[Tom4784]

Originally Posted by Oliver_W

Whereas adding to our overpopulated prisons at the taxpayers' expense is better? I'd rather see them barred from returning to the UK and left to rot with ISIS, but bothering to drag them here and allowing them to become another burden to the system is pretty far down on the list of responses.

Well the Kurdish government has them so it's their justice system they'll face but like it or not, brittish people are our responsibility. We can't just pawn the worst of us onto other countries when it suits us.

If you're that worried about overcrowding and tax funding in prisons then perhaps you should campaign for the or decrease in sentence of minor crimes that ultimately do not require imprisonment. That will do more to help the situation then worrying about two more inmates guilty of terrorism potentially breaking the camel's back.

[Kazanne]

Originally Posted by Oliver_W

Whereas adding to our overpopulated prisons at the taxpayers' expense is better? I'd rather see them barred from returning to the UK and left to rot with ISIS, but bothering to drag them here and allowing them to become another burden to the system is pretty far down on the list of responses.

I agree Oliver leave the scum where they ran off to , to help kill Western hostages,they lost their rights as soon as they turned traitor, Let them loose in the middle of the desert and let them fend for themselves.

[Oliver_W]

Originally Posted by Dezzy

Well the Kurdish government has them so it's their justice system they'll face but like it or not, brittish people are our responsibility. We can't just pawn the worst of us onto other countries when it suits us.

It's not pawning them off, it's leaving them to get hanged with their own rope. Why should we continue to take responsibility for people who leave the UK to join a terrorist organisation like ISIS?

[Tom4784]

Originally Posted by Oliver_W

It's not pawning them off, it's leaving them to get hanged with their own rope. Why should we continue to take responsibility for people who leave the UK to join a terrorist organisation like ISIS?

Because they're still british citizens and when they commit crimes against the UK then they should face the full extent of UK law.

I've always said in topics that are about UK people being prosecuted (like the drug dealing incidents) that I believe they should face trial in the UK so to say differently in this topic would be hypocrisy on my part.

[Kazanne]

Originally Posted by Oliver_W

It's not pawning them off, it's leaving them to get hanged with their own rope. Why should we continue to take responsibility for people who leave the UK to join a terrorist organisation like ISIS?

I don't know how old you are Oliver,but you talk a great deal of sense, they were NOT pawned off ,they went over there to fight and kill,simple as,how right you are when you say 'hang them with their own rope' they deserve a long,slow painful death,but whichever way lets just get rid of the scum.

[Tom4784]

Originally Posted by Kazanne

I don't know how old you are Oliver,but you talk a great deal of sense, they were NOT pawned off ,they went over there to fight and kill,simple as,how right you are when you say 'hang them with their own rope' they deserve a long,slow painful death,but whichever way lets just get rid of the scum.

What does his age have to do with anything?

[Marsh.]

If I said I don't know how old you are, but you talk loads of nonsense I'd be infracted.

[Cherie]

Originally Posted by Kazanne

I don't know how old you are Oliver,but you talk a great deal of sense, they were NOT pawned off ,they went over there to fight and kill,simple as,how right you are when you say 'hang them with their own rope' they deserve a long,slow painful death,but whichever way lets just get rid of the scum.

Agreed no need to waste taxpayer money trying these two, or giving them any free aid, they can stay where they are

[kirklancaster]

Originally Posted by Cherie

Agreed no need to waste taxpayer money trying these two, or giving them any free aid, they can stay where they are

I agree but only allowed to 'stay where they are' in the PRONE position DEAD.

Otherwise - if they ARE tried here and jailed - they will add to all the other imprisoned Jihadists who have GREAT success using all that free time to RADICALISE other prisoners and convert them to their Jihadist cause.

The above is a very REAL and GROWING problem in British prisons.

[kirklancaster]

Originally Posted by Dezzy

Because they're still british citizens and when they commit crimes against the UK then they should face the full extent of UK law.

I've always said in topics that are about UK people being prosecuted (like the drug dealing incidents) that I believe they should face trial in the UK so to say differently in this topic would be hypocrisy on my part.

They relinquished any 'British Citizenship' when they committed TREASON by VOLUNTARILY leaving these shores and joining a Terrorist Organisation which is at WAR with the UK and by committing the most savage, inhuman, and evil murders of INNOCENT civilians - Brits among them - in the service of that Terrorist Organisation.

