[Twosugars]

Britain and other European nations that are refusing to repatriate Islamic State fighters and put them on trial in their country of origin are creating a risk to regional security, the US defence secretary warned at the start of his visit to London.

Mark Esper said there were around 2,000 foreign fighters, many from Europe, held in north-east Syria, but asking the Kurdish-led Syrian Democratic Forces to keep them in makeshift jails was an increasing risk to the fragile security of the region.

“It’s an untenable situation,” Esper said in a briefing on the first day of a two-day visit to London. “How long can this last? Our view has been they should repatriated and dealt with appropriately … otherwise that’s a risk to the region.”

Around 250 to 300 foreign fighters who are still in Syria are estimated to have come from the UK, but Britain is increasingly unwilling to allow any to return and stand trial following Isis’s defeat in Syria and Iraq.
The Guardian

[Toy Soldier]

The UK: "Yuck we don't want them strip their passports, send them to the US or Canada or Australia or literally anywhere but here, we want to responsibility."

Also the UK: "Hello guys can we has a rly gud trade deal pls."

[Oliver_W]

If they're a risk to that region, why should we bring them here? So they can either be a risk to our region, or cost the tax payers vast amounts of money in legal aid and prison?

[Twosugars]

Originally Posted by Oliver_W

If they're a risk to that region, why should we bring them here? So they can either be a risk to our region, or cost the tax payers vast amounts of money in legal aid and prison?

Better do what trump says or no trade deal

[parmnion]

Just line them up against a wall and shoot them...problem solved.

[Toy Soldier]

Originally Posted by Oliver_W

If they're a risk to that region, why should we bring them here? So they can either be a risk to our region, or cost the tax payers vast amounts of money in legal aid and prison?

Perhaps because they are being held in those regions, by people who are our closest allies, at their expense?

[Marsh.]

Originally Posted by Oliver_W

If they're a risk to that region, why should we bring them here? So they can either be a risk to our region, or cost the tax payers vast amounts of money in legal aid and prison?

Aren't you always claiming other countries should take their criminals back from us? You can't have it both ways.

[Denver]

Just put a bullet in their head, people like that should not get a 2nd chance

[arista]

Originally Posted by parmnion

Just line them up against a wall and shoot them...problem solved.

We would have to send our Troops
over there

[Niamh.]

Originally Posted by WickedSkengMan

Just put a bullet in their head, people like that should not get a 2nd chance

Errors can be made, putting a bullet in peoples heads is not the solution. If that's how terrorists were allowed to be dealt with, alot of innocent people would have been shot in the head during the IRA era. The guildford 4 and the Birmingham 6 for a start

[Oliver_W]

Originally Posted by Niamh.

Errors can be made, putting a bullet in peoples heads is not the solution. If that's how terrorists were allowed to be dealt with, alot of innocent people would have been shot in the head during the IRA era. The guildford 4 and the Birmingham 6 for a start

I think going abroad to join a terrorist group gives less room for error tbh

[Denver]

Originally Posted by Niamh.

Errors can be made, putting a bullet in peoples heads is not the solution. If that's how terrorists were allowed to be dealt with, alot of innocent people would have been shot in the head during the IRA era. The guildford 4 and the Birmingham 6 for a start

But there is no errors with people like Jihadi John and Shema Begum

[Marsh.]

Originally Posted by WickedSkengMan

But there is no errors with people like Jihadi John and Shema Begum

So 2 accurate shots justifies 12 inaccurate?

[Niamh.]

Originally Posted by Oliver_W

I think going abroad to join a terrorist group gives less room for error tbh

Any such law that gives you the right to just shot a person in the head could and would be abused

[Marsh.]

Originally Posted by Niamh.

Any such law that gives you the right to just shot a person in the head could and would be abused

Yep, definitely. It's that kind of logic that leads to the mess you have in the US with gun laws.

[Tom4784]

You don't react to barbarity with more barbarity and then act morally superior about it.

Shooting people in the head like that is more the terrorist's speed than that of a civilised nation.

[parmnion]

Originally Posted by Dezzy

You don't react to barbarity with more barbarity and then act morally superior about it.

Shooting people in the head like that is more the terrorist's speed than that of a civilised nation.

Which is why we don't need any of them back here.. .so **** them...leave them to thier demise...which is hopefully a bullet to the head from thier captors.

[Twosugars]

Originally Posted by parmnion

Which is why we don't need any of them back here.. .so **** them...leave them to thier demise...which is hopefully a bullet to the head from thier captors.

Trump says UK must take them back so tough luck

[Kizzy]

I agree we need them back. How dangerous is it to have western born jihadists recruiting or sharing information thst we are unaware of.. To my mind that is more of s danger to national security, here it is easier monitor any potential threat these people pose.

[Oliver_W]

Originally Posted by Kizzy

How dangerous is it to have western born jihadists recruiting or sharing information thst we are unaware of..

I don't know, how dangerous? What on earth would Jihadi Jack know which has any value that they couldn't find out online or through whatever resources they have?

[Twosugars]

If only we were a part of a powerful block of countries able to defy trump....

[Cherie]

Originally Posted by Kizzy

I agree we need them back. How dangerous is it to have western born jihadists recruiting or sharing information thst we are unaware of.. To my mind that is more of s danger to national security, here it is easier monitor any potential threat these people pose.

The should come back and be imprisoned with no bail until trial, the reason people don't want them back is they are left back in and are free in many cases just to get on with it

Britain has 'by far the highest rate of returning jihadi fighters in Europe

https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/201...s_basic_planit

[parmnion]

Originally Posted by Twosugars

Trump says UK must take them back so tough luck

Do you have an actual point to this post mate?

[Twosugars]

Originally Posted by parmnion

Do you have an actual point to this post mate?

I do mate.

My point is that by abandoning EU, britain is at the mercy of the US and its freedom of action, its sovereignty is limited if it wants a trade deal.
What a pickle huh
Get used to doing what trump says
Taking back control, lol. Not really.

[Kizzy]

Originally Posted by Oliver_W

I don't know, how dangerous? What on earth would Jihadi Jack know which has any value that they couldn't find out online or through whatever resources they have?

He knows a lot . The methods they use to radicalised young people, how they lie and manipulate or threaten or befriend.
How do you think they get the resources they have? They speak to people who have experienced it first hand.