Has it occurred to this genius that if this is done, all British jihadis in the Islamic State have to do in order to get back into Britain is say that they’re repentant? And what will Richard Barrett say when one of his “ex-extremists” mounts a jihad terror attack “back at home”? “War is deceit,” said Islam’s prophet Muhammad, but Britain’s top authorities seem determined to respond, “We know you didn’t really mean that.”
“Isis fighters must be allowed back into UK, says ex-MI6 chief,” by Mark Townsend, Tracy McVeigh and Andrew Anthony, The Observer, September 6, 2014:
Britain should encourage jihadis fighting in Syria and Iraq to “come home”, the former global counter-terrorism director of MI6 has said.
David Cameron outlined new powers last week for police to seize the passports of terrorist suspects and stop British extremists from returning to the UK. Others, including Boris Johnson, the London mayor, have called for British jihadis to have their citizenship removed.
However, Richard Barrett, a former counter-terrorism chief at MI5 and MI6, said repentant fighters needed “to know that there is a place for them back at home”.
His comments follow reports that dozens of disillusioned British jihadis are looking at ways to return to the UK, but fear being imprisoned. Barrett, who also led the UN mission to track down Osama bin Laden, said returning fighters could prove an invaluable asset in dissuading potential jihadis from travelling to fight with Islamic State (Isis).
“Many of the people who have been most successful in undermining the terrorist narrative are themselves ex-extremists,” said Barrett, adding that such people can “explain why going abroad to fight is a very bad idea”.
He said: “It would seem sensible to encourage British and other foreign fighters who have joined the Islamic State or other extremist groups in Syria and Iraq, and now realise this was wrong, to come home.
“These are the people who can expose the true nature of the Islamic State and its leadership. Their stories of brutality and the motives behind it will be far more credible and persuasive than the rhetoric of men in suits.
“These repentant fighters need a way out, and although the law must take its course, they need to know there is a place for them back at home if they are committed to a non-violent future.”
Researchers at the International Centre for the Study of Radicalisation at King’s College London have recently been contacted by jihadis who say that they are despondent about the situation in Syria and that, although they fear lengthy custodial sentences, they would be happy to enrol on de-radicalisation programmes.
“These ex-fighters could help the authorities to understand better than they do now why people are still going to Syria and Iraq and what needs to be done to slow the flow to a trickle or stop it altogether,” said Barrett.
Pressure for a fundamental reappraisal of Britain’s de-radicalisation programme is mounting among experts and politicians. Hazel Blears, a former Home Office minister, echoed the need to use the experiences of extremists to prevent other Britons following in their footsteps. “Provided you start from a sceptical point of view and you can find some who are genuinely remorseful, for whom it’s been a terrible experience, and who are prepared to join a programme talking to other young people, then absolutely you should be trying to work with them. It’s a very powerful narrative.”
Senior Liberal Democrat figures are also understood to be open to the notion of offering jihadis a way back home, so long as they renounce violence. Sir Menzies Campbell, a former party leader, said: “I don’t think we could give them a total amnesty, but we could treat them leniently in return for completing a de-radicalisation programme.”
The threat posed by Isis will be the subject of a day-long Commons debate on Wednesday. Conservative whips have begun to take soundings at Westminster over Tory MPs’ attitude to military action, indicating that the backbench mood was “hardening”.
However, Blears added: “There’s no point taking military action if you continue to have a supply chain of people ready to go here in Britain and across the world.”
More than 500 British citizens are believed to have travelled to the region since 2011. In today’s Observer, the controversial British Islamist Anjem Choudary acknowledges Abu Bakr al-Baghdadi, the leader of the self-declared Islamic State, as “the caliph of all Muslims and the prince of the believers”.
His support of Baghdadi comes days after a video was released showing the beheading of the American journalist Steven Sotloff, apparently by the same British jihadi member of Isis who had taken part in the decapitation of Sotloff’s fellow hostage James Foley.
It also follows a succession of atrocities perpetrated and disseminated by Isis fighters, including massacres of captured Syrian soldiers and reported genocidal attacks on the Yazidi minority. Human Rights Watch says it has identified sites of Isis mass killings in the Iraqi city of Tikrit.
Choudary, who has had links with a number of Muslims convicted under UK anti-terror laws, dismissed the allegations against Isis as propaganda, expressing his admiration for the jihadi state and claiming that Christians were voluntarily returning to Isis-ruled Mosul because they wanted to live under sharia law.
Meanwhile, a French journalist held hostage for months by Isis in Syria has revealed that one of his abductors was Mehdi Nemmouche, the Frenchman suspected of killing four people, two of them Israeli citizens, at the Brussels Jewish Museum this year. French magazine Le Point quoted its reporter, Nicolas Henin, saying that he had been tortured by Nemmouche, who is now in custody. Henin was held for a time with Foley and Sotloff and was released in April.
Peter Buckley says
The poor dears have found it wasn’t what they were expecting. Now they want to be “de-radicalised”:
http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/middle-east/syria-crisis-british-jihadists-becoming-disillusioned-at-fighting-rival-rebels-and-not-assad-regime-9713279.html
I wonder what the verdict of the British people would be to the question: “Should we let we let them back in?”…….
A no-brainer. But the political elite will get it wrong again no doubt.
However, there is hope:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7SrfTx9reIE
To all Brits: Vote UKIP.
Gail Griffin says
Did they murder Yasidi’s, Christians? Cut off heads,hands,stone women? Did they cart dismembered heads around for laughs? What did the dear lads do? If Britain needs propaganda tools, let in only two
That’s enough.
Brazooka says
The criminally incompetent should be treated like criminals.
KrazyKafir says
Former head of counter intelligence??? Wow, England really is done for.
Tradewinds says
Amazing, isn’t it? I think this man is what’s called **** for brains.
voegelinian says
This is not so amazing, let alone surprising. This kind of thinking exemplified by Richard Barrett, a former counter-terrorism chief at MI5 and MI6, flows logically from the dominant and mainstream PC MC meme: the TMOEWHNI meme: the Tiny Minority of Extremists Who Have Nothing To Do With Islam. Since the extraordinary fanaticism of Islam is ruled out as an explanation by PC MCs like Barrett (mainly because they don’t even know enough about Islam to know such a fanaticism exists as a virulently viable force in the world), they can fill the explanatory void with other explanations (poverty, difficulty assimilating, understandable resentment at our “racism”, etc.) much more readily amenable to ordinary measures.
voegelinian says
Damn html codes
tpellow says
Yes, this guy Barrett personifies all that’s wrong and ineffectual with British national ‘security.’
