not sure you can blame the kids.

But the mother should have been tried for treason definitely.

adhering to the sovereign's enemies, giving them aid and comfort, in the realm or elsewhere


surely she is banged to rights and anyone else going to Syria, anyone drumming up support for ISIS in this country etc

Facts

Are you inferring I don't mean it ?

I think people are fully entitled to infer you don't mean it. A man is judged by his actions rather than his hot air and as of yet you haven't answered alun's question:

How many previous refugees from 'war torn' countries have you PERSONALLY accommodated then in your own property, along with feeding, clothing and paying all their expenses?

And how many BRITISH homeless citizens are you currently accommodating and paying for, given your 'moral' and 'humanitarian' outlook?

Talk like yours is cheap and usually disingenuous. Who'd have thought it? I'll give em all a milion pounds cos that's the kind of guy I am. Beat that. But I don't want any publicity. I don't like to talk about it.

If there was a war Naydam and Facts would be supporting the other side.

wildmans........supporting.......fighting more like

So, you would surely agree that, not having lived for many years in the middle east (like your good self), and having no experience of radical Islam, many people cannot be expected to behave as if they did possess this knowledge and experience.
That's how it is with life...you learn as you go along. So do the others.

What sort of CRB checks will Don Oxford and Chit Chat's very own Mary Whitehouse be carrying out to ensure that the umpteen Syrian refugees they will be taking in aren't Jihadists or Rapists? 

I'm guessing they will have had previous experience of carrying out these subtle safety checks from the days that they took in refugees from other war-torn countries.

Or will they be turning a blind eye, as has become fashionable in Rochdale and Rotherham?

treetop"s thread said all there needs to be said,
A VERY CLEAR WARNING TO US ALL!

Then why are they coming here again?

By Dan Hodges, Telegraph
2:05PM BST, 09 Sep 2015

I’m not sure if Reyaad Khan or Ruhul Amin – the two ISIS fighters killed by an RAF drone strike – were personally responsible for throwing two gay men off a roof in Homs two months ago. Perhaps they were part of the mob that waited below to throw rocks at their broken bodies.

Maybe it was them who doused Jordanian pilot Moaz al-Kasasbeh in petrol, locked him in a cage and burnt him alive. Or they were behind some of the rapes Angelina Jolie talked about in the House of Commons yesterday, rapes of girls as young as seven that she said were being used by ISIS as the “centrepoint of their terror”.

Anyway, we’ll never know now, because they’re dead. And I’m glad they’re dead. I wish all the Isil butchers were dead. Drones. Smart bombs. The tip of a bayonet. It doesn’t really bother me how. The more of them we can kill, the better.

At least, that was my initial reaction when I heard about their deaths. “Good”, I said to myself, “they got what was coming to them.”

That wasn’t the reaction of quite a few other people. Over at the Stop The War Coalition, they took a short break from masterminding Jeremy Corbyn’s election campaign to post up an angry statement declaiming “UK government rides to war killing its own citizens and on the backs of refugees”. In the Guardian, Gary Younge wrote “Britain can now add extrajudicial killings to torture, rendition and occupation as tools in defence of “Enlightenment values”. The human rights group Reprieve took to the air waves to complain “the fact that David Cameron has bypassed parliament to commit these covert strikes is deeply worrying – as is his refusal to share what legal advice he was given.”

Each to their own I suppose. Well, kind of.

Over the past month people on the centre-Right of politics – actually those on the centre-Right of the Left of politics – have been asking themselves “what’s gone wrong?” Corbynmania. The flight from reason. The rout of the moderates.

The list of answers would currently fill a small phone directory. But I think one of the most significant has been revealed in the reaction to the Reyaad Khan and Ruhul Amin “assassination”.

The Left have immediately scrambled to the top of the moral high ground. The rule of law has been traduced. The state cannot act as judge and executioner. We are destroying the very values we are supposedly defending.

And the moderate center-Right have happily ushered them up there. OK, this may be a legally grey area. But the practicalities of defending the realm some times supersede the principles. The end justifies the means.

It happens time and time and time again. The Left wraps itself in the warm, heavy cloak of morality. And those on the centre-Right opt for the ugly and superficial undergarments of pragmatism.

It has to stop. The killing of Reyaad Khan and Ruhul Amin was – probably – legally correct. As ever, there are differing viewpoints. But the balance of independent legal opinion I have read supports the government’s stance.

But even if it wasn’t legally correct, it was morally correct. These men were Isil fighters. We know this because they told us they were. They posed for photos. The issued statements. They posted videos.

Reyaad Khan and Ruhul Amin were modern day Nazis. They were willing members of the one of the most evil, barbaric, sadistic organizations ever to exist on our planet. Stopping them from continuing their campaign of barbarism was our moral duty.

Yes, Gary. Our enlightenment values do mean that when confronted by people who adopt mass rape, torture and murder as their hobbies, we stop them. If we can arrest them, great. But if we can’t, we’re going to have to just kill them. And when we do kill them, that is not evidence we are “just as bad as them”. It’s evidence that we are better than them.

