John Smith wrote on Oct 6
th, 2022 at 9:31pm:
freediver wrote on Oct 6
th, 2022 at 8:50pm:
Can you explain why politicians from both sides, national security, and the women themselves support monitoring, if there is no significant threat?
because they're politicians trying to win the vote of islamaphobes like you
Do you think the women involved are also trying to win votes? What about the national security apparatus? How grand is this conspiracy you feel compelled to invoke in order to avoid acknowledging that people who join a foreign enemy terrorist organisation might in fact pose a threat, while also insisting it is nothing to do with Islam, which you are not defending?
polite_gandalf wrote on Oct 10
th, 2022 at 9:57am:
We are talking about the wives and children of ISIS fighters - not the ISIS fighters themselves.
In any other context the Islamophobes would gleefully wax lyrical about how these same poor women are forced to do whatever their men-folk tell them to - wear the hijab, don't work, forced marriage etc. Now when it comes to actually helping these women, they're all "oh, they brought it upon themselves" - even though it would be entirely consistent with their stereotypical narrative to argue that they were forced to travel to Syria by their husbands.
Which narrative are you going with Gandalf?
Quote:do you include the babies and toddlers that were born in refugee camps in that broad-stroke Frank?
Babies born in a foreign enemy country to foreign parents who are enemies of this country. There are millions to choose from Gandalf. Having morons for parents does not entitle you to Australian citizenship.
Quote:We owe them a duty of care. The government says they will only follow security advise. And if the security advise says there is a way of repatriating them without increasing the threat, then, really, what besides sheer vindictiveness could be the objection?
Time for some common sense Gandalf. Think for yourself. Is there a way to repatriate members of IS without increasing the threat?