[Kazanne]

Originally Posted by kirklancaster

They relinquished any 'British Citizenship' when they committed TREASON by VOLUNTARILY leaving these shores and joining a Terrorist Organisation which is at WAR with the UK and by committing the most savage, inhuman, and evil murders of INNOCENT civilians - Brits among them - in the service of that Terrorist Organisation.

Spot on Kirk.

[Tom4784]

Originally Posted by kirklancaster

They relinquished any 'British Citizenship' when they committed TREASON by VOLUNTARILY leaving these shores and joining a Terrorist Organisation which is at WAR with the UK and by committing the most savage, inhuman, and evil murders of INNOCENT civilians - Brits among them - in the service of that Terrorist Organisation.

Except they haven't and things like human rights are made meaningless if we grant and take them away at will. How does endorsing execution of prisoners without due course make you any better than the people you oppose? senseless murder does not make it okay for us to kill prisoners in similar ways. IT doesn't make us any better than they are. We must do better and be better, not respond in kind just because it's easy, it's the weak way of doing things.

The concern about radicalisation is easily handled by simply isolating terrorists from general prisoners.

[kirklancaster]

Originally Posted by Dezzy

Except they haven't and things like human rights are made meaningless if we grant and take them away at will. How does endorsing execution of prisoners without due course make you any better than the people you oppose? senseless murder does not make it okay for us to kill prisoners in similar ways. IT doesn't make us any better than they are. We must do better and be better, not respond in kind just because it's easy, it's the weak way of doing things.

The concern about radicalisation is easily handled by simply isolating terrorists from general prisoners.

HUMAN RIGHTS? Let's think about that term;

Is the act of BEHEADING a terrified, cowered, outnumbered, unarmed, civilian the ACT of a HUMAN?

NOT in my book.

Thus, bastards such as these have NO 'Human Rights' because when they committed these EVIL atrocities they CEASED being 'Human' - IN MY BOOK.

It beggars belief that callous murderers such as these can carry out cowardly acts as inhuman and totally incomprehensible as these on other INNOCENT human beings and there are people who want to harp on about THEIR 'Human Rights' - what about the 'Human Rights' of all the poor, poor slaughtered VICTIMS and their distraught grieving families?

You are entitled to your opinion, of course, you are, but I'll adhere to mine thank you.

[AnnieK]

I think they should be allowed to serve any sentences in the UK if they provide the military with usable intelligence against IS (or whatever terrorist organisation they aligned themselves to when they left the UK). If they fail to provide information, withhold it or provide false information, they should not be allowed re-entry into the country (I don't think they should be tortured for the info either). I also think they need to be segregated from mainstream prison populations if they are brought back to the UK to avoid them being able to influence and radicalise others.

[Tom4784]

Originally Posted by kirklancaster

HUMAN RIGHTS? Let's think about that term;

Is the act of BEHEADING a terrified, cowered, outnumbered, unarmed, civilian the ACT of a HUMAN?

NOT in my book.

Thus, bastards such as these have NO 'Human Rights' because when they committed these EVIL atrocities they CEASED being 'Human' - IN MY BOOK.

It beggars belief that callous murderers such as these can carry out cowardly acts as inhuman and totally incomprehensible as these on other INNOCENT human beings and there are people who want to harp on about THEIR 'Human Rights' - what about the 'Human Rights' of all the poor, poor slaughtered VICTIMS and their distraught grieving families?

You are entitled to your opinion, of course, you are, but I'll adhere to mine thank you.

When you pick and choose which humans are worthy of human rights then Human Rights loses all it's meaning and the people that died to preserve those rights died for nothing. It's an all or nothing for deal, you either believe in Human Rights for all or Human Rights for no one. There is no grey area, you are for Human Rights or you are against it and to be against Human Rights is to piss on the sacrifices that was made to make Human Rights a reality.

As long as you fulfill the quota of being a human being then you have the right to Human Rights. Enemies that are taken prisoner in combat are entitled to a trial and justice should be dealt in the right way. If we forget that and start killing everyone regardless then we are no better.

You don't fight extremism with more extremism. Don't give into bloodlust and call it justice.

[Oliver_W]

Which Human Rights would be breached by not bringing terrorists over here from the country they chose to go to?