He demonstrates MI6’s failure to understand the fanatical and unrepentant nature of the Islamic jihad enemy- both inside and outside Britain.
MI6 is part of the problem.
RonaldB says
There could be a way to demonstrate reform:
1. Renounce Islam publicly and publically declare yourself an apostate who is no longer a Muslim
2. Publically criticize and revile Islam, Muhammad, and the Koran. Declare Muhammad was a fake prophet who did not speak with anyone but his own imagination. The Koran was written by men and not by any diety. Sharia law is abominable and a danger to western culture and western liberties.
It’s unlikely that even a takiyah artist would go this far as he would likely be killed by any Muslims he associated with.
The Other Jim says
Don’t forget #3;
3. State 1 & 2 while downing a pint of beer and eating a BLT sandwich.
That would be a pretty good filter on its own…
Gail Griffin says
Right!
joeb says
Already I have seen an Islamic charity in London saying they have been contacted by thirty jihadists in Syria saying they want to come home because the jihad is not what they thought it would be.
I call bullsh*t on this. What better way for jihadists to waltz back into the country unopposed? The authorities are just totally ridiculous…
Jay Boo says
It has been reported that after the recent beheadings of hostages by an ISIS member with a British accent the British public are more against letting jihadists back into Britain.
With the prospect of what they took for granted (being allowed back) no longer being an option, they are longing for the opportunity to get back before the door shuts.
Richie says
His comments would be as asinine as a post WW2 West Germany inviting former Nazis to come back to Germany to resume their positions in government
Jay Boo says
US Senator John McCain might ask them to invite some of their new found Muslim Syrian and Iraqi friends along as well.
Everyone could then shout (Allahu Akbar) which means “Thank God” according to John McCain.
Richie says
What are the odds the leftists in the UK government will promise government benefits to any Jihadist that comes home?
Do the leftists even care that these Jihadists have murdered people?
Liberalism IS a mental disorder
Jay Boo says
Not being allowed back would be a cold slap in their smug faces full entitlement expectations.
Eunice Well says
Did Richard Barrett have a stroke? What sort of idiocy is this idea?
Larry S says
Your comment shows no insight or even evidence of thought. Perchance did you have a lobotomy?
voegelinian says
What an odd retort in this context (also, amusingly, a spastic ejaculation of projection).
WVinMN says
No problem. After the dearies swear off violence, they all get to stay at Richard “Dick” Barrett’s place. Hey Dick, does the wife and daughters still live at home? You may want to encourage them go on “holiday” for awhile.
Charli Main says
Hey folks !! We have done our share of raping, looting, beheading and crucifying kaffirs, for Allah and Islam, so we would like to come back to the good old UK for a bit of R&R.
Now, where is that place called Rotherham ???
Jay Boo says
Allah of Islam is smiling.
Over 3 million Syrian refugees flee as foreign jackals continue to flow in to feed.
Allah is indignant, self-righteous and proud.
Allah commanded Muhammad to obey from what Muhammad told Allah to say.
Allah is a fatwa dispensing figment vending machine.
Allah the indignant figment
invented by the Wiz of Iz
SpiritOf1683 says
How does he know they’re ex-extremists? Has he asked them. Of course, they’ll say they’re ex-extremists – bare faced lying is permissible in the Koran to deceive unbelievers and further the Jihad. The fact is, if or when they return to the UK, they’re not facing the heavily-armed Peshmerga, but an unarmed population.
voegelinian says
“How does he know they’re ex-extremists? Has he asked them.”
His way of determining that is on one important level essentially no different than the implicit method irresponsibly assumed (but never adequately defended) by Jihad Watchers Philip Jihadski, Angemon, Wellington, gravenimage, Mirren, PRCS, Jay Boo, miriam… and countless others. I.e., just like Barrett, they have no method by which to discern the difference between harmless Muslims (assuming they even exist in viable numbers) and dangerous Muslims (not merely exploding or stabbing Muslims, but those aiding and abetting same in myriad ways it only takes an ounce of informed imagination to reasonably hypothesize) — forget about the easy “extremist” jihadists going to Syria: the real problem is any given Muslim (which would lead us rationally to translate that to all Muslims — equally (for, to generate a taxonomy of degrees of danger would be to repeat, under another form, the same error of thinking one can distinguish harmless from dangerous Muslims at all). And then — if our ability to think more than one thought at a time has not been strangely impaired — we also factor in an appropriately informed appreciation for the nature of the danger we have already concluded we must rationally impute to all Muslims equally: is the danger that they will all start washing their feet in public lavatories or pray in the street or simply demand Sharia? Or is the danger that innumerable numbers among them — whom we cannot adequately distinguish (remember, children, what we already said a mere couple of sentences up) from their surrounding seemingly harmless demographic — will most assuredly be — fuck that: ARE ALREADY NOW — plotting several horrific terror plots using any number of WMDs (chemical, biological (think Ebola), radioactive, or other ingeniously creative ways to mass-murder which only Muslims have the time and motivation to desire to cook up with deadly-obsessive fanaticism), resulting in attacks far worse than 911, and far more numerous than anything we have seen to date, likely killing and horribly wounding thousands, hundreds of thousands, possibly millions of our men, women and children.
voegelinian says
P.S.: re: cf. supra:
It’s easy for the JWers to point fingers at clowns like Barrett; but much harder, apparently, to look in the mirror.
Jay Boo says
I find it an honor to be on your ever expanding implicit method irresponsibly list
Champ says
Jay Boo, I think voeg is being *very* RUDE to you and those hes listed. His friendly fire approach is unproductive. It hasn’t worked for him at all thus far. He continues taking potshots at so many good and longtime posters, and he’s losing ground and friendships in the process. Anger and unfairness will be voeg’s downfall.
Jay Boo says
It is a shame Champ because he has a lot of potential.
But no big deal
I noticed he put PJ first and I was listed number 7 on his list so that might mean he does not see me as that bad after all.
Just another day in JW land
take care
Jay Boo says
voegelinian
Your all Muslims are the same is simple.
The subhuman meme is also simple.
Maybe now I will believe that Muslims are actually some extraterrestrial humanoid species much like the Klingons and the Romulans in Star Trek who are brutish yet possess metaphysical knowledge of the universe and hidden supernatural powers.
Why didn’t I see this clearly before.
Thanks again for the volcano full of data voegelinian.
voegelinian says
“Your all Muslims are the same is simple.
The subhuman meme is also simple.”
I didn’t say all Muslims are the same.
