Verbal

As you've decided to double down on the racist content of your previous post, I'll have one more go at trying to show how your views remain both racist and factually wrong. 'Being born here' is NOT the end of the discussion. There are legal definitions of citizenship which you can look up. You really need to, because this crap does you no favours. It sounds from your inclusion of Farrah that you approve of his being British simply because he 'fits in' in a way you find acceptable. This is a classic racist trope. As above, other than being born here, she was born to naturalised British citizens. The lifestyle in which she was brought up is irrelevant. The fact that she left for Syria when she was 15 is irrelevant. She did not go to Iraq. What on earth are you on about? 1. Do you really need to be told why this is a false analogy? She is a British citizen. 2. You are making the offensive suggestion that someone whose views you disagree with deserves to lose their citizenship rights. Like Mo Farrah, she has to 'act British'. The person who's not 'acting British' here is you. One of this country's greatest values is freedom of speech and thought. When Constantine was declared Roman emperor in York in AD306, he had to accept English that civil liberties had to be respected. Come up to AD2019 and Lighthouse thinks otherwise - offensive thought and speech should be a reason for withdrawal of citizenship. Again, before posting, please do the minimum to understand what you're talking about. She has never been in Iraq. There is no Kurdish legal system because Raqqa is not in Kurdish homeland territory. The only Syrian legal system is Assad's, which (a) has no remit in large areas in northern Syria controlled by the SDF, and (b) Assadists would simply put in bullet in her head, or otherwise ensure she dies from torture. But what trumps all of this is that she is a British citizen who has committed crimes under British law. Your 'personal beliefs' about her legal status are irrelevant. There is a right answer, and ultimately international law will determine that. Again, we're back to racist caricatures and your ignorance. If you're really going to dive into this rabbit hole, you're in real trouble with the terms and conditions of this forum. So again: you cannot decide that her beliefs are in some way consistent with those that characterise another country as a reason to deny them citizenship - regardless of how repellent those beliefs may be. Besides, when and where has she actually espoused Wahhabi ideas? I suspect you've just made this all up to conform to the racist caricature you've created of her. Christ. No. If the parents are not British nationals or naturalised British then there is no birthright citizenship. America has it. We don't. You could just google this rather than make yourself look foolish (and worse).

This is the most obviously racist post I've seen on this thread. First you try to defend it by saying 'it's not because her parents were born abroad'. Then you immediately say that that is indeed a factor in saying she's not really British! Just think about that for a moment. You could apply that logic, such as it is, to an awful lot of Bangladeshi, Pakistani, Indian and others - that their parents were born abroad and their children were born here, so they also must be 'not really British'. Or look at it this way: if you'd encountered Shamima Begum at the age of seven, would you say she's 'not really British'? Maybe if you're a member of BNP, but otherwise, I doubt it. So the ONLY thing that's relevant here, unless you really are coming out as a racist, is that she has committed serious crimes. Your logic therefore means that rather than prosecute her, you'd rather render her stateless. So - to the people of Raqqa, among whom she lived as a lord and master, for a terror group whose brutalism that was taken out almost exclusively on ordinary Syrians, what do you say to them? How do you justify making her their responsibility and not ours? And remember the present circumstances: Raqqa lies in ruins and may take decades to rebuild, if at all. It also has no justice system, no civil law enforcement, and most of its residents are still deeply fearful of the one state actor out there - Assad. That on top of all of that, they should be forced to accept the cost and trouble of accommodating an ISIS cadre? Really?

I haven't been back to Syria since before the Arab Spring but it's heartbreaking to think of all the loss of life and destruction of unrivalled architectural and archeological sites. The country had an extraordinary wealth of extremely well preserved (because largely not raided by western collectors) monuments and places, and ordinary people there were very proud of this. Assad and ISIS have thought nothing of destroying it, and of destroying them. ISIS deservedly gets most of the publicity for their large-scale vandalism at places like Palmyra, and itds campaigns of murder and torture, but Assad has been a far, far bigger wrecker then them. Among the losses are the Aleppo souk, which dates back at least five centuries but is now almost completely destroyed. In southern Syria, in the middle of nowhere, there was an entire town that had been built out of repurposed Roman villas and other architecture. Now obliterated. And so on and so on. None of this will ever be rebuilt. It can't be. Syrians will return, although I suspect any large-scale emptying of the refugee camps in Lebanon and Jordan won't happen until Assad is consigned to history's dustbin. And certainly not before the remnants of ISIS are cleared out of the country. This for me is the reason Shamima Begum has to be brought to the UK. She was a vastly unwanted intruder into ordinary Syrians' lives. When she arrived in Raqqa she lived in a house that had been owned by Syrians and stolen from them. She was paid money stolen from the oil revenues and extorted from the businesses of Syrians. And she casually witnessed beheadings and other brutalities that were carried out almost entirely on Syrians. But there is no legal system that can try her there for her crimes. She's not even in a prison - she's in a refugee camp. But she can be tried under British law. She's our problem, not that of ordinary Syrians.

