Irish citizen captured fighting with ISIS

Buchaill Dana

Well-known member
Joined
Mar 19, 2018
Messages
12,584
Kev was complaining that Ireland isn't a serious country and has no mechanism to prosecute her.

Now she is in the SCC because ISIS are deeply embedded in Irelsnd and can get to jurors.

He has never been right. He hasn't started here.
 


Kevin Parlon

Well-known member
Joined
Dec 4, 2008
Messages
13,096
Twitter
Deiscirt
There is a big difference between what a group is capable of doing and what they in the current situation are likely to do. As I posted, 100's of Islamic terrorists are on trial all over the eu without any issues, so why would such an organisation on its knees, bother about a trial of a female deserter in Ireland.
Again, you have gazed deeply into your soul and found there no hazard that might possibly threaten a jury. The people making decisions think a little deeper I'll warrant. You're whining about the SCC is just blather. The SCC is there for a reason and she presents as good a reason to use it now as any. What ails you and your ilk is that you think the whole world is like your neighborhood with different weather. It isn't.
 

Kevin Parlon

Well-known member
Joined
Dec 4, 2008
Messages
13,096
Twitter
Deiscirt
Kev was complaining that Ireland isn't a serious country and has no mechanism to prosecute her.

Now she is in the SCC because ISIS are deeply embedded in Irelsnd and can get to jurors.

He has never been right. He hasn't started here.
Does not compute. Ireland will still not prosecute her properly because it doesn't have the legislation despite your earlier acutely embarrassing attempts to magic into existence legislation Ireland simply lacks.

This is also a choice display of your brain-dead "debate" style. Invent positions your interlocutors do not inhabit and flail viciously at them with your rabbit punches.

I never said "ISIS are deeply embedded" or that they "can get to Jurors". I said the possibility exists, given the presence of ISIS vets in Ireland, Jury intimidation cannot be ruled out. And so, she'll be tried in the SCC. A fig leaf as it happens to cover the disgrace of Ireland doing NOTHING to legislate for this new era of trans-national and flagless wars. The fact (god, this needs to be explained too!) that she is being tried there has no bearing on whether she'll be properly prosecuted. The legislature is the same and given we have no laws governing terror-tourism she cannot be. As I have always maintained, she will face no prosecution or investigation into what happened in Syria. Look at the charges slow-coach. All related to things she did before she left. As I predicted. But, by all means, keep fighting the good fight. Fifth columning is thirsty business and you're a good little water-carrier.
 

Buchaill Dana

Well-known member
Joined
Mar 19, 2018
Messages
12,584
More bullshit.

Ireland doesn't have legislation to prosecute her. She won't be prosecuted. Said mid prosecution. She is in the SCC because the t word is on tbe charge sheet. Not some mad conspiracy of embedded jihadis.

Its very boring kev. You have called everything wrong and are doubling down.
 

cobhguy

Well-known member
Joined
Jun 22, 2010
Messages
2,672
Does not compute. Ireland will still not prosecute her properly because it doesn't have the legislation despite your earlier acutely embarrassing attempts to magic into existence legislation Ireland simply lacks.

This is also a choice display of your brain-dead "debate" style. Invent positions your interlocutors do not inhabit and flail viciously at them with your rabbit punches.

I never said "ISIS are deeply embedded" or that they "can get to Jurors". I said the possibility exists, given the presence of ISIS vets in Ireland, Jury intimidation cannot be ruled out. And so, she'll be tried in the SCC. A fig leaf as it happens to cover the disgrace of Ireland doing NOTHING to legislate for this new era of trans-national and flagless wars. The fact (god, this needs to be explained too!) that she is being tried there has no bearing on whether she'll be properly prosecuted. The legislature is the same and given we have no laws governing terror-tourism she cannot be. As I have always maintained, she will face no prosecution or investigation into what happened in Syria. Look at the charges slow-coach. All related to things she did before she left. As I predicted. But, by all means, keep fighting the good fight. Fifth columning is thirsty business and you're a good little water-carrier.
The possibility also exists that I could also get to the Jury, But is it a real threat to the administration of justice. No it is not. She choose to come back to Ireland knowing that she would be prosecuted. As you pointed out, "Ireland will still not prosecute her properly because it doesn't have the legislation " She is out on bail and could abscond as any time if she really wanted to. So what are the chances that someone will try and interfere with the jury so much that the state can not keep the jury save and to the point that justice could not be serve.
 

cobhguy

Well-known member
Joined
Jun 22, 2010
Messages
2,672
Again, you have gazed deeply into your soul and found there no hazard that might possibly threaten a jury. The people making decisions think a little deeper I'll warrant. You're whining about the SCC is just blather. The SCC is there for a reason and she presents as good a reason to use it now as any. What ails you and your ilk is that you think the whole world is like your neighborhood with different weather. It isn't.
It has nothing to do gazing into my soul and everything to do with know facts and reasoning.
 