I also didn’t say Muslims are subhuman.
Nice straw man.
Jay Boo says
BTW where is that sock-puppet Vladimir Putin
WVinMN says
First off, whatever that was is practically unreadable. But, I’ll let you in on something regarding human behavior. Humans evolved to either fight or flee a threat, as opposed to “rationally pondering the actual potential for harm”. Which is why we remain a viable species on this planet. Islam is a threat, and therefore, so are it’s adherents. This has nothing to with “fairness”, “rational behavior” or any other tenant held high in a free and fair society, which of course, all go out the window when threatened by an abomination like Islam. We reacted the same way when confronting Imperial Japan and Nazi Germany, and the West will not defeat Islam until it engages these thugs in similar manner. The point is, when confronted with a diabolical threat, the correct and HUMAN response is to consider ANYTHING remotely associated with the threat as a THREAT itself! That you cannot discern the difference between such a reaction and that of Islam’s apologists is disgusting at best.
Champ says
voeg wrote:
His way of determining that is on one important level essentially no different than the implicit method irresponsibly assumed (but never adequately defended) by Jihad Watchers Philip Jihadski, Angemon, Wellington, gravenimage, Mirren, PRCS, Jay Boo, miriam… and countless others.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Your friendly-fire and calling people out by *name* is so incredibly RUDE! What is wrong with you?
You hurt the greater good here, so consult your own mirror for a change.
voegelinian says
Yes, hurt feelings are more important than the emergency Muslims represent to our societies.
Champ says
Of course voeg is minimizing–even dismissing–my main point, by chalking this up to mere “hurt feelings”. I clearly stated that he’s being RUDE to many good, longtime posters here by calling them out *by name* with his ridicule. This is not about “hurt feelings”, but about him being rude, childish and unproductive.
But more to the point, he doesn’t care about further fracturing friendships he once had among any of these longtime counter-jihad posters; and instead hes chosen to make himself into more of an enemy and a foe, than a forbearing friend in the counter-jihad movement.
I cannot think of a poorer strategy, than this …
Jay Boo says
@voegelinian
I said
“Your all Muslims are the same is simple.”
voegelinian you replied
“I didn’t say all Muslims are the same.”
True, you did not specifically say those exact words and I was summarizing my impression of the following which sure sounds a heck of a lot like your typical (all Muslims are the same) meme
—–
Also, The subhuman meme I mentioned is more implied here than overt as in some of your other comments,
— forget about the easy “extremist” jihadists going to Syria: the real problem is any given Muslim (which would lead us rationally to translate that to all Muslims — equally (for, to generate a taxonomy of degrees of danger would be to repeat, under another form, the same error of thinking one can distinguish harmless from dangerous Muslims at all). And then — if our ability to think more than one thought at a time has not been strangely impaired — we also factor in an appropriately informed appreciation for the nature of the danger we have already concluded we must rationally impute to all Muslims equally
voegelinian says
1) 1.3 billion Muslims
2) Let us hypothesize that
a) a certain number among #1 represents harmless Muslims; while, of course,
b) a certain number among #1 represents dangerous Muslims.
3) Now we factor in the fact that we cannot tell which category any given Muslim belongs in, given the problem of taqiyya.
4) Logically processing #1-3 results in a conclusion that all Muslims must be suspect.
It’s not our obligation or responsibility to winnow out the harmless from the dangerous; and the consequences of trusting Muslims on speciously superficial criteria (augmented by sentimental feelings that stroke the ego of our ethical narcissism), given the nature of the threat posed by the dangerous Muslims, are too deadly dire for us to be relaxing our suspicion in this regard, just so we can give innumerable Muslims (again, based on speciously superficial criteria augmented by our ethical narcissism) the benefit of the doubt — a benefit no Muslim has earned, and which millions show every day they do not, in fact, deserve.
Perhaps some day Jay Boo and other JW Softies will actually respond to my detailed argumentation with something approaching a responsive counter-argument. The chances of that, however, are probably slimmer even than Muslims converting to Moderation en masse.
gravenimage says
Voegelinian, slamming Anti-Jihadists like Wellington, Mirren, and myself because we “have no method by which to discern the difference between harmless Muslims (assuming they even exist in viable numbers) and dangerous Muslims (not merely exploding or stabbing Muslims, but those aiding and abetting same in myriad ways…)” is only the case *because there is not method*.
You have no method for such a thing either, because it does not exist. “Moderate” Muslims morph into active, Jihad-waging Muslims all the time. I have never heard Wellington or Mirren deny this, and I have never denied it myself—instead, I point it out all the time.
Your implication that I am somehow for untrammeled Muslim immigration into the free West is utterly false.
I have often defended you and your ideas because I believe that you have a lot of good things to say, but I am terribly tired of your snide comments about your fellow Anti-Jihadists.
Some of them may have been in response to attacks from others, but that is *certainly* not the case here.
You have lamented in the past that you have no friends here, and I have many times assured you that you do.
But you seem bound and determined to gratuitously alienate all the friends you have left.
And while you sneer at the idea of “hurt feelings” being an issue, gratuitously attacking and insulting your allies is also *not a wise strategy*—especially given the severity of the threat we commonly face.
I will continue to support your insights and analyses when called for—but your constant insistence on alienating your allies seems nothing less than nihilistic at this point.
Champ says
I completely agree, Graven …and I’m wondering if perhaps you’ve read my above comment to voeg with this date and timestamp:
Champ
September 7, 2014 at 8:06 pm
Wellington says
Your graciousness to voegelinian, gravenimage, speaks to who you are, though I think it will be of no account to him, which rather speaks to who he is.
voegelinian says
I’m not slamming; I’m laying down the gauntlet. Rhetorically, of course, as I don’t expect a responsive counter-argument (though I do agree with Doris Day to “never say never”).
gravenimage says
Thanks, Wellington and Champ. And yes, Champ—I read your excellent post, above.
Champ says
voeg wrote Gravenimage:
I’m not slamming; I’m laying down the gauntlet. Rhetorically, of course, as I don’t expect a responsive counter-argument (though I do agree with Doris Day to “never say never”).
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Interesting choice of words from voeg: “laying down the gauntlet” …since in medieval times a knight would lay down his gauntlet to challenge another knight to a fight.
But then voeg tries to soften his message by stating “Rhetorically, of course”. Oh really. Not so fast. I don’t think that voeg is necessarily being “rhetorical” at all in his comment, but that he is actually *challenging* those listed to a fight. The only way he’s being “rhetorical” is that he can’t literally throw down a gauntlet (a metal glove) here on this forum.
