This is, finally, where I might draw the line in the sand about respecting rights of opposing combatants.
The man in this article ran off when he was 18 to join a dangerous terror group, and I just don’t think we should burn the torch of liberty etc such that we snap our spines backwards for his cause.
The father had this to say about the situation;
“It’s disappointing that this is how the British government deals with its issues," he added. "Part of me thinks that Canada is a far more enlightened and democratic place than Britain. That doesn’t mean I think Canada is at all soft on terrorism.”
What the Hell does anyone decide to go over there if not to be involved in the conflict there? Backpacking off the beaten path?
When the acceptable response to a bunch of traitorous devils joining an organization that engaged in mass murder, mutilation, sex slavery, genocide, and war crimes isn’t a short drop with a sudden stop, we are well past my line as it is.
I am basically saying I don’t buy this either. Well, there is some chance he was expecting a Shangri-la life and got disillusioned with it, but that is nothing to concretely go on.
I believe people should get a chance at redemption but I also believe they need to face the consequences of their actions. This guy has blood on his hands and he shouldn’t get away with that because he’s seen the error of his ways.
Assuming he has, which I don’t believe for a hot second, he’s still a party to war crimes. His redemption is between him and his God, The Hague can have his ass.
On a more practical note, I don’t want a scumbag like him in my country because his foreign escapade turned out to be a bust.
If he were truly contrite, he would admit to any crimes he has committed and face justice. I believe in redemption but I don’t believe justice is merely feeling sorry.
As for getting out under Trump I don’t think so. Honestly no one talks about it anymore and hasn’t for a long time. I wouldn’t be surprised if you went down and polled people asking if the US was currently at war if a decent amount said no.
I realize that some are actually talking about it now with the potential deal I just mean on the whole. Not that you should make all your decisions based on this but I think it would score him political points if he did leave.
And I haven’t read everything but one article said the deal would take us from 15,000 troops to 8,000 so hardly bringing the troops home in my opinion.
Oh definitely. And I’d take it. The problem is it’s going to to be easy to say we need 9,000 troops there until the end of time. Anytime something bad happens there we can simply say “see we better stay.”
Might the US say it has to settle into something reasonable on threat of another onslaught? Or is that prepresumed that that is what immediately would happen, and then from that point the US is at a military disadvantage from where they are now?
In the sky news article it says this:
Letts was arrested as he tried to flee IS territory into Turkey. He claims he deserted the terror group because he decided they were not Islamic.
"I accidentally joined a mafia in Iraq and Syria, maybe not a mafia, but a very bad group of people, thinking they are Muslims.
“If I had learned Islam properly, If I had understood I would have learned that these were a very bad group of people. I wouldn’t have been in the situation that I’m in,” he said.
So the question is whether or not his story is true. It is true that most Muslims don’t support ISIS, it’s a fanatical group whose ideology is based on non-mainstream interpretations of their religion. But how can he prove his story? And anybody who has any idea of what is going on in the world is aware that ISIS was killing anybody they came across that isn’t a Sunni Muslim, as well as those who refused to join or otherwise comply with their demands, plus raping women and keeping sex slaves. So even if they were doing other things that weren’t consistent with his idea of what Muslims should be doing, he must have been aware that he was joining a group whose goal was to kill, rape, and conquer territory.
With regards to stripping him of his citizenship, I don’t really sympathize with this guy too much but this does set a dangerous precedent. Where do they draw the line for who can be stripped of citizenship and who can’t? If the UK or Canada is under no obligation to help him then they don’t need to, and if there is something he can be charged with (like joining a terrorist group) then if he makes it back to wither country he should be charged. If stripping people of citizenship becomes a normal thing then it could happen to anyone who leaves the country and is accused of a crime, and their home country decides that they are undesirable for whatever reason.