/tg/Station 13

Bottom post of the previous page:

ColonicAcid wrote:the current information out there is that she was radicalised at 13 and moved to syria at 15.

that gives two whole years where the government knew she was indoctrinated and they still allowed a minor to get on a plane to turkey.

only after the 3 girls including begum moved to syria did the government actually put a travel ban on the entire school.

How do you know the gov knew that she was radicalized the moment it happened, not just learned about it later?

Why not, like, put her in jail? Isn't that what happens when someone commits a crime?

>paying to feed and house someone who decided to join a terrorist organization and fight in their war and STILL remains a fanatic, with no change in sight

leibniz wrote:>paying to feed and house someone who decided to join a terrorist organization and fight in their war and STILL remains a fanatic, with no change in sight

>paying to feed literally any other dangerous violent criminal

is there a line somewhere?

ColonicAcid wrote:also no way jose you're going to fix the "loophole" because being stateless is against the UN Conventions on Statelessness which the UK is a signatory.

this shit will be appealed in the court since she's not syrias problem and not bangladesh's problem since she was born, bred and radicalised in the UK. The UK failed her in allowing her to be radicalised at an early age online and now you're facing the consequences of your actions. This is not something you can just be like "lmao you're not our problem" and leave her in syria because she is 100% your problem.

Actually she was born in Bangladesh and only moved to the UK when she was three

leibniz wrote:

ColonicAcid wrote:the current information out there is that she was radicalised at 13 and moved to syria at 15.

that gives two whole years where the government knew she was indoctrinated and they still allowed a minor to get on a plane to turkey.

only after the 3 girls including begum moved to syria did the government actually put a travel ban on the entire school.

How do you know the gov knew that she was radicalized the moment it happened, not just learned about it later?

because the government knows when i shit, who i text and when i breathe.


we're a nanny state my guy of course they knew as soon as it happened, mainly because she was radicalised online.

Malkevin wrote:

ColonicAcid wrote:also no way jose you're going to fix the "loophole" because being stateless is against the UN Conventions on Statelessness which the UK is a signatory.

this shit will be appealed in the court since she's not syrias problem and not bangladesh's problem since she was born, bred and radicalised in the UK. The UK failed her in allowing her to be radicalised at an early age online and now you're facing the consequences of your actions. This is not something you can just be like "lmao you're not our problem" and leave her in syria because she is 100% your problem.

Actually she was born in Bangladesh and only moved to the UK when she was three

okay so let me correct myself. she was brought up in england, went to english schools, and was radicalised in england. why should bangladesh have to deal with her shit when they had literally nothing to do with her getting in the situation she was in???

Why should the British taxpayer pay for her child that was concieved whilst she was banging ISIS?

Yeah, I doubt Bangladesh will want her either. So she'll be passed around back and forth (I'm sure she's used to that in the ISIS camps).
Too fucking bad.

It's not like she's matured and regrets joining ISIS, she still supports them (with all their butchery and heads in baskets) and still thinks the Manchester bombings were justified.
Fuck her.

And balls to the UN regulations too, what are they going to do - send us an angry letter?

UN ultimately can't do shit, and I happen to agree with revoking her citizenship

Hell, not just hers, but if you leave your country to go join an organization that actively opposes your country, then exile should be the bare minimum punishment, and a bullet should you come back anyway

Her child has nothing to do with this, what if a british woman is kidnapped, raped and impregnated by ISIS, should the british taxpayer have to pay for the child? Is a child born of rape different from one born of consensual sex? The mother is british, so the child is british as well. Also if he is raised by ISIS, he'll become another terrorist, if he's raised in the UK (away from her obviously) he can potentially become a productive citizen

She has been revoked from Holland too where her husband is incarcerated, she hoped to wait for his release with her baby (naturally using the child as a shield/tool, probably told and advised to) but eventually she is going to be barred across the entirety of Europe wherever she puts down ties if this continues on, with Bangladesh having international pressure put on it to bend the rules to keep her contained most likely.

A cruicial live-grenade thrown into your arguements is that she feels perfectly justified in her actions as a radical terrorist's squeeze and actively partook in that 'lifestyle' without qualms while people were being beheaded for extreme ideology all around her and found the lifestyle attractive; only returning to the society she abandoned for 'greener grass' now her adoptive one has fallen apart.

No grooming at a young age required having departed at 16 and a yound adult, for whichever reason or just nature she went willingly and has come grovelling back.