[kirklancaster]

Originally Posted by Dezzy

When you pick and choose which humans are worthy of human rights then Human Rights loses all it's meaning and the people that died to preserve those rights died for nothing. It's an all or nothing for deal, you either believe in Human Rights for all or Human Rights for no one. There is no grey area, you are for Human Rights or you are against it and to be against Human Rights is to piss on the sacrifices that was made to make Human Rights a reality.

As long as you fulfill the quota of being a human being then you have the right to Human Rights. Enemies that are taken prisoner in combat are entitled to a trial and justice should be dealt in the right way. If we forget that and start killing everyone regardless then we are no better.

You don't fight extremism with more extremism. Don't give into bloodlust and call it justice.

How have these two 'fulfilled the quota of being a human being' exactly?

I used to watch an American documentary series called 'Circuit 11 Miami' which was a Criminal Court in Miami which had allowed TV cameras into the courthouse during murder cases.

One case involved a 79-year-old (or so)ex-WW2 war hero - an ordinary working class old man - who lived alone.

Two total scumbags broke into his home and roughed him up so that he would give up any valuables or money which he might have had.

He INSTANTLY told them where he kept his few dollars he had but they tortured him and beat him to a pulp anyway - for fun.

The Crime Scene photos were graphic and horrific, but the program showed them.

They left him broken, bleeding, and battered beyond recognition, but before they left - just for more fun - they inserted biro pens in his ears and KICKED them deep into the old man's head.

I'm sorry, but I REFUSE to accept these bastards as 'Fulfilling ANY Human Quota'

Ditto these two terrorists.

Ditto Thompson and Venables if I'm being honest.

Ditto Brady and Hindley - ESPECIALLY Hindley who lived the 'High Life' in her boutique Hotel of a 'prison'.

Sorry.

[Cherie]

If British citizens smuggle drugs abroad and are caught they are tried in the country and imprisoned in that country if found guilty, the only difference in this case is that they won't have the services of The British Embassy, fair dues given they are traitors, they renounced their citizenship willingly..they can't have it both ways, they accepted the laws of ISIS, they can seek help from them

[Tom4784]

Originally Posted by kirklancaster

How have these two 'fulfilled the quota of being a human being' exactly?

I used to watch an American documentary series called 'Circuit 11 Miami' which was a Criminal Court in Miami which had allowed TV cameras into the courthouse during murder cases.

One case involved a 79-year-old (or so)ex-WW2 war hero - an ordinary working class old man - who lived alone.

Two total scumbags broke into his home and roughed him up so that he would give up any valuables or money which he might have had.

He INSTANTLY told them where he kept his few dollars he had but they tortured him and beat him to a pulp anyway - for fun.

The Crime Scene photos were graphic and horrific, but the program showed them.

They left him broken, bleeding, and battered beyond recognition, but before they left - just for more fun - they inserted biro pens in his ears and KICKED them deep into the old man's head.

I'm sorry, but I REFUSE to accept these bastards as 'Fulfilling ANY Human Quota'

Ditto these two terrorists.

Ditto Thompson and Venables if I'm being honest.

Ditto Brady and Hindley - ESPECIALLY Hindley who lived the 'High Life' in her boutique Hotel of a 'prison'.

Sorry.

You're not getting it.

A human is a human, you can't lose that status, you are always a human regardless of your actions. Human Rights are not based on merit or lack thereof. You are either for human rights for all or you are completely against human rights. There is no in between, no middle ground. It's black and white.

Responding with acts of violence with more acts of violence as retribution does not make whoever believes that to be true, right, it makes them the same as the people they condemn.

[Tom4784]

Originally Posted by Oliver_W

Which Human Rights would be breached by not bringing terrorists over here from the country they chose to go to?

I brought up the human rights angle, not in response to this case but to the worrying fantasising and bloodlust of people who hope for executions without due course without realising that it's an attitude that's common with the enemy.

My view on this pair has not changed. I believe British criminals should face a British court of law for their crimes, it's what I've said for other crimes when they've been discussed on here and it would be hypocritical for me to deviate from that point of view and make exceptions in this case. I'd rather terrorists face life imprisonment and be seen as a failure by their peers than be made martyrs through execution.

[Withano]

Originally Posted by Dezzy

You're not getting it.