And since voeg is so-big on the deeper meaning of things, and he ALWAYS chooses his words very carefully, then *this* is what I think he meant …
What Is the Origin of the Saying “To Throw Down the Gauntlet”?
To throw down the gauntlet means to challenge. The term derives from the time of medieval knights when a knight would offer a challenge by throwing down his gauntlet (a metal glove which formed part of his suit of armour). The other knight accepted the challenge by picking up the gauntlet. To take up the gauntlet means to accept a challenge.
http://www.grammar-monster.com/sayings_proverbs/throw_down_gauntlet.htm
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
So voeg is right …
voeg wasn’t just “slamming” you guys, but he’s actually challenging y’all to a fight. What other kind of “challenge” is there? Wow seems that voeg has transformed himself into a new-breed-of-troll on Jihad Watch. Sorry if that sounds too harsh, to some, but I don’t know what else to call him at this point. Help me–but what else would you call his behavior?
gravenimage says
Voegelinian wrote:
I’m not slamming; I’m laying down the gauntlet. Rhetorically, of course, as I don’t expect a responsive counter-argument (though I do agree with Doris Day to “never say never”).
…………………………………
Voegelinian, I have offered a counter-argument several times. Recently, you asked me to lay out my views on the deportation question, and I did so at quite exhaustive length—and you never replied, although you posted other comments on that thread afterwards.
Wellington has also posted lengthy replies to you, including on this thread.
You may disagree with one or both of us, but the idea that no one has ever responded to you is simply not accurate.
I am not going to hash through in detail again, but what it comes down to for me is this: we have generally excellent laws, which have historically served us very well. We are not consistently enforcing those laws now when it comes to Islam.
I believe that pushing for new laws—especially one that is bound to be controversial even among intelligent people of good will, is at best a distraction, and at worst possibly harmful to the cause.
I assure you that if we and the rest of the West are at some point consistently enforcing our laws and that *this is not sufficient to the task of keeping us safe*, then I will certainly lobby for new laws.
None of this makes me weak on Islam or ignorant of its threat—despite what you seem to believe.
Despite our disagreement on this issue, I hope that you are well.
voegelinian says
gravenimage wrote:
“Voegelinian, I have offered a counter-argument several times. Recently, you asked me to lay out my views on the deportation question, and I did so at quite exhaustive length—and you never replied, although you posted other comments on that thread afterwards.”
I read it, but it was riddled with misunderstandings and fallacious reasoning, and it presented a tedious project to have to unravel and set straight. Given that all these misunderstandings and fallacious reasonings in a complex interlocking conglomeration involved an apparent ignoring of my repeated argumentations I have provided dozens of times in the past few years in dozens of different Jihad Watch threads, which then presented the weary & dreary prospect of having to repeat myself for the umpteenth time (something I’ve had to do with Wellington numerous times).
“Wellington has also posted lengthy replies to you, including on this thread.
You may disagree with one or both of us, but the idea that no one has ever responded to you is simply not accurate.”
I didn’t say no one has ever responded to me. I choose my words carefully (though apparently it doesn’t do much good); I said: “actually respond to my detailed argumentation with something approaching a responsive counter-argument.” The key word is “responsive” (to all the points of my argumentation). Thus far, no one I have read has done that.
I am not going to hash through in detail again, but what it comes down to for me is this: we have generally excellent laws, which have historically served us very well. We are not consistently enforcing those laws now when it comes to Islam.
If you had read me (particularly me exchanges with Wellington) you’d know that I agree that we don’t have to change or add any law — neither the U.S.A. needs to do this, nor any Western country — because no democratic country needs to change or add laws in order to defend its citizens from mass-murder. It’s that simple. The only way this maddening prevarication is able to continue from the Jihad Watch Softies on this must be, logically (given that no democratic nation would refrain from defending its society from mass-murder and destruction of infrastructure), to conceive of the threat as not so horrific and pervasive among the general Muslim demographic in the West that it would require anything that will violate their comfort zone and make them feel bad about themselves for advocating collective measures like deportation.
Angemon says
voegelinian posted:
“I didn’t say no one has ever responded to me. I choose my words carefully (though apparently it doesn’t do much good); I said: “actually respond to my detailed argumentation with something approaching a responsive counter-argument.” The key word is “responsive” (to all the points of my argumentation). Thus far, no one I have read has done that.”
No, the keywords here are “or so you say”. That’s how you handle criticism: you deem it invalid and ignore it. And you get called on that, hence why your “JihadWatchers List” is ever growing.
“If you had read me (particularly me exchanges with Wellington) you’d know that I agree that we don’t have to change or add any law”
Your “Total Deportation” theory was based on kicking people out of a country, including native citizens, due to their professed religion. That is impossible to do under the current US’s law system and Constitution.
“because no democratic country needs to change or add laws in order to defend its citizens from mass-murder.”
So how would you go on about deporting all muslims, including native citizens, due to their professed religion under the current US law system and Constitution without adding or changing laws?
“The only way this maddening prevarication is able to continue from the Jihad Watch Softies on this must be, logically (given that no democratic nation would refrain from defending its society from mass-murder and destruction of infrastructure), to conceive of the threat as not so horrific and pervasive among the general Muslim demographic in the West that it would require anything that will violate their comfort zone and make them feel bad about themselves for advocating collective measures like deportation.”
I don’t think anyone here ever opposed deportation. Not as it currently stands anyway – you’re a foreign citizen, you break a law, you get the boot. However, the kind of solution you propose – kicking out native citizens based on their professed religion – is seditious, anti-constitutional, and bears the hallmark of a totalitarian system, hence why those you call “Softies” have called you up on that. Of course, making a distinction between deportation and the “Total Deportation” you peddle is not in your best interest, so you simply don’t do it and try to claim the “Softies” are against deportation.
Now, you say that “ we don’t have to change or add any law“. Under the current law system how would you go about “deporting” a Native American convert to islam who can trace his lineage back to Pre-Columbian era?
voegelinian says
correction: second to last paragraph, meant to mark off with quotation marks
also had an incomplete sentence in my first paragraph, but the gist was there anyway
gravenimage says
Voegelinian wrote:
…ignoring of my repeated argumentations…
………………………….
I have not ignored them, Voeg—I have merely disagreed with your conclusions on a certain issue.
What you mean is that you are certain that if anyone differs with you on any point that it must be because they are simply too dense to comprehend your argument.
We actually agree on many points—but you consider anyone who disagrees with you to be both incapable of sound reasoning and guilty of personal betrayal.
