going to shoot back. It can easily get confusing and it is easy take the wrong people prisoners by mistake.

Here's a good Invisibilia show talking about just this. It's from 2016 and is about how Denmark is coping with young Muslim men who have fought for ISIS and then returned. Denmark has no PC culture. It's a very straight shooting place. They talk with a policeman who explains the legal problems of preventing these men for returning to Denmark. And he explains why it's a fantasy to think that we can prevent them. Even if we try putting laws in place to catch it, it won't work.

https://www.npr.org/sections/health...town-helped-young-muslims-turn-away-from-isis

So any claims that we shouldn't be "soft on terrorists" and such talk is just posturing. It's not realistic and we need to get real.

 

[TSwizzle]

Reality TV is the way to go. Let the UK girl return and get her on Big Brother or create a show, "Keeping Up With The Jihadis" or something like that.

 

[laughing dog]

And I call them terrorists because they use terror tactics. They had an explicit strategy of recruitment by making it too dangerous not to join.

Yes. ISIS had recruitment strategies, but it seems a bit far-fetched to say they made it too dangerous not to join to people in North America and Europe.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

And I call them terrorists because they use terror tactics. They had an explicit strategy of recruitment by making it too dangerous not to join.

Yes. ISIS had recruitment strategies, but it seems a bit far-fetched to say they made it too dangerous not to join to people in North America and Europe.

Is there anything you won't try to twist?

Of course I meant over there!

 

[laughing dog]

And I call them terrorists because they use terror tactics. They had an explicit strategy of recruitment by making it too dangerous not to join.

Yes. ISIS had recruitment strategies, but it seems a bit far-fetched to say they made it too dangerous not to join to people in North America and Europe.

Is there anything you won't try to twist?

Of course I meant over there!

No one was trying to twist anything. The OP and the discussion is about ISIS brides returning from "over there". Why would anyone assume you were deliberately making a pointless comment?

 

[DrZoidberg]

There's another problem with denying them the right to return. These people are now either in refugee camps or prisoner of war camps, awaiting processing. If they're not allowed to go anywhere they'll just stay locked up indefinitely. The various Syrian governments and whatever will take power won't want them. These are all enemy combatants. They're the last place on Earth who have any reason to take in a foreign fighter that travelled there with the specific goal to fight and destroy just these people.

One parallel is the Palestinian situation. When the 6 day war started the Palestinian Arabs were told that the Jews would murder them all. This is based on old antisemitic myths that the attackers fanned for propaganda reasons. The Palestinian Arabs fled their homes. Simultaneously the surrounding countries kicked out their Jewish populations. The Israeli government solved this by placing these in the abandoned Palestinian homes, thinking that the Arab nations would take in the Palestinians. But no. They were left to rot in refugee camps. Which is what eventually led to the Israel-Palestine conflict. The Arab nations engineered this.

This is what we're doing when we are refusing to take "back" the ISIS fighters. We're dumping a problem we have with our citizens onto a future Syrian government, who have less than zero motivation to do anything for these people. Sure, it's our prerogative. But problems we sweep under the rug have a way to come and bite us in the ass eventually.

 

[dismal]

There's another problem with denying them the right to return. These people are now either in refugee camps or prisoner of war camps, awaiting processing. If they're not allowed to go anywhere they'll just stay locked up indefinitely. The various Syrian governments and whatever will take power won't want them. These are all enemy combatants. They're the last place on Earth who have any reason to take in a foreign fighter that travelled there with the specific goal to fight and destroy just these people.

One parallel is the Palestinian situation. When the 6 day war started the Palestinian Arabs were told that the Jews would murder them all. This is based on old antisemitic myths that the attackers fanned for propaganda reasons. The Palestinian Arabs fled their homes. Simultaneously the surrounding countries kicked out their Jewish populations. The Israeli government solved this by placing these in the abandoned Palestinian homes, thinking that the Arab nations would take in the Palestinians. But no. They were left to rot in refugee camps. Which is what eventually led to the Israel-Palestine conflict. The Arab nations engineered this.

This is what we're doing when we are refusing to take "back" the ISIS fighters. We're dumping a problem we have with our citizens onto a future Syrian government, who have less than zero motivation to do anything for these people. Sure, it's our prerogative. But problems we sweep under the rug have a way to come and bite us in the ass eventually.

Well, as the zen philosopher Baretta once said: don't do the crime, if you can't do the time

 

[DrZoidberg]

There's another problem with denying them the right to return. These people are now either in refugee camps or prisoner of war camps, awaiting processing. If they're not allowed to go anywhere they'll just stay locked up indefinitely. The various Syrian governments and whatever will take power won't want them. These are all enemy combatants. They're the last place on Earth who have any reason to take in a foreign fighter that travelled there with the specific goal to fight and destroy just these people.

One parallel is the Palestinian situation. When the 6 day war started the Palestinian Arabs were told that the Jews would murder them all. This is based on old antisemitic myths that the attackers fanned for propaganda reasons. The Palestinian Arabs fled their homes. Simultaneously the surrounding countries kicked out their Jewish populations. The Israeli government solved this by placing these in the abandoned Palestinian homes, thinking that the Arab nations would take in the Palestinians. But no. They were left to rot in refugee camps. Which is what eventually led to the Israel-Palestine conflict. The Arab nations engineered this.

