CanucksCorner.com Forums

Fucking rutabagas...

Strangelove wrote: ... what do you think about those 400 ISIS-warriors that were allowed to come back to London.
They are presently freely walking the streets.. something the modern civilized world should allow?

Probably not. But I'm a great believer in the rule of law, so it depends on what the laws in the concerned country say. And I really have no idea what the law in the UK says about these things.

At present there is no law in Sweden against participating in wars abroad.
But as from July 1st, there will be a law against fighting for a terrorist organisation.

At first they were trying to pass a law that would make it illegal to participate in any war abroad, but this ran into a lot of opposition. For instance, the thousands of volunteers that fought for Finland during WW2, or defended the democratically elected goverment in Spain against Franco in the Spanish Civil War, are largely regarded as heroes. Also, there are a lot of Swedish Kurds who have gone to Syria or Iraq to fight against ISIS. Should they also be punished? Thus they finally managed to agree on a ban to fight for terrorist organisations. Not sure if these have to be defined as such by Sweden or the UN, but either way, fighting for ISIS will be illegal a fortnight from now for anyone living in Sweden.

At present, those returning from Syria/Iraq will be questioned by the police, and if there is anything suggesting that they have committed war crimes, or killed (or assisted in the killing of) civilians, charges will be brought against them. If there is no evidence of them having broken any law, there's not much that can be done, except having social services/police keep an eye on them.

Anyone who has fought for ISIS after July 1st can be prosecuted just for that though.


So, OK, who are these fighters? The Swedish Defense has made a study of it.

Most come from "deprived areas" (what some foreign media, especially the Russians, have referred to as "no go zones" ), mainly from Stockholm, Gothenburg, Malmö and Örebro. Almost all are Swedish citizens, albeit a majority were born outside of Sweden. 25% are women, surprisingly enough. Most have a criminal record. Typically petty thieves. Most have not been very interested in religion, until shortly before joining ISIS.

Basically you can say they are misfits. They do drugs, steal cars, have poor education, unemployed. By joining ISIS they try to gain status, become someone. Some of them actually come from Shia or Kurdish families, ie groups that ISIS kill at sight. But they are too uneducated and stupid to realize this.

The ones that cannot be proven to have committed a crime... there's not much we can do, but try to steer them away from crime. Try to make them go back to school, get a proper job.

A lot of them actually can get prosecuted, because they tend to be so stupid that they take photos or film atrocities that they have participated in, and then post it online, or keep the shit in their cell phones....

But as I said above, after July 1st they can all be prosecuted (ie, if they have fought for ISIS after that date).

Per wrote:Rutabaga. The American word for what the British call a swede (or Swedish turnip) is rutabaga.

Rutabaga = cattle food
Turnip - a fantastic vegetable for the table

Per wrote:

Strangelove wrote: ... what do you think about those 400 ISIS-warriors that were allowed to come back to London.
They are presently freely walking the streets.. something the modern civilized world should allow?

Probably not. But I'm a great believer in the rule of law, so it depends on what the laws in the concerned country say. And I really have no idea what the law in the UK says about these things.

Laws are changed all the time in order to keep pace with the modern world.

ISIS-warriors should not be allowed to return to London and freely walk the streets.

(it was a rhetorical question)

Meanwhile, CNN is fake news. Again.

Let's focus on the positives: Trump is more popular than Obama was in both Israel and Russia.
Well, I guess the latter was inevitable; he was after all their choice for the position.

griz wrote:Meanwhile, CNN is fake news. Again.

Speaking of fake news:
https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics ... 20b962910d

Well Per, your "positive" just shows how much fake news has been working all these years. And Obama does not leave much of a legacy in the "positive" sense either. And what's wrong with Russia approving of Trump BTW? You don't still believe that fake news about collusion do you?

griz wrote:Well Per, your "positive" just shows how much fake news has been working all these years. And Obama does not leave much of a legacy in the "positive" sense either. And what's wrong with Russia approving of Trump BTW? You don't still believe that fake news about collusion do you?

griz, you're so far down the rabbit hole of conspiracy, fake news and propaganda that I'm afraid there's no turning back. No point even trying to debate with someone who's lost touch with the real world.