Sadly, not much of a basis from which to proceed, I’m afraid.
Wellington says
You’re absolutley correct, voegelinian, that I have no fool-proof (or even half-proof) way of determining dangerous, i.e., very devout, Muslims from harmless, i.e., lazy, Muslims. Ditto for Neo-Nazis, American Communist Party members, KKK members, etc. (and yes, I am fully aware that dangerous Muslims right now are a far greater danger to American liberties and the American Constitution than are the other dangerous jokers I named).
But what needs to be done here is not some grand deportation scheme, which is illegal, unconstitutional, unrealistic and unnecessary (I wish you’d finally get this but I know you won’t). Rather, a two-fold plan to effectively dealing with Muslims in America should include 1) identifying Islam as a negative, as an ideology just as worhty of scorn as other totalitarian ideologies and heinous belief systems; and 2) prosecuting any damn Muslim who breaks American law acting in the name of their wretched belief system (just as America has done, though not always at the most efficient level, with Nazis, Communists, KKK members and Baltimore Ravens fans—–just kidding about the last group but I just had to put this in since I’m a life-long Steelers fan).
The second element has actually been implemented by American government officials often times. The real problem is that the first element still remains completely unrealized by the American powers that be. This is the crux of the matter. IF Islam is looked upon as a negative by most everyone, including the still clueless American elites, and IF every damn time some Muslim clown breaks American law while acting in the name of his decrepit faith, then Islam will no longer be a major problem in America. Added to these two “requirements” could be ancillary, though still important, measures like severely restricting Muslim immigration and stripping US citizenship of Muslims who are particularly egregious, which is to say extra devout and who act upon such warped devotion.
Done here. Have a nice day, voegelinian.
voegelinian says
“and yes, I am fully aware that dangerous Muslims right now are a far greater danger to American liberties and the American Constitution than are the other dangerous jokers I named). ”
I’ve already pointed out dozens of times now how this is not my main point. The main problem is not that Muslims are a danger to American liberties and the Constitution: it is that Muslims have been killing us; are killing us now; and plan on killing us in ways far more horrific and numerous than 911.
Wellington says
I know it’s not your main point, but nonetheless you have made it a point in the past so that’s why I addressed it. As for Muslims now killing us, with every intention to kill more of us in the future, I submit that if the American government (including the courts) and law enforcement would just realize and admit that Islam is a horrible ideology that is inimical to so many of the basic principles found in the Constitution, then this would be enough to deal with Islam in America. Deportation of Muslims en masse is not necessary nor realistic nor even lawful even assuming that Islam is finally identified for the wretched belief system that it is.
Bezelel says
The “religion” aspect and the protection enjoyed by that status is to me the most ridiculous and dangerous thing about the situation. Is their no way to curb or confine their practice up front in the open so that their is some definition to it?
voegelinian says
“I know it’s not your main point, but nonetheless you have made it a point in the past so that’s why I addressed it.”
1) I never address the point except after someone else (like yourself) fallaciously brings it up.
2) Even if I had raised it before, it’s immaterial to the protracted emergency we’re in (not to mention to what you were responding to on this thread).
” As for Muslims now killing us, with every intention to kill more of us in the future, I submit that if the American government (including the courts) and law enforcement would just realize and admit that Islam is a horrible ideology that is inimical to so many of the basic principles found in the Constitution, then this would be enough to deal with Islam in America.”
The mere mental act of realizing would be enough to “deal with Islam in America”? How does that work? Or would that mental act be followed by behavior and policy? If so, what behaviors and policies specifically? You seem to like to keep that part vague.
Deportation of Muslims en masse is not necessary nor realistic nor even lawful even assuming that Islam is finally identified for the wretched belief system that it is.”
For the umpteenth time, it’s not about how “wretched” Islam is; plenty of belief systems and cults could be as wretched or even more so (however hard it is to imagine that), and I still would agree their members should not be deported — as long as they were not killing us and planning horrific attacks in the future.
gravenimage says
Voegelinian wrote:
I’ve already pointed out dozens of times now how this is not my main point. The main problem is not that Muslims are a danger to American liberties and the Constitution: it is that Muslims have been killing us; are killing us now; and plan on killing us in ways far more horrific and numerous than 911.
………………………………
Voegelinian, as you well know, these two things are entirely of a piece for Jihadists.
They love terrorizing and killing us, but this is *not* an end in itself—the aim is to cow Infidels and impose Shari’ah law on us.
And that means that they are a danger to our liberties and to our Constitution and laws.
Some states have already acted with bans on Shari’ah law—this needs to be universal, and the bans must have teeth.
voegelinian says
Quoting me —
“The main problem is not that Muslims are a danger to American liberties and the Constitution: it is that Muslims have been killing us; are killing us now; and plan on killing us in ways far more horrific and numerous than 911.”
gravenimage wrote:
“Voegelinian, as you well know, these two things are entirely of a piece for Jihadists.”
“They love terrorizing and killing us, but this is *not* an end in itself—the aim is to cow Infidels and impose Shari’ah law on us.”
“And that means that they are a danger to our liberties and to our Constitution and laws.”
I didn’t say that Muslims are not a danger to our liberties and to our Constitution and laws. I said that this is not the main problem — and the context of my postings to Wellington in this thread (and in over two dozen in the past) is obviously that it’s not the main problem now because the other problem, of terrorism, is an emergency. When the house is on fire, you don’t sit down at the kitchen table and talk about the problem of the termites undermining the foundations; or, when the house is on fire, if the husband and father is a wifebeater and abuser of his children, one doesn’t schedule an intervention for later that afternoon. It’s almost surreal how so many Jihad Watchers can’t seem to grasp this basic point. They seem to be allowing so many fallacious red herrings cloud their judgement in this regard.
gravenimage says
Understanding why someone is setting those ‘fires’ is not a “red herring”, Voegelinian—nor is understanding that they have more techniques for accomplishing those evil aims besides arson.
Angemon says
voegelinian posted:
“His way of determining that is on one important level essentially no different than the implicit method irresponsibly assumed (but never adequately defended) by Jihad Watchers Philip Jihadski, Angemon, Wellington, gravenimage, Mirren, PRCS, Jay Boo, miriam… and countless others.”
Voeg makes erroneous, or outright false, assumptions about other JW’ers. No wonder he’s been described as a “poor thinker” and a “unfair judge”. Nothing new to see here, run along. But think about this: voeg spends more time on JW criticizing, demonizing and undermining posters who routinely engage and confront mslims and islamic apologists than criticizing said muslims and islamic apologists. If voeg is as voeg does then he’s not a counter-jihadi but a counter-counter-jihadi.