Kevin Parlon

Well-known member
Joined
Dec 4, 2008
Messages
13,096
Twitter
Deiscirt
More bullshit.

Ireland doesn't have legislation to prosecute her. She won't be prosecuted. Said mid prosecution. She is in the SCC because the t word is on tbe charge sheet. Not some mad conspiracy of embedded jihadis.

Its very boring kev. You have called everything wrong and are doubling down.
You know what's worse than a dull bore? A lying dull bore. Do you think you're fooling anyone other than yourself? I said she wouldn't be prosecuted for anything she did in Syria. And I am right. I said she would be prosecuted with adjacent charges such as membership. And I was right about that too. Do you not find it disheartening to be wrong all the time? I mean, do you really think people don't notice that you have to resort to lying about what other people say in order to appear relevant? In someone smarter that might prompt a different approach or reflection. With the dumb, they just plough on regardless. Mortifying. You're a lying dumbass. I don't mind arguing with you but I am getting tired of your lying about what I say.
 

Kevin Parlon

Well-known member
Joined
Dec 4, 2008
Messages
13,096
Twitter
Deiscirt
It has nothing to do gazing into my soul and everything to do with know facts and reasoning.
1. Is it unreasonable to expect the world's worst terror organization might actually attempt to target the jury? No. ISIS members are resident in Ireland. You can argue on likelihood but it remains a possibility.
2. Is it unreasonable to assume a juror, given the profile of ISIS might not be influenced in their judgement out of fear of retribution? No.
3. Is there a legal provision to mitigate against such problems? Yes.

This particular human shitstain from louth is no major figure. I don't expect anyone of importance in ISIS really cares about her. But that's neither here nor there.

You are not applying "reason" here at all CG. You're applying feels. You probably did a class or two on how the SCC impairs perfect justice and you "don't like" the SCC. That's what's driving your response here. Don't flatter your feelings by calling them facts.
 

Kevin Parlon

Well-known member
Joined
Dec 4, 2008
Messages
13,096
Twitter
Deiscirt
So what are the chances that someone will try and interfere with the jury so much that the state can not keep the jury save and to the point that justice could not be serve.
It's not only that that's being measured. It is the likelihood that a jury may feel intimidated. And obviously the AG regards it as being enough of a threat to justice that the SCC is the lesser evil.
 

cobhguy

Well-known member
Joined
Jun 22, 2010
Messages
2,672
1. Is it unreasonable to expect the world's worst terror organization might actually attempt to target the jury? No. ISIS members are resident in Ireland. You can argue on likelihood but it remains a possibility.
2. Is it unreasonable to assume a juror, given the profile of ISIS might not be influenced in their judgement out of fear of retribution? No.
3. Is there a legal provision to mitigate against such problems? Yes.

This particular human shitstain from louth is no major figure. I don't expect anyone of importance in ISIS really cares about her. But that's neither here nor there.

You are not applying "reason" here at all CG. You're applying feels. You probably did a class or two on how the SCC impairs perfect justice and you "don't like" the SCC. That's what's driving your response here. Don't flatter your feelings by calling them facts.
Don't get me wrong, I would of left the Syrians deal with her, But the SCC was setup for a specific reason. There has to be more than just a possibility to take someone's constitution right to a jury trial.
 

Kevin Parlon

Well-known member
Joined
Dec 4, 2008
Messages
13,096
Twitter
Deiscirt
Don't get me wrong, I would of left the Syrians deal with her, But the SCC was setup for a specific reason. There has to be more than just a possibility to take someone's constitution right to a jury trial.
Well, the AG whom we can assume has more information to hand than you or I doesn't think so.
 

cobhguy

Well-known member
Joined
Jun 22, 2010
Messages
2,672
Well, the AG whom we can assume has more information to hand than you or I doesn't think so.
Hence why we are having this discussion and as I already mentioned we will have to wait to find out why he thinks that. However we do know some facts. She choose to return to Ireland, She has gotten bail so there is no belief that she is a danger according to the judge. Her charger are minor comparatively. Even if convicted she is looking at only a short spell in prison. Also in Jury selection people are weeded out, so anyone who might be afraid of consequence can get out of it.



So according to you, there is no need anymore to question anything the state does. As they will always have more information.

Might as well shut down this site
 
Last edited:

Politics matters

Well-known member
Joined
Sep 16, 2012
Messages
7,677
Wouldn't be surprised if the kid is all part of her getting more leniency than she deserves for joining a barbaric terrorist organisation which does not recognise the rule of law in any state.
That is the only reason I think; were it not for the kid Leo would have left her in that camp.

Her child (whether I want to accept this or not) is constitutionally an Irish citizen. The state should have tried to have it taken off her when she landed.
 


New Threads

Most Replies

Top Bottom