So glad you're happy your hero will save the world with his best buddy by his side. Enjoy.

griz wrote:Well Per, your "positive" just shows how much fake news has been working all these years. And Obama does not leave much of a legacy in the "positive" sense either. And what's wrong with Russia approving of Trump BTW? You don't still believe that fake news about collusion do you?

I have no idea whether they colluded or not, that's for the FBI to sort that out, but it's beyond doubt that Putin instructed his cyber warfare guys to make sure Trump got elected, and it seems they managed to pull that off.

And make no mistake about the Russians; the reason they like Trump is because they figure under him the US and Nato have become weaker.

As for Obama's legacy; he took the US out of the recession that happened under Bush and when he left office 30 million more Americans had health insurance than when he took office. I've seen worse.

Unemployment skyrocketed as a result of Bush's financial crisis and had reached 7.8% by the time Obama was sworn in. It peaked in Oktober that year at 10%, and then gradually fell throughout his tenure to reach normal levels again at the end of his term. The crappy side of this is that people will remember that unemployment was high under Obama. Sure. But because of Bush. And now it's low under Trump, because Of Obama.

Cornuck wrote:

griz wrote:Well Per, your "positive" just shows how much fake news has been working all these years. And Obama does not leave much of a legacy in the "positive" sense either. And what's wrong with Russia approving of Trump BTW? You don't still believe that fake news about collusion do you?

griz, you're so far down the rabbit hole of conspiracy, fake news and propaganda that I'm afraid there's no turning back. No point even trying to debate with someone who's lost touch with the real world.

So glad you're happy your hero will save the world with his best buddy by his side. Enjoy.

The pot calling the kettle black.

So you believe the Russian Collusion happened Corn? THAT is fake news.

Per wrote:I have no idea whether they colluded or not, that's for the FBI to sort that out, but it's beyond doubt that Putin instructed his cyber warfare guys to make sure Trump got elected, and it seems they managed to pull that off.

Where's the proof? Don't you think CNN et all would have leaked actual proof after all this time if they really had any?

Per wrote:And make no mistake about the Russians; the reason they like Trump is because they figure under him the US and Nato have become weaker.

Hillary pushed for war with Russia.

How is the US weaker under Trump?

Per wrote:As for Obama's legacy; ...

History will not reflect kindly on Barry.

griz wrote:So you believe the Russian Collusion happened Corn? THAT is fake news.

My thoughts are yes - there was collusion between the campaign and Russia. But, that's why there are investigations, right? Did it go all the way to trump? Likely, because he has to keep his fingers in everything that's related to his brand.

Keep in mind that trump and people in his campaign have connections to Russia prior to the election.

But to me, it seems to be a logical path from:

trump is toxic to US banks > Russian banks and others lend trump money > trump gets back on his feet financially and (possibly) with prodding from Moscow gets into politics > trump runs for the Repub nomination > during the campaign Russians and campaign staff talk about how to help trump win > trump calls on Russia to hack the DNC (maybe they already were at this point?) > By a fluke trump wins and immediately wants to lift sanctions > trump invites Russian press into White House (excludes others) ...

If trump had lost, Putin still would have won because trump and his minions and the Russian PR machine would have screamed STOLEN ELECTION!!!! and the desired effect of creating chaos and doubt in the American electoral system (for reasons other than the obvious gerrymandering, voter suppression and big money).

But I know it's easier for you to yell Fake New™ than to consider that the main goal of Russia has been to de-stabilze the western governments and support far right candidates.

trumps "policy" of pulling out of NATO, pro-Brexit, etc - all work in Russia's favour by weakening the the coalition of the western governments. Russia can't make itself stronger (without high oil prices), so they do what they can to weaken the other powers.

So - what did trump's campaign have to lose by talking to the Russians? Nothing. What did they have to gain? We're finding out now.

But keep telling me how clinton is evil and yell Fake News™, because that's all you seem to have left.

Look around Corn. Even the Dems are referring to the Russian Collusion as a "nothing burger". Yet you continue to speculate without proof. Aren't you the one who is buying into the conspiracy?