Champ says
voeg spends more time on JW criticizing, demonizing and undermining posters who routinely engage and confront mslims and islamic apologists than criticizing said muslims and islamic apologists. If voeg is as voeg does then he’s not a counter-jihadi but a counter-counter-jihadi.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Exactly, Angemon! Yes, I have noticed the same disturbing trend from voeg over the past few years, and this has become *much* worse over the last year, or so.
Mirren10 says
” … Jihad Watchers Philip Jihadski, Angemon, Wellington, gravenimage, Mirren, PRCS, Jay Boo, miriam… and countless others.”
I couldn’t be in better company, (with one exception) so cheers, voeg ! 🙂
Ayatrollah says
Since Islam in the one true religion, and Muslims Allah favorite, England would be racist and hateful not to forgive these “indiscretions” and allow these pious believers back in the country. They were only misguided, by the likes of Robert Spenser.
tpellow says
Clearly, Barrett is on a different, insecure planet.
For his information, this is the London ‘Sunday Times’ (£) today-
” Jihadist fears prompt SAS patrols of shopping centres”
[Opening excerpt]:-
“Undercover soldiers have been deployed at four big shopping centres in London and the West Midlands amid fears of a terrorist gun attack by British jihadists returning from Syria, security sources said yesterday.
“With a heightened threat level because of events in Syria and Iraq and the anniversary of the September 11 attacks in America this week, dozens of special forces troops have flown to the capital to support armed units from Scotland Yard’s elite SCO19 specialist firearms teams.”
http://www.thesundaytimes.co.uk/sto/news/uk_news/National/Terrorism/article1455910.ece
Michael Copeland says
“Undermining the terrorist narrative” sounds like repudiating the command to kill kuffar wherever you find them. As this is a Koranic command that involves denying a verse in the Koran. This is an offence in Sharia law that calls for the death penalty, which can be carried out, vigilante style, by anyone without repercussion “since it is killing someone who deserves to die” (Manual of Islamic Law 08.7(7), o8.4).
The ex-MI6 chief needs to inform himself on Islamic Law.
The Manual, “Reliance of the Traveller”, is a free download.
somehistory says
The *real* MI5 and 6 is on television.
And the beast of Revelation (chapters 13; 16-17) keeps roaring and devouring (until Revelation 19 is fulfilled when the beast is destroyed).
Jay Boo says
Islam is full of misery whether Muslims admit it or not.
There must be millions of Muslims who fantasize about escaping on their own to a secular country without telling their neighbors.
For wealthy Muslims this might be an option, to establish a whole new Islam free identity.
But of course,
Islamic misery loves company.
Islam is such a hellhole that Muslims are forbidden from leaving.
Islam can’t even sell itself.
They must celebrate every time another jihadi gets wasted away.
One less A-hole to harass an apostate.
duh_swami says
‘Going abroad to fight’, is a smoke screen for going to another country to commit multiple murders, including children.
What the govs should do is announce that those returning will be arrested and charged with murder or conspiracy to commit murder.
Bezelel says
I don’t see why treason isn’t being mentioned either.
Soloview says
I guess in the political elite don’t grasp the simple idea that the surest way to make barbarism prosper and grow is to talk high-minded rubbish. How does one apologize for participation in acts of mass slaughter and revolting barbarism ? Can one really say, “o man I really am sorry I was hanging around guys who raped, cut heads off and buried live children ?”, “I was only following orders ?” . How about the George-Constanza spiel : “Are these things frowned upon ? Because if I had known I would not have been participating.” The only way one can describe Richard Barrett’s thinking politely is “stupid”.
zulu says
How British female jihadis are running Islamic State’s religious police force that punishes women for ‘un-Islamic’ behaviour
Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2746765/How-British-female-jihadis-running-Islamic-States-religious-police-force-Syria.html#ixzz3CeCRJCZk
Follow us: @MailOnline on Twitter | DailyMail on Facebook
Peter Buckley says
How ironic when jihadists are apparently scared stiff of dying at the hands of female Peshmerga fighters:
“The Islamic State fighters are petrified of dying at the hands of women fighting alongside Kurdistan’s Peshmerga, as many fear that getting killed by a female would mar their chance to go to heaven.”
https://in.news.yahoo.com/jihadists-petrified-dying-hands-female-pkk-fighters-113043059.html
Hilarious…….
Jay Boo says
If we follow Islam logic …
What do we do to those who strive to cause mischief in our lands.
Hey! it is their own words
Beagle says
Indeed. I find myself getting very Torah/Old Testament about things like this. I prefer to think of it as the Strong Golden Rule Approach.
“So, you claim you believe that, huh? Let’s see!”
http://islamforbids.com says
Why ,When it comes to Islam suicide is better than resistance
Beagle says
I thought I was mostly joking when I named “Mahmoud Jihad Shahid Sayf Al-Dawla Islam,” or whatever it was, as the director of MI6. Every time I think I must be overly pessimistic someone or something comes along and points in the other direction.
What’s the point of counter-terror if the so-called experts want to turn proven jihadis loose on their subject population? I think the UK and the US could save billions of dollars spent, allegedly, on counter-terror and be safer.
Bezelel says
The reading of too many books has driven him mad, ( Cervantes)
Or, “You can justify anything if you try hard enough”
Adolphus Leopanzus says
“(C)ontroversial British Islamist Anjem Choudary acknowledges Abu Bakr al-Baghdadi, the leader of the self-declared Islamic State, as “the caliph of all Muslims and the prince of the believers”.
Choudary, who has had links with a number of Muslims convicted under UK anti-terror laws, dismissed the allegations against Isis as propaganda, expressing his admiration for the jihadi state and claiming that Christians were voluntarily returning to Isis-ruled Mosul because they wanted to live under sharia law.”
As long as Choudary is so openly admiring of ISIS and its goals, Britain should freeze or withhold all of his and his wives’ properties and bank accounts and all monies going into them, take away his passport(s) and send him over to the ISIS area, preferably an ISIS opponent-controlled section and let him be their supporter more directly.
Jay Boo says
Anjem Choudary is causing mischief in our lands.
If we go by their own rules the penalty is much greater than merely to …
“freeze or withhold all of his and his wives’ properties and bank accounts and all monies going into them, take away his passport(s) and send him over to the ISIS area”
But that would do as well.
pongidae rex says
The magical thinking of ‘multiculturalism’ is nothing other than brainwashing. We are being led by people who have been brainwashed to the extent that they are incapable of reasoning from facts to conclusions. This is not mere differences of political opinion, it is the inability to reason outside a politically defined box. It is really discouraging to watch.