• Steven Woolfe MEP: My plan for Syria: keep Assad in power, deploy ground troops and send back the refugees

I can take the hard-Left’s ideological purity. But I’m sick to the back teeth of their presumption of moral superiority. If you genuinely think we would be living in a better world today if Reyaad Khan and Ruhul Amin were happily driving along to the scene of their next mass rape then it’s you, not the so-called liberal interventionists, who should be taking a look at your personal value system.

We’re seeing this on an almost daily basis now. When it became clear a combination of Yvette Coper’s intervention and the photo of Aylan Kurdi were beginning to transform the debate on refugees, social media began to fill up with frothing fury. Much of it came from the usual “we’re full, we don’t want ‘em here” brigade on the hard-right. But there was an equally rabid response from elements of the hard-Left. Those expressing concern were all hypocrites. They’d been silent till the photo of the little boy had appeared. Cooper was a hypocrite. She’d taken a hard line on economic migration. What about Palestine? Anyone who said they cared about this, but didn’t care about the Palestinians was a hypocrite.

Again, these are the sort of people we’re supposed to be taking moral lectures from? People whose response to a spontaneous, compassionate reflex is to scream “hypocrites, the lot of you!!!” at the top of their lungs?

Actually, it’s not just the hard-Left’s righteous arrogance and own moral hypocrisy that is so staggering. It’s the fundamental lack of humanity.

We saw this most graphically illustrated during the row over Jeremy Corbyn’s comments on how the death of Bin Laden was a “tragedy”. The hard-Left tied itself in knots tying to rationalize and legitimize this statement. He’d been talking about the cycle of violence it had perpetrated. He’d been specifically referring to the fact that Bin Laden had not been brought to trial.

Perhaps he was. But he didn’t merely say Bin Laden’s killing was “counterproductive”. Or “misguided”. Or “a missed opportunity to bring him to justice”. When asked to respond to the death of one of history’s worst mass murderers he instinctively reached for the word “tragedy”.

And we are – I’m told – all supposed to look up to this man, and the movement he leads, for moral guidance. He is, I read repeatedly, a man of inviolate principle and unshakable belief and unscripted word.

Well, if inviolate principle means saying to the likes of Reyaad Khan and Ruhul Amin “where you off to today lads? Throwing another couple of gays off a roof? Ooooooh, bit harsh. But OK, on your way” then you can keep it. Morality is not an abstraction. Nor is it codified under the rule of law. If a doctor helps a patient in agony to end their life they may have committed an illegal act. But they haven’t necessarily committed an immoral one.

So by all means, lecture us about politics. Lecture us about foreign affairs. Lecture us about international law. But please, if you really think the killing of Reyaad Khan and Ruhul Amin was wrong, keep your moral lectures to yourself.

I'm not at all sure what all that was supposed to say. Is there any chance that you could use your own words and ideas? I don't know any of the people named.

Although I have very limited knowledge of Islamic law, I believe that homosexuality is illegal and punishable by death. I also seem to have read that the traditional method is something akin to hurling into a pit. If so, then hurling from a high building would be a close assimilation.

Are you suggesting that we should assist Mr Assad by dropping a few barrel-bombs for him?

naydam

i thought it was a brilliant article.......naydam is just  a picnic short of a sandwich

Best to ignore him (or her) Reminds me very much of Banks - Banned-_Banks off de horsey forum.

Pleaded the books cause but swore black was white that he had no allegiance to them. Until of course it was discovered thaT he worked for the GC. So wouldn't surprise me if he (or she) wasn't Abu Bakr al-Baghdadi's long lost son (or daughter)

He is one of those 'ARE YOU SURE THEY ARE SHOOTING AT US ' sort of guys!!
But they are missing (at the moment) and naydam will prevent you from shooting back or defending yourself   ha ha!!!

Correct maluek but hes not on his own

When have you seen an interviewer bring up what their disgusting cult teaches  them when they have a Muslim apologist  in front o them. They allow them to ou blame everyone else  and never challenge those beliefs and that they are the problem for most  of the people in this country (except the media and  the left  it seems.)

But we're back now! It strikes me that the majority of you put your own translation upon things that I post.
Instead of gossiping and tut-tutting between yourselves, why not just ask for clarification on points that are unclear. I am well aware that fully describing one's feelings or opinions on  matters can be very difficult. Ambiguity often occurs. Especially for someone like me whose life has never encapsulated the written word.


I think I pointed out a long time ago exactly WHY that captured pilot received the treatment that he did, although I'm not convinced that the film footage was genuine. Too much flashing images and CGI.
And regardless of how many times I asked the question NOBODY told me why our aircrew were prisoners of the Luftwaffe.


What punishment would YOU have inflicted upon these Sodomites? And how would you have applied it? In THAT location in accordance with the law.

It is in the end a problem of genetics. In cases of extreme violent murder there is usually a problem in the society of too close blood relationships. Doctors know this is a major problem in certain parts of the world but are reluctant to comment on it.

The genetic problems can manifest 2 or 3 steps down the line. This is what is meant by the Biblical line " The sins of the father are visited unto the third and forth generation"

naydam.........you are saying being gay was illegal over here some time ago but i dont remember them being chucked  them off tall buildings