Did you mean this? Because you appear to be saying that the existence of right-wing Islamophobia excuses left-wing - or indeed any - antisemitism. Playing the whataboutery card is an utterly corrupt argument. (And, incidentally, have you not noticed my criticisms of Islamophobia and anti-Arab sentiment?) So let me try again - for you, fanboy and any other Corbynista and not-Corbynista-but-doing-a-good-impression-of-being-one: Do you approve of the idea that Jews should be given a 'humanity test' over Israel? Just as, presumably, blacks should be given a humanity test over the tragedy of Rwanda, or the civil wars in Sierra Leone and Liberia?

Yes, fanboy, exactly. It's setting a 'humanity test' for Jews. Why don't you reflect on that for a minute? Let's see if you can see the problem with it.

Ok you're just trolling now. You can't be this stupid. Do you get the Wimbledon case or not?

What's egg got on his face? Anyway, here's a 360-degree example of how toxic antisemitism is in Labour, and how Labour demonstrates that institutional Jew-hating is firmly rooted in the party. This audio... https://news.sky.com/story/sir-duncan-michael-labour-members-jewish-slur-not-deemed-antisemitic-by-party-11638591?dcmp=snt-sf-twitter ...records Wimbledon CLP member Sir (!) Duncan Michael saying, then deny saying, that the 'Jewish community plans to attack our party.' It also records the very audibly shocked reactions of CLP members in the room, including a Corbynista Jewish Voice for Labour member. So quite an uncontroversial instance - a slam dunk - of antisemitism, which was deplored at the time by those who heard it, many of whom reported it, expecting censure at the very least. But when the incident was adjudicated by the Labour party it ruled: 'the Labour party does not believe this is an incident of antisemitism and will not be taken further.' Do you get this one, egg? Or are we going to have to go through dozens of posts to point out where the actual antisemitism is?

Interesting insight from the FT's Tokyo correspondent Robin Harding. During negotiations on the Japan-EU trade deal, the Tory government pushed for the earliest possible reduction in tariffs are vehicles, believing that this would help Japanese assembly plants in the UK. This logic only worked, of course, if Britain were in the EU. German and French car makers thought Japan would just repatriate its car plants. Still, nothing at all to do with Brexit - Nada, nyet, oh no...

So already the word is going around the cult that the Independent Group is Israeli backed. The lack of self-awareness is breathtaking.

Christ, the straw-clutching from the purple-headed Jihadists... Honda, like the majority of manufacturing in the UK, has turned off the investment tap since the 2016 referendum. You can try to claim that issues like the sharp decline in diesel sales is responsible, but there are two responses that car makers can opt for: invest in new technology (including electric-powered cars) or run down existing plant and quietly walk away. Honda have clearly opted for the latter in Britain. Depressingly, despite soothing words, it wouldn't be a surprise to see Nissan go the same way. It's already taken the first step. The Japan-EU trade deal - something that the UK simply won't be able to replicate - has accelerated this. And this is touted by Honda themselves as a major influence on their decision. One of the reasons for that is that it's unlikely - given the Jihadist capture (Irish extremists plus the ETG cult) of the Tory party and the prostration of the opposition - that there will be anything like truly 'frictionless' trade between the EU and the UK. It will be easier to do business with the EU directly from Japan rather than the tangled mess of whatever trade deal eventually - in five, ten or more years, eventually emerges between Britain and Europe. AS for 'global trends', this is also not about Honda retrenching to Japan. The company still maintains plants across the world - even Pakistan has less trouble hanging on to its Honda factory than the cretinous political class and their cult followers in the UK.

Quite. And I'm starting to think the German car manufacturers are not coming to save us. I also doubt the Nostradamus qualities of Swindon's Brexiter Tory MP Justin Tomlinson. Here he is just five weeks ago: Honda are making preparations for any scenario, they remain committed to Swindon. As the Snr Vice President of Europe has reinforced; Swindon is crucial part of their entire global production network. I have worked closely with them and they fully support the PMs Brexit deal A relative of Jihadi John by any chance?

Devastating if true. Swindon, like Sunderland, voted Leave, so presumably they knew they were torching employment at the largest company in town. Not a surprise, though. We in Project Fear have been talking about Honda's likely withdrawal from the UK for a while.

