I have several people on ignore.
If you are replying to me, then state what I overlooked and what "smolletting me" means, and then I will set you straight.
ISIS-Mama suddenly wants to come home
- Thread starter TreeFrogTrader
- Start date
I have several people on ignore.
If you are replying to me, then state what I overlooked and what "smolletting me" means, and then I will set you straight.
This is how it shuold have been done..like in England:
Shamima Begum to be stripped of British nationality and will not be allowed into Bangladesh, government says
Shamima Begum to be stripped of British nationality and will not be allowed into Bangladesh, government says
I'm not talking about rights, or even doing what's right. I'm suggesting we be smart. Yes, we can say fuck the bitch and her bastard kid and be well within our legal rights to do so. That feels good in the moment, but where's the long term gain from it? If we can use this situation to fight against terrorism by having the woman tell her story to others, I see that as a win against the terrorists. Right now all that's happened is the terrorists have fucked up another persons life, along with others, and that's a win for them. Guess I'm alone on this one.
Not necessarily along on this one. You make some good points. But the extreme dislike for terrorists from the United States that left to fight against our country overwhelms any considerations for possible approaches involving re-importation & education.
This case illustrates why saturation bombing of ISIS strongholds is a far better policy than the Obama kid gloves treatment. Or just let the Russians handle it. Then you avoid these messy details.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Manchester_Arena_bombing
https://www.manchestereveningnews.c.../manchester-bombing-victims-who-died-14688420
https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/0/manchester-terror-attack-everything-know-far/
Captain, your idea is noble and decent, even logical seeming, but don't be deceived by the actions and attitudes of the UK media and government. Theirs is a position of appeasement, because their options are limited when it comes to dealing with the problem that grows and festers within large areas of British society.
Okay, I am not going to redirect everything you have said but I will add a couple things to keep you at least on this planet.
First of all, in scanning a couple of your posts from during the day, I note that you make more than one reference to stripping her of her citizenship.
Putting aside the state departments argument whether she is or is not a citizen, if it were to be determined that she is a citizen by birth, then THERE IS ABSOLUTELY NO PROVISION IN LAW OR THE CONSTITUTION FOR STRIPPING A NATURAL BORN AMERICAN CITIZEN OF THEIR CITIZENSHIP. None, regardless of what they do or do not do. That is why I said earlier on in this thread, "I wish we could do that or had that" in response to an article in a post that referred to the Brits stripping a Brit of their citizenship.
A naturalized citizen can and sometimes is (as, for example with some of the immigrants who lied about their nazi past) stripped of their citizenship and booted out if IF THEY LIED ON THEIR APPLICATION in a material way that would have prevented them from becoming a citizen if known at the time. Fake documents, not revealing that murder conviction in Honduras, etc.
As I said yesterday (post 26 above) I am aware that she contests the denial of her citizenship status- ie. Pompeo position- and she is welcome to work that legally any way she wants and if she prevails then that will be a basis for being let into the country (and promply arrested, but whatever, she can do that if she wants). But the discussion was about whether she and/or her child are "entitled" to come hear on the basis of the bad situation of the child, and the fact that there are grandparents here, and the answer remains: They are most emphatically not. Not withing the legal meaning of "entitlement." If you or others move over to a different argument- such as if it is determined that she is a citizen, then the answer is yes. Citizenship alone provides the entitlement to enter this country- if citizenship is proven. If not a citizen, well, then those other arguments continue to get you nothing as far as "entitlements" go.
Also, anyone who has any fantasies about her arriving here and then going on tour at schools and rotary clubs to discuss the dangers of ISIS, should keep in mind that she will be facing a pile of federal charges for supporting a terrorist organization, and if the State Department loses on the citizenship issue, then they will probably give her plenty more charges to make her think twice about stepping foot on American soil. If she wants to be an American citizen in prison here rather than off in one of her beloved camel countries. Then I dont have a position or a need to have one on that.
She claims that she was born two months after her father stopped being a diplomat so the diplomat status does not come into play. The state department denies that. I dont have any way of sorting that out so am not going to even attempt. She is entitled to a court hearing. And evidence can be presented there. Whatever the decision is I accept. And she or the government want to appeal, I accept that too.
But if there is no citizenship, then I dont want her or her child here.
Last edited:
I have no need to have her or her child in this country if she is foreigner. We have other american isis girls that we have had to take back and they can do the speaking tour routine. Or if she is a citizen, then she can do the public awareness piece as part of her release from prison when that comes. She faces serious charges the minute she steps on American soil or even if she does not, we might extradite her depending on what country she goes to, if she does that.
Every single community in the United States has service people who were up against ISIS, Al Queda or one of those scumbag units/armies whatever they are. It is an affront to Americans to have her go unpunished/unprosecuted and have her on the speaking tour while families have members who are not coming home because they were killed or maimed by the terrorist unit that she supported, that she recruited for. She was an enemy combatant/supporting role and directly called for the killing of Americans.
I am not saying that argument is not without merit, but I am not there. Perhaps after she has been in prison for a while, I can adjust my position as her willingness to help manifests. But I am not interested in hearing any happy horseshit from anyone (not referring to you) saying she or her child have "entitlements" based on morality, sympathy, grandparents or any of that bullshit. I have agreed that if she is a citizen, then she has a card she can play. And so does the Justice Department in prosecuting her. Fine, her choice if she wins in court. Otherwise I dont need her here.
As I said, I have no issue with you having a different view because I know that you are not an America hater.
Thank you for just repeating everything I said and then claiming it is your own haha as well as adding shit I NEVER said.
I never said SHE was entitled to come here. I said if the grandparents were citizens then they could sponsor THE CHILD to come back to protect him. Please find where I said SHE was entitled to come back here.
You know what sucks debating with you is YOU NEVER RESEARCH ANYTHING!
You might lose your U.S. citizenship in specific cases, including if you:
- Run for public office in a foreign country (under certain conditions).
- Enter military service in a foreign country (under certain conditions).
- Intentionally acquire citizenship in a foreign country except if you acquire it through marriage to a foreign national; you may become a dual national instead.
- Commit an act of treason against the United States.
Next time do some RESEARCH before you subject us to your logorrhea.