A human is a human, you can't lose that status, you are always a human regardless of your actions. Human Rights are not based on merit or lack thereof. You are either for human rights for all or you are completely against human rights. There is no in between, no middle ground. It's black and white.

Responding with acts of violence with more acts of violence as retribution does not make whoever believe that to be true, right, it makes them the same as the people they condemn.

Ugh this is great. I’ve tried so many times to explain this and nobody really understands what I’m saying when I do try, but this explains how I feel about the opposing argument perfectly.

[kirklancaster]

Originally Posted by Dezzy

You're not getting it.

A human is a human, you can't lose that status, you are always a human regardless of your actions. Human Rights are not based on merit or lack thereof. You are either for human rights for all or you are completely against human rights. There is no in between, no middle ground. It's black and white.

Responding with acts of violence with more acts of violence as retribution does not make whoever believes that to be true, right, it makes them the same as the people they condemn.

Oh no - 'I do get it' but don't agree with 'it' and NEVER will.

As far as I am concerned:

'A human is a human' until he/she becomes INHUMAN by virtue of his/her inhuman acts.

Then they remain 'Human' purely in terms of Anatomy and Physiology and belonging to the genus 'Homo'. NOTHING more.

I am familiar with the 'Human Rights Act' but will never accept that its authors INTENDED it to be exploited and used to protect the 'RIGHTS' of inhuman bastards such as these and those others listed in my post.

I am sorry, but I will ask again;

What about the 'Human Rights ' of 'Humanitarian' Alan Henning and the other innocent victims and their families?

There is NO GREATER 'Human Right' than the 'RIGHT TO LIFE' and those guilty of intentionally depriving INNOCENT people of theirs - especially in the most depraved and INHUMAN of manners - SHOULD lose any rights they once enjoyed as 'Humans' including 'Human Rights', just as surely as their innocent victims lost their Right to Life.

To me, the 'Human Rights Act' has been exploited by Criminals, Murderers, Terrorists, and Subversives, just as surely as the Benefits System, The NHS, The Legal Aid System and a host of other 'Well-Meaning' innovations have been similarly exploited and abused.

I'm afraid we will have to 'Agree To Disagree' on this subject.

[arista]

Originally Posted by kirklancaster

They relinquished any 'British Citizenship' when they committed TREASON by VOLUNTARILY leaving these shores and joining a Terrorist Organisation which is at WAR with the UK and by committing the most savage, inhuman, and evil murders of INNOCENT civilians - Brits among them - in the service of that Terrorist Organisation.

Bang On Right Kirk

[Cherie]

Originally Posted by kirklancaster

Oh no - 'I do get it' but don't agree with 'it' and NEVER will.

As far as I am concerned:

'A human is a human' until he/she becomes INHUMAN by virtue of his/her inhuman acts.

Then they remain 'Human' purely in terms of Anatomy and Physiology and belonging to the genus 'Homo'. NOTHING more.

I am familiar with the 'Human Rights Act' but will never accept that its authors INTENDED it to be exploited and used to protect the 'RIGHTS' of inhuman bastards such as these and those others listed in my post.

I am sorry, but I will ask again;

What about the 'Human Rights ' of 'Humanitarian' Alan Henning and the other innocent victims and their families?

There is NO GREATER 'Human Right' than the 'RIGHT TO LIFE' and those guilty of intentionally depriving INNOCENT people of theirs - especially in the most depraved and INHUMAN of manners - SHOULD lose any rights they once enjoyed as 'Humans' including 'Human Rights', just as surely as their innocent victims lost their Right to Life.

To me, the 'Human Rights Act' has been exploited by Criminals, Murderers, Terrorists, and Subversives, just as surely as the Benefits System, The NHS, The Legal Aid System and a host of other 'Well-Meaning' innovations have been similarly exploited and abused.

I'm afraid we will have to 'Agree To Disagree' on this subject.

great post Kirk, they will be tried where they are, by the law of the land they chose to go to, no one is baying for blood lust, far from it, they made their bed, now they can lie in it.

[Kazanne]

Originally Posted by Cherie

If British citizens smuggle drugs abroad and are caught they are tried in the country and imprisoned in that country if found guilty, the only difference in this case is that they won't have the services of The British Embassy, fair dues given they are traitors, they renounced their citizenship willingly..they can't have it both ways, they accepted the laws of ISIS, they can seek help from them

Well said Cherie,100% agree