Christ, so much wrong in so short a post. 1. The government's 'word' includes the words we probably can't stop her from returning. 2. It's baffling why you think our problem should be dumped on the Syrians, who've been put through enough by these idiots decamping to their country and violating it so profoundly. 3. She was 15 when she went out - a child - and was brought up by a distinctly Jihadist-leaning family. So I suspect it's naive to think that she knew what she was doing in any rounded sense. 4. The 'Yanks' have kicked no one's ass - IS have been routed on the ground by Kurdish and Syrian Democratic Forces after indiscriminate aerial bombardments by the Russians. The US has been a very minor player in actual fighting. 5. The Peshmerga is an Iraqi Kurdish fighting force, not Syrian. So they have precisely no plans for her, as they're in an entirely different country. 6. The Kurdish/SDF forces want rid of their foreign prisoners. So yes, they have plans - just not the ones you think.

On the day that a British airline collapses because of Brexit, this from Nick Cohen is magnificent. https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2019/feb/16/brexit-extremism-is-going-nowhere-now-the-moderate-millions-must-act

Translation for the benefit of inhabitants of planet Earth. Behold, The Great Missiledini the Bollo ckstalker has seen the future as clearly as someone wearing sunglasses in a windowless room.

You're correct up to the conjunction. From then on you've lost me. Not that it matters. The delicate flower has everyone on here but himself on ignore. Or so he says. This seems like a thing now among the cult (and terminally incoherent fellow-travellers): not only to put people on ignore, but to tell them, as if it's going to really put a kink in their day. It's all so freakishly weird. So leaving the anti-Nostradamus aside, this is a really succinct take on the biggest political problem in reaching a settled state for Brexit from Stephen Bush (trigger warning to Jihadists: Bush is not white, so his views will be discounted) The major problem with any resolution to the Brexit crisis: there is a parliamentary majority consisting of the bulk of the Conservative Party, the DUP and 10 to 30 Labour MPs, but it can only cohere around a set of demands that cannot be achieved via negotiation with the European Union. Quite..

So you post information that you yourself admit is probably bullsh it as 'balance'? Aside from the fact that the whole Ford/Turkey thing has been addressed in detail earlier in this thread, it is not 'balance' to imply that the views of all these manufacturers can safely be set aside because they are supposedly in pursuit of nebulous ulterior motives (at last according to someone 20-30 years ago). All these companies are linked by the huge damage that would be caused by a tariff-strewn, paperwork-buried rupture in the supply chain. And no amount of supposedly mitigating crap - like the Jihadist claim that the UK will simply and unilaterally drop its tariff barriers - will solve it. So you're at risk of being the target audience for Jihadists like Rees-Mogg and Baker, who want people to believe that what they say is actually true - that you can safely ignore the warnings from all these manufacturers and just act as if nothing really is happening. And it's not just about companies taking fright that will cause them to leave. It's about other countries seizing the opportunity to grab companies from under our noses - something which Holland, France, Germany and Ireland are already well into doing. Then there are the really big players and the effects they'll have on UK-based companies. If we ever get across the table with the US to negotiate a trade deal, one of the principal figures in that will be Wilbur Ross. Here, in chillingly brutal language, is the large-scale 'theft' he plans from the Brexit-enfeebled British economy: https://www.cnbc.com/2016/12/27/brexit-is-a-god-given-opportunity-to-steal-trade-from-uk-wilbur-ross.html

So after dire warnings from Airbus, Nissan, Honda, Jaguar Land Rover and, this week, Ford - and actions by all of them to prepare for abandoning some or all British production - we've had a procession of Brexit dumbasses telling us how they know better, and that the experts who actually run these companies don't know what they're talking about. This is all deeply reminiscent of the last time exert opinion was trashed in the reckless pursuit of cretinous political objectives. I remember how, in the lead-up to the 'coalition' invasion of Iraq, UN weapons inspectors and other military and logistics experts, who found no evidence of chemical weapons, were trashed by know-it-better politicians and their 'dossiers' which proved otherwise. We all know how that turned out. I suppose the sad symmetry is that while the dodgy dossier trumped the experts and ruined another country, the Brexit Jihadist rejection of experts this time will ruin ours.

And so, once again, every plausible-sounding argument against the idea that Brexiters are stupid is trashed.

So you were either blatantly lying or are blindingly stupid.

Excuse me Moses, but I think Jeffrey was being sarky - at least I hope for your sake he was, given the state of this. On to more pressing matters, this is an excellent piece on how other countries in the EU will asset-strip key bits of the British economy. The astonishing collapse that's already happened since June 2016, in inward investment and manufacturing investment in general in the UK, is just the canary in the coal mine. https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2019/feb/07/no-deal-brexit-medieval-siege-eu-britain-industries?CMP=share_btn_tw

The EU's priority 'over and above the EU' is to ignore trolling.

Yes, here you go: We remain.

So let's sort out your comprehension problem. The sort of low-level, unthinking racism exhibited on this thread is like dogsh it. And like dogsh it, you want to avoid it if possible. So knowing where it is is important. Especially if it's Turkish dogsh it, which wants to be dogsh it without being called dogsh it. You're welcome.

As I say, thanks for piping up. Good to know where you are.