• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

British Mother & Son Killed in Syria Fighting for ISIS

truthatallcost

truthatallcost

DP Veteran
Joined
Aug 1, 2014
Messages
26,719
Reaction score
6,278
Location
California
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Other
A British former punk musician who turned into an ISIS operative has reportedly been killed by a U.S. airstrike. Sally Jones, dubbed “The White Widow” by some in the press, was a member of the U.K. punk band Krunch before converting to Islam and traveling to Syria in 2013.

ad-composite-sally-jones-new.jpg


She reportedly operated multiple Twitter handles, acting as a propagandist on social media. Posts from Jones would often contain messages such as, “You Christians all need beheading with a nice blunt knife and stuck on the railings at Raqqa ... Come here I’ll do it for you.”

Jones, along with her 12-year-old song Jojo, are both believed to be dead from a drone strike this year.

joe-dixon.jpg


Punk Musician Turned ISIS Recruiter Reportedly Killed
Click to expand...

It's sad that this confused woman dragged her son into this depravity. The inevitable result of multiculturalism in the UK is that many English people will assimilate to radical Islam, rather than Muslims assimilating to British culture.

I would however like to thank Sally Jones for volunteering to be drone practice for our American Military. :lol:
 
truthatallcost said:
It's sad that this confused woman dragged her son into this depravity. The inevitable result of multiculturalism in the UK is that many English people will assimilate to radical Islam, rather than Muslims assimilating to British culture.

I would however like to thank Sally Jones for volunteering to be drone practice for our American Military. :lol:
Click to expand...

You mean you think it's not just a bad punk? You think it's the way we allow that and other cultures to exist alongside others that rub? That causes crime?
 
She fled to Syria with her son Jo-Jo three years ago, however after Hussain was killed in a drone strike in Raqqa back in August 2015 she has been desperate to leave.

The only thing keeping Jones – who also goes under the alias ‘White Widow’ – from leaving is her son Jo-Jo, who is believed to have taken part in the execution of prisoners – something that Jones had initially forced him to take part in.
Click to expand...
https://www.unilad.co.uk/news/brit-isis-wife-sally-jones-forced-to-stay-in-syria-by-her-own-son/

wow
 
truthatallcost said:
It's sad that this confused woman dragged her son into this depravity. The inevitable result of multiculturalism in the UK is that many English people will assimilate to radical Islam, rather than Muslims assimilating to British