1. Things you need to know about the new ‘Conversations’ PM system:

    a) DO NOT REPLY TO THE NOTIFICATION EMAIL! I get them, not the intended recipient. I get a lot of them and I do not want them! It is just a notification, log into the site and reply from there.

    b) To delete old conversations use the ‘Leave conversation’ option. This is just delete by another name.
    Dismiss Notice

Young Muslims going to fight in Syria

Discussion in 'off topic' started by Robert, Apr 24, 2014.

  1. Robert

    Robert Tapehead

    Government concern being expressed today about young Muslims gong out to Syria and supporting the Free Syrian Army. This is a bad thing we are told and mothers are being asked to report their kids to the police if they suspect such intentions.

    A fews months ago you might recall the UK government trying to win a parliamentary vote supporting possible military action by UK forces and allies, in support of the FSA.

    Anyone like to have a bash as explaining this strange contradiction?
    Ok to go and fight in Syria provided you don the appropriate uniform?
     
  2. Mescalito

    Mescalito pfm Member

    Of course.

    Chris
     
  3. Daniel Quinn

    Daniel Quinn Banned

    As a general rule , I consider it to be appropriate for a democratic state to discourage its citizens against fighting in foreign conflicts outside of the organisation , protection and legitimacy of the state army . The governments position is not incongruous .
     
  4. daveofbradford

    daveofbradford Monica I said sack my cook

    Hi, have the government said how many young guys are involved, or a rough estimate.
    Now then if some of these so called fighters get badly injured who picks up the repair bill.
    Oh I know the UK tax payer.
     
  5. deanf

    deanf pfm Member

    Why do young Muslims want to send troops to Syria and not Afghanistan?
     
  6. ian r

    ian r 401's Nakman

    As a general rule , Snip. The governments position is not incongruous .

    when when it was ok or now it isnt

    these kids are sandbags for wahabist fascism

    like the tosser who blew himself - 'er i dont speak arabic brian'

    yeah but its fer freedom from shia'ism

    oh right must be for de umma then

    form an orderly queue and when i blow the whistle i want you to go over the top for blighty and er oil

    i doubt the government gives or gave ashit _ they were sending people to get tortured there and flying em back once they were finished to the usa to waterboard them some more

    imo
    once the bogativeness of the syrian spontaneous democratic western sponsored uprising of sunnis against shias was sussed publically it became untenable to let civvies go there and pretend they were wadicalised -

    but heck we are chums with Saud - its all so gay and so much oil. so lets talk about mums

    ffs
     
  7. doctorf

    doctorf left footed right winger

    Muslim women are well known for their high standing in Muslim society so I'm sure they will make a big impact on their sons.
     
  8. psi310398

    psi310398 pfm Member

    Maybe but it is generally bad law to extend the reach of a country's jurisdiction beyond its own shores and we rightly berate the Americans for doing it. I'm not sure that what goes on in Syria (or elsewhere) is much of our business. And I'm equally sure that Assad's people are quite capable of dealing with any law breakers they find.

    I am also bothered that such a law, had it been in effect in the 30s, would have rendered the likes of George Orwell criminal for going off to fight in the Spanish Civil War. And before anyone says that that was an obviously just cause, I'm not sure that there was much fragrant or very democratic about many of the Republican factions in that war either.

    P
     
  9. Daniel Quinn

    Daniel Quinn Banned

    I said discourage not make it illegal !!
     
  10. Mescalito

    Mescalito pfm Member

    Precisely zero difference between the Republican volunteers & the muslim jihadists.

    If it's illegal for one group, it's illegal for the other.

    Chris
     
  11. auric

    auric pfm Member

    Is this not a case of the authorities questioning people within the UK or on their return to the UK to determine what they intend to do or what they have done and depending upon their answers taking action or not?

    Not quite the same as forced rendition or extra judicial action but am always open to information from those in the know.
     
  12. Cav

    Cav pfm Member

    Would it be OK for a non-muslim to go to fight in Syria?
     
  13. ariegur

    ariegur pfm Member

    In a way it reminds me a debate that took place in Israel. The authorities warned the Israelis to avoid visiting Sinai because of terrorists' threats to injure Israelis. The warning was based on intelligence.
    Many citizens ignored this warning and the debate was exactly on the question - if something happens to them - who takes the responsibility. The answer is - the state. This means that foolishness of few by their own choice will fall on the state (=all citizens).

    I thing that this is a selfish act and a state has the right to try to avoid it.

    Arye
     
  14. daveofbradford

    daveofbradford Monica I said sack my cook

    If people could be trusted not to lie, but sadly they do. Maybe lie detector test?
     
  15. Joe Hutch

    Joe Hutch Mate of the bloke

    No strange contradiction. In one scenario, you are a paid member of HM's Army, covered by military law, with limits on what you can and can't do, and a clear chain of command. In the other, you are a civilian putting yourself in harm's way. That applies whatever your religion and wherever the conflict is.
     
  16. auric

    auric pfm Member

    Had not realised that lie detectors worked or that the results were permissible in a court of law. A fall-back might be a biometric passport or whatever they are called coupled with access to shed loads of immigration data, travel histories, data held on the traveller’s electronic kit all under the gaze of immigration staff when needed.
     
  17. ian r

    ian r 401's Nakman

    i suggested the gov will just be shuffling deckchairs in this piece of theatre.. in a short while i expect it will flik to saying Syria is exporting tearowrists

    in which case lots of people willing to make a "futile gesture at this time"will come in very handy..

    its how the fbi run the scam in the colonies
     
  18. psi310398

    psi310398 pfm Member

    Actually, several people have been arrested and tried for attending terrorist training...which seems hard/impossible to distinguish from militia training.
     
  19. Ginger

    Ginger pfm Member

    To answer Robert's opening question:The security services consider Syria to be the highest threat to UK security because AQ operate freely there. Muslims have many reasons for wanting to go: to fight, to train, to support other Muslims and for humanitarian reasons. The threat is that they are radicalised, or further radicalised, and receive training or guidance in attack planning to be delivered in the UK. Travel to Syria is far easier than it was to Afghanistan and Pakistan (where training might have been given in recent years) plus there are the other reasons to travel, all making it far more attractive to some people.
     
  20. ian r

    ian r 401's Nakman

    http://www.lrb.co.uk/v36/n08/seymour-m-hersh/the-red-line-and-the-rat-line


    The few media outlets that are willing to pick up the Syria story even now are gingerly treating it as something new, jumping in based on their own editorial biases, sometimes emphasizing the CIA and MI6 role in cooperating with the Turks to undermine Bashar al-Assad. But Hersh’s tale is only surprising if one had not been reading between the lines over the past three years, where the clandestine role of the British and American governments was evident and frequently reported on over the internet and, most particularly, in the local media in the Middle East. Far from being either rogue or deliberately deceptive, operations by the U.S. and UK intelligence services, the so-called “ratlines” feeding weapons into Syria, were fully vetted and approved by both the White House and Number 10 Downing Street. The more recent exposure of the Benghazi CIA base’s possible involvement in obtaining Libyan arms as part of the process of equipping the Syrian insurgents almost blew the lid off of the arrangement but somehow the media attention was diverted by a partisan attack on the Obama Administration over who said what and when to explain the security breakdown and the real story sank out of sight.
     

Share This Page

  1. This site uses cookies to help personalise content, tailor your experience and to keep you logged in if you register.
    By continuing to use this site, you are consenting to our use of cookies.
    Dismiss Notice