Larry S says
I’m inclined to agree with Mr. Barrett. Gauging the sincerity of disavowal of ISIS and violence is the crux of the matter. The history of totalitarianism is replete with people who turned against their former ideology. Such people proved to be some of the most effective fighters against communism and have included lumunaries like Whittaker Chambers and Ronald Radosh.
Given their propensity toward violence, returning jihadis would need to be monitored, and should, as a condition for re-entry, perhaps sign legally binding statements relinquishing certain “rights to privacy”. I would not assume that redemption is not possible for such people.
Beagle says
Never mind the history of jihadis lying, completing so-called
‘deradicalization’ programs, and returning to the fight in numbers. Hope over experience I say!
SpiritOf1683 says
These won’t turn against their ideology unless they become apostates. They are Jihadis who are wanting to live to fight another day against softer targets – presumably in Britain or other Western countries rather than get sent to Satan by the Peshmerga, the Syrian Army or even ISIS who are seeing them as deserters and will put the blade through their necks if they get their hands on them. And legally binding statements are there to be broken by them, because the Koran permits lying to infidels.
Mirren10 says
” The history of totalitarianism is replete with people who turned against their former ideology. Such people proved to be some of the most effective fighters against communism and have included lumunaries like Whittaker Chambers and Ronald Radosh.”
Whilst islam has totalitarianism in common with communism, (hence the support and apologia it gets from leftard fools) it is at heart, a **religion** (albeit a wicked and repulsive one), not a political system.
So I’m afraid your analogy is false. There is little more fanatical that a mohammedan fanatic, and what makes their fanaticism so dangerous to the rest of us, is that fanaticism has a **religious** base, bound up with concepts of ‘allah’, heaven and hell, and the *religious* duty of every pious mohammedan to spread islam, ”until all the world is for allah”.
Certainly, some mohammedans have apostasised from this evil filth; it is definitely possible for these people to renounce, and turn their backs on their vile religion, but they must do this **publicly**, and become rational decent human beings again, whilst also being aware their apostasy may well make them targets for more pious mohammedans, who perceive it as their **religious duty** to murder those who apostasise. ” Whoever changes his Islamic religion, kill him” is the command of mohammed.
This is not at all the same as turning one’s back on a **political** ideology. There is a reason why high profile apostates, such as Ayaan Hirsi Ali, and others, must live with constant protection from death threats.
voegelinian says
Not only that, but Larry S.’s lumping together of the great Whittaker Chambers with the scurrilous hack Radosh (as anyone who has bothered to have the civic duty to follow the sordid Diana West Affair and to actually read her scrupulously argued Rebuttal to Radosh and his slimy supporters) reveals that Larry S. is out to lunch.
gravenimage says
Whittaker Chambers and Ronald Radosh* were not beheading victims for Joseph Stalin.
There are a lot of things that people can come back from—all sorts of ignorance, ill-considered decisions, and errors in judgement.
But *committing atrocities* is a very different matter—and this is what most “Western” Muslims have been doing in the Islamic State.
And unlike the early days of Soviet Russia, Nazi Germany, and Mao’s China, there *is no plausible deniability* here. I am *no* fan of ignorance—particularly willful ignorance—but early on even some intelligent people were fooled into believing that these societies were benignant and good for their people.
But the news out of the Islamic State *from day one* has been replete with mass beheadings, sex slavery, and the genocide of minorities.
I can believe that some näifs have been snowed by the bullsh*t about Islam being a “religion of peace”, but I don’t believe that *anyone* can consider the Islamic State benign.
Even the jaw-droppingly clueless Richard Barrett acknowledges that these “reformed” Muslims would have to be “ex-extremists”.
(* and no, I would not otherwise link these two, who varied so greatly in stature)
Champ says
“Isis fighters must be allowed back into UK, says ex-MI6 chief,”
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Whoa! Is Richard Barrett completely off his rocker?!! These ISIS fighters should be banned from EVER coming back “home”. I am stunned (but not surprised, really) that such a dangerous idea is being proposed here. Barrett’s idea takes the cake, and I find it hard to believe that he was EVER a counter-terrorism chief serving in any capacity …wow ‘the idiots are in charge’. And “The Observer” needs to give a Voice to someone else who can think clearly and also with a backbone.
Tradewinds says
In England the inmates are clearly running the asylum.
Old African lady with no teeth says
Ex extremists???? how does he know they are Ex or Y or Z?. I mean talking like this is so immoral and having jihadists back is immoral.
PJG says
I am trying to imagine the advertisement in the job page:
De-radicaliser of post-service jihadis required.
12 positions available
Excellent salary with opportunities for promotion
Preparatory training offerred (at full pay)
Halal lunch and prayer rooms provided
Schedule to be negotiated
Muslim applicants only
Qualifications in Islamic Studies essential
This is an on-going position
Apply now…make it a career!
gravenimage says
Former global counter-terrorism director of MI6: UK should encourage “ex-extremists” to “come home” from Iraq and Syria
………………………….
What leads this fool to believe that they are “ex-extremists”?
This this idiot was a former *counter-terrorism director of MI6* makes this all the more dismaying.
gravenimage says
I was researching a related matter when I ran across this excellent analysis of the Islamization of Britain in 2013 by the Gatestone Institute in 2013—including the banning of insane banning of Robert Spencer and Pamela Geller.
http://www.gatestoneinstitute.org/4112/islamization-britain
Well worth reading for a good overview. It’s not pretty, though…
Charli Main says
Suicide by Islam. If you jump into a snake, pit you are going to get bitten.
Mirren10 says
”Well worth reading for a good overview. It’s not pretty, though…”
No. It’s bloody depressing.
Hope you’re well, dear graven ! ( from one ‘softie’ to another 🙂 )
gravenimage says
It *Is* depressing, Mirren—and it outrages, as well. And we Yanks are on the same suicidal path, as is most of the West.
And while I very much realize you meant it tongue-in-cheek, I don’t consider either of us soft on the threat of Islam *at all*, despite Voegelinian’s characterization.
One can disagree on strategy without—as he sees it—either being soft on Jihad or failing to grasp the grim severity of the threat.
On another matter, I certainly should have proofread that second comment before posting. Quite embarrassing.
tpellow says
Excellent arguments, below, which Barrett needs to have applied to strengthen U.K’s woefully weak national security.