This is what we're doing when we are refusing to take "back" the ISIS fighters. We're dumping a problem we have with our citizens onto a future Syrian government, who have less than zero motivation to do anything for these people. Sure, it's our prerogative. But problems we sweep under the rug have a way to come and bite us in the ass eventually.

Well, as the zen philosopher Baretta once said: don't do the crime, if you can't do the time

That's not even logical. The new Syrian government won't have done the crime. They did the exact opposite. They crushed ISIS. Yet, they're the ones punished, for a crime they did nothing but prevent. So they'll be doing time without doing the crime.

So what do you say for yourself now?

 

[dismal]

There's another problem with denying them the right to return. These people are now either in refugee camps or prisoner of war camps, awaiting processing. If they're not allowed to go anywhere they'll just stay locked up indefinitely. The various Syrian governments and whatever will take power won't want them. These are all enemy combatants. They're the last place on Earth who have any reason to take in a foreign fighter that travelled there with the specific goal to fight and destroy just these people.

One parallel is the Palestinian situation. When the 6 day war started the Palestinian Arabs were told that the Jews would murder them all. This is based on old antisemitic myths that the attackers fanned for propaganda reasons. The Palestinian Arabs fled their homes. Simultaneously the surrounding countries kicked out their Jewish populations. The Israeli government solved this by placing these in the abandoned Palestinian homes, thinking that the Arab nations would take in the Palestinians. But no. They were left to rot in refugee camps. Which is what eventually led to the Israel-Palestine conflict. The Arab nations engineered this.

This is what we're doing when we are refusing to take "back" the ISIS fighters. We're dumping a problem we have with our citizens onto a future Syrian government, who have less than zero motivation to do anything for these people. Sure, it's our prerogative. But problems we sweep under the rug have a way to come and bite us in the ass eventually.

Well, as the zen philosopher Baretta once said: don't do the crime, if you can't do the time

That's not even logical. The new Syrian government won't have done the crime. They did the exact opposite. They crushed ISIS. Yet, they're the ones punished, for a crime they did nothing but prevent. So they'll be doing time without doing the crime.

So what do you say for yourself now?

We're talking about the ISIS brides here.

One should probably weigh the consequences that come along with giving up one's nationality before one gives up one's nationality. If it's super-important to you to be treated like a US citizen, the simple cure is don't shit away your US citizenship.

Also: keep your eye on the sparrow, when the going gets narrow

 

[DrZoidberg]

That's not even logical. The new Syrian government won't have done the crime. They did the exact opposite. They crushed ISIS. Yet, they're the ones punished, for a crime they did nothing but prevent. So they'll be doing time without doing the crime.

So what do you say for yourself now?

We're talking about the ISIS brides here.

One should probably weigh the consequences that come along with giving up one's nationality before one gives up one's nationality. If it's super-important to you to be treated like a US citizen, the simple cure is don't shit away your US citizenship.

Also: keep your eye on the sparrow, when the going gets narrow

What I was talking about (and what you responded to was) how denying the ISIS fighters to return punishes the Syrian post-ISIS government. Because they get burdened with European and American refuse.

I'm going to ask again... what crime did the new Syrian government do that makes them deserve getting burdened with our refuse? People we revoke citizenship from don't just vanish into thin air. You are treating it as if that is what happens, aren't you?

The ISIS fighters we refuse entry to, where do you think they'll go to? What makes you think they'll be welcomed anywhere? They'll just be floating around perpetually in refugee camps becoming the burden and problem of the International community. Which means, you. And me. WTF have I done to deserve getting punished for your bad judgement? I haven't done the crime. I don't want to do the time.

You are aware that ISIS is reviled in the entire Muslim world? There's no pro-ISIS country. Apart from ISIS themselves, there never was. ISIS only has the support of a handful extremist groups spread out over the world. Even Al Qaeda is today diplomatically isolated. There is no Muslim country in the world where they are welcome. So if not even Muslims want them, then where will they go?

edit: This is the story of the Palestinians. These situations don't just sort themselves out naturally. They just stay bad perpetually. Creating more problems the longer it keeps going.

 

[dismal]

There's another problem with denying them the right to return. These people are now either in refugee camps or prisoner of war camps, awaiting processing. If they're not allowed to go anywhere they'll just stay locked up indefinitely. The various Syrian governments and whatever will take power won't want them. These are all enemy combatants. They're the last place on Earth who have any reason to take in a foreign fighter that travelled there with the specific goal to fight and destroy just these people.

OK, I'm sorry I thought all those "they"s and "these people"s were referring to ISIS was brides. I didn't realize you were referring to Syria.

If you were referring to Syria I have no response. I don't understand your sentences.