If he'a raised in the UK he'll be told every day that its The West's fault he doesnt have a daddy and that no one at school likes him and he'll stab a granny while screaming Allahu

Grazyn wrote:Her child has nothing to do with this, what if a british woman is kidnapped, raped and impregnated by ISIS, should the british taxpayer have to pay for the child? Is a child born of rape different from one born of consensual sex? The mother is british, so the child is british as well. Also if he is raised by ISIS, he'll become another terrorist, if he's raised in the UK (away from her obviously) he can potentially become a productive citizen

Except the mother isn't British anymore and she's about to drop the anchor baby Durkdurkfuckistan

And your example is completely different, that baby will be raised to hate the goatfuckers whereas her baby is guaranteed to buy an oversized jacket and rucksack.
---
What if she had an Italian passport?

Wait what? I don't know how the law works in the UK but I assume that if the mother was British at the time the baby was born then the baby is British too. What happens to the mother now shouldn't affect the baby's citizenship.

And if she had an Italian passport I guess we'd just jail her or give them to the Americans to extraordinary rendition like we did with that radical imam some years ago.

She hasn't dropped the brat yet, that's why she's desperate to get her citizen back.

Also malkevin youre wrong she was born in the fucking uk...

Shes most definitely your problem and javid is a little snake. This shit is definitely going to get overturned in court.

Grazyn wrote:

leibniz wrote:>paying to feed and house someone who decided to join a terrorist organization and fight in their war and STILL remains a fanatic, with no change in sight

>paying to feed literally any other dangerous violent criminal

is there a line somewhere?

Yes, you cant take away their citizenship. (if you are talking about common criminals)

Our prime minister casually playing pool with Theresa May
https://twitter.com/GiuseppeConteIT/sta ... 7982001154

also 2-year delay on brexit imminent

[youtube]k4bl2hgOOac[/youtube]

India and Pakistan had a fight

And then they stopped
World goes on

and then, nukes fell

India has a "no first use" policy and Pakistan will only launch something if their military is failing.

They already fought a bloody war 20 years ago (yes 1999 was 20 years ago...) and it didn't escalate to nuclear, nothing will happen

If you think about it... If a third party set off a nuke in the region...

Less than one month before I need a Wank License...

I'm starting to think Brexit is being drawn out just to distract us from that.

Can't you just use a foreign proxy or something?

Not the point

Still...

Britain is fucked, but we knew that already and Brexit wouldnt even change that

Guess you're not going to make America Great Britain again.

He's Dutch

im butch

We knew that though

will suck any homies dick no homo just for the bants

I'm an idiot.

Our whole political system is literally tearing itself apart due to sheer incompetence.

bring back capital punishment

UK Parliament again played Deal or No Deal today, surprise surprise - the deal was rejected again.
Tomorrow they finally have the ultimate Deal or No Deal vote - voting whether to leave with No Deal on the 29th of March or seek an extension (and then on Thursday decide what they're actually going to do with that extension if that's even an option)

The EU will agree to an extension as long as there is a general election or referendum on the horizon.

We will have to hold European elections in May too.

Rustledjimm wrote: We will have to hold European elections in May too.

This is the most hilarious part.

Anyway, I'm fully aware that my country doesn't really meet the definition of "functional", but even here when a prime minister has his policies consistently beaten in parliament, they usually resign. Why is May still there?

There isn't anyone else who can take over from her, is there?

I don't think anybody else is willing to touch that dumpsterfire at this point because no matter what happens half the population will want your head after the fact is done

Rustledjimm wrote:We will have to hold European elections in May too.

An entire European election? Inside of Theresa May? This Brexit thing's a bit fucked up ngl

one time i talked to a european

here is my political hot take if you think education is bad you are stupid lol

So some /pol/ aussie (NZ isn't a real place) shot up a mosque and killed a shitton of people while playing meme music.

Not unsurprising, but still morally pretty shit

So, Connecticut Supreme Court decided that Remington can be sued for it's advertisement because somehow that led to Sandy Hook, and not the fact that the subhuman trash that did it was insane?
The family's also sued the gunstore where the mother bought it, because somehow they're at fault too

Remington just came out of bankruptcy too so they're probably fucked
I fucking hate the people that make up this country

I'm pretty sure no sane judge will let that pass
Because that would imply that car manufacturers are responsible when someone drives a car into a crowd, or airplane manufacturers in case of any airplane crash or terrorism act, and so on

Sounds like a load of political bullshitting because it's guns

Here's the issue, Remington will still have to pay to defend themselves for the months/years it'll take for this to hit a higher court, and they just came out of bankruptcy

To be fair there was a reason they were in bankruptcy that had nothing to do with politics.

Also gun sales were lower than expected because all the gun manufacturers thought that Clinton would win and overproduced.

Takeguru wrote:Here's the issue, Remington will still have to pay to defend themselves for the months/years it'll take for this to hit a higher court, and they just came out of bankruptcy

Booh waah a company has to pay legal fees, cry me a river