“FIVE REASONS WHY WE SHOULD NOT WELCOME BRITISH JIHADISTS HOME.”
By James Brandon.
http://www.breitbart.com/Breitbart-London/2014/09/08/5-reasons-why-we-should-not-welcome-British-jihadists-home
Nina says
This guy is not even living in the UK, for him it is easy to say this kind of silly things, he is in NY not in London and it is not going to affect him, innocent British people are going to pay the price if the Jihadists come back. And many wealthy immigrants may leave the country and immigrate to somewhere else. Modern Britain there are a lot of people like him in charge and managing big jobs even they don’t have any clue about anything many people like him are running Britain today. It is unbelievable!.
Mirren10 says
“These are the people who can expose the true nature of the Islamic State and its leadership. Their stories of brutality and the motives behind it will be far more credible and persuasive than the rhetoric of men in suits”
This wicked tool/fool is tilting at a windmill; in this case, the ”Islamic State”. It is **islam** whose true nature is brutality, the IS is merely a manifestation of the evil and cruelty of islam itself.
I find it very difficult to believe Barrett is totally unaware of this, which leads one to wonder what the true agenda is, here.
I’m probably falling into the trap of conspiracy theory, here, ( and no doubt some one will tell me to remove my tinfoil hat) but I have sometimes conjectured that all this islamopandering, and refusal to recognise what islam actually **teaches**, is not based on ignorance and wishful thinking. I don’t know about the US, but in the UK, it will be perfectly within the power of the government to declare a state of martial law, in the event of civil war on the streets. Such a declaration would result in the total destruction of all our freedoms, and ensconce the ruling elites in a position of absolute, and never ending power.
voegelinian says
Okay; I usually avoid Angemon’s posts like the Plague of late, but in this context, I thought I’d take a gander, and see if there may be an infinitessimal chance I will fall off my chair in shock that he presented something actually responsive to what I actually wrote, rather than some pseudo-argument manipulating the tissue of red herrings and straw men he normally indulges in… So here goes, hand me my snorkel and fins, I’m going down into the treatment plant waters…
Angemon says
voegelinian posted:
“Okay; I usually avoid Angemon’s posts like the Plague of late”
And yet, you have no problem naming me out of nowhere or ascribing false statements to me, knowing fully well that I’ll reply and call you out on it.
“thought I’d take a gander, and see if there may be an infinitessimal chance I will fall off my chair in shock that he presented something actually responsive to what I actually wrote, rather than some pseudo-argument manipulating the tissue of red herrings and straw men he normally indulges in…”
This is funny because several users (myself included) have called you out on your strawmen and inability to give a straight answer to a question. Something something about spastic ejaculation of projection and looking yourself in the mirror, mr. Counter-Counter Jihad?
voegelinian says
Well that was relatively painless; a quick pass through cloudy yellow waters but thankfully no substantive turds this time.
gravenimage says
These unceasing, nasty insults at the expense of one’s own allies are just unseemly. I don’t know what you hope to accomplish with this approach.
Angemon says
I’m guessing he’s baiting for insults so he can play the victim. Can you imagine what his reaction would be if i were the one spontaneously naming him out of nowhere for no good reason and ascribing false claims to him (like he did to me and others not only here but on several other topics) or making this kind of remarks about his posts?
gravenimage says
Probably so.
Tom W Harris says
Barrett isn’t a leftist or naive. He’s an old-school Arabist showing his true loyalties.
The rot in England, and Europe generally, goes very deep. It’s a century-old process, at least.
As for the US – we’re next. I think we can reverse it.
Mirren10 says
”The rot in England, and Europe generally, goes very deep. It’s a century-old process, at least.
As for the US – we’re next. I think we can reverse it”
I *so* much hope you are right. question: How do we reverse it ?
Tom W Harris says
That’s the question, isn’t it? And for sure I don’t have the definitive answer (if there is one). But this site is part of the response. Of all the anti-jihad sites, this is the one that keeps its eye on the ball.
voegelinian says
Well, the consensus in the Counter-Jihad is that we can’t deport all Muslims. So we’ll just have to trust the millions of Muslims in the West who seem harmless and hope they won’t enable horrific terror plots in the future (and their number will surely grow over the next few decades as the West slowly stirs its sleeping limbs to wake up to even the half-ass measure of limiting immigration). I wish I had the optimism of the majority Counter-Jihadists on this.
Angemon says
voegelinian posted:
“Well, the consensus in the Counter-Jihad is that we can’t deport all Muslims.”
That’s not the consensus in the Counter-Jihad as much as it is a realistic approach to the current laws and Constitution. Why would you deport all muslim? Because of the religion they profess? What of native citizens who convert? I still haven’t got an answer from you on how would you “deport” native citizens, especially since you’re now claiming that you don’t need to add laws. Under the current law system in the US how would you go about “deporting” a Native American convert to islam who can trace his lineage back to Pre-Columbian era?
gravenimage says
Voegelinian, pretending that anyone who isn’t spending their time pushing their fellow Counter Jihadists on total deportation is naïve, starry-eyed and passive when it comes to the threat from Muslims is a complete mischaracterization.
voegelinian says
“Voegelinian, pretending that anyone who isn’t spending their time pushing their fellow Counter Jihadists on total deportation is naïve, starry-eyed and passive when it comes to the threat from Muslims is a complete mischaracterization.”
Straw man. I’m not complaining about JWers not “spending their time pushing their fellow Counter Jihadists on total deportation” nor am I pretending that they have to be doing so to qualify as not being naive, starry-eyed, passive etc. I’ve already expressed multiple times every which way but Sunday what I’m complaining about, and you mischaracterized it yet again. And this is not the only statement you’ve made that has done this; pretty much every statement you’ve made about this subject vis-a-vis me is riddled with such mischaracterizations. It’s exhausting even to think about.
Angemon says
voegelinian posted:
“Straw man. […] I’ve already expressed multiple times every which way but Sunday what I’m complaining about, and you mischaracterized it yet again. And this is not the only statement you’ve made that has done this; pretty much every statement you’ve made about this subject vis-a-vis me is riddled with such mischaracterizations. It’s exhausting even to think about.”
And now you’re starting to grasp what it feels like reading your replies. Still waiting for your answer on where would you deport a Native American US citizen convert to islam, and on what basis…
Dinth says
I completely dont understand that. We have number of people in our country, which would be glad to die killing other brits and are extremely dangerous. We have excellent opportunity to get rid of them from our country, and what we are doing? Taking them passports to force them stay here, making them even more frustrated.