 

[DrZoidberg]

There's another problem with denying them the right to return. These people are now either in refugee camps or prisoner of war camps, awaiting processing. If they're not allowed to go anywhere they'll just stay locked up indefinitely. The various Syrian governments and whatever will take power won't want them. These are all enemy combatants. They're the last place on Earth who have any reason to take in a foreign fighter that travelled there with the specific goal to fight and destroy just these people.

OK, I'm sorry I thought all those "they"s and "these people"s were referring to ISIS was brides. I didn't realize you were referring to Syria.

If you were referring to Syria I have no response. I don't understand your sentences.

So you don't have an opinion on what to do with the ISIS brides? I thought you wanted to deny them the right to return to the country they're citizen of? Did you change your mind? If you want to deny them the right to return, then what is your plan for these people? Who is going to be their new responsibility? You are aware, that nobody wants them? By revoking their citizenship we're just shirking our responsibility. We're dumping our problem onto someone else. Probably the new Syrian post-ISIS government. My question remains, what the hell did they do to deserve all this? They crushed ISIS. Shouldn't they at least be spared from having to deal with these Jihadi arseholes?

 

[dismal]

There's another problem with denying them the right to return. These people are now either in refugee camps or prisoner of war camps, awaiting processing. If they're not allowed to go anywhere they'll just stay locked up indefinitely. The various Syrian governments and whatever will take power won't want them. These are all enemy combatants. They're the last place on Earth who have any reason to take in a foreign fighter that travelled there with the specific goal to fight and destroy just these people.

OK, I'm sorry I thought all those "they"s and "these people"s were referring to ISIS was brides. I didn't realize you were referring to Syria.

If you were referring to Syria I have no response. I don't understand your sentences.

So you don't have an opinion on what to do with the ISIS brides? I thought you wanted to deny them the right to return to the country they're citizen of? Did you change your mind? If you want to deny them the right to return, then what is your plan for these people? Who is going to be their new responsibility? You are aware, that nobody wants them? By revoking their citizenship we're just shirking our responsibility. We're dumping our problem onto someone else. Probably the new Syrian post-ISIS government. My question remains, what the hell did they do to deserve all this? They crushed ISIS. Shouldn't they at least be spared from having to deal with these Jihadi arseholes?

I think I already stated it. More or less it's: apply whatever penalties are available under the law. This can include showing them some amount of compassion and lenience if they were teenagers, etc, etc.

Mostly where I've disagreed with some people in the thread is that it's somehow "wrong" to strip them of their citizenship. I see no reason why this can't be among the penalties, except of course in my view natural born US citizens can't be legally stripped of citizenship under the Constitution.

 

[DrZoidberg]

So you don't have an opinion on what to do with the ISIS brides? I thought you wanted to deny them the right to return to the country they're citizen of? Did you change your mind? If you want to deny them the right to return, then what is your plan for these people? Who is going to be their new responsibility? You are aware, that nobody wants them? By revoking their citizenship we're just shirking our responsibility. We're dumping our problem onto someone else. Probably the new Syrian post-ISIS government. My question remains, what the hell did they do to deserve all this? They crushed ISIS. Shouldn't they at least be spared from having to deal with these Jihadi arseholes?

I think I already stated it. More or less it's: apply whatever penalties are available under the law. This can include showing them some amount of compassion and lenience if they were teenagers, etc, etc.

Mostly where I've disagreed with some people in the thread is that it's somehow "wrong" to strip them of their citizenship. I see no reason why this can't be among the penalties, except of course in my view natural born US citizens can't be legally stripped of citizenship under the Constitution.

If you strip them from their citizenship, then what's your plan? If you decide USA should not take them in then you're just dumping your problems on somebody else.

I thought you were a guy who like to hold people responsible for their actions? Have you changed your mind about that? Perhaps now you're all about ignoring responsibility and just seeing what you can get away with? I'm seriously curious about your plan here?

 

[dismal]

So you don't have an opinion on what to do with the ISIS brides? I thought you wanted to deny them the right to return to the country they're citizen of? Did you change your mind? If you want to deny them the right to return, then what is your plan for these people? Who is going to be their new responsibility? You are aware, that nobody wants them? By revoking their citizenship we're just shirking our responsibility. We're dumping our problem onto someone else. Probably the new Syrian post-ISIS government. My question remains, what the hell did they do to deserve all this? They crushed ISIS. Shouldn't they at least be spared from having to deal with these Jihadi arseholes?

I think I already stated it. More or less it's: apply whatever penalties are available under the law. This can include showing them some amount of compassion and lenience if they were teenagers, etc, etc.

Mostly where I've disagreed with some people in the thread is that it's somehow "wrong" to strip them of their citizenship. I see no reason why this can't be among the penalties, except of course in my view natural born US citizens can't be legally stripped of citizenship under the Constitution.

If you strip them from their citizenship, then what's your plan? If you decide USA should not take them in then you're just dumping your problems on somebody else.

I thought you were a guy who like to hold people responsible for their actions? Have you changed your mind about that? Perhaps now you're all about ignoring responsibility and just seeing what you can get away with? I'm seriously curious about your plan here?

I think we already went down this path. You can go back and read what I said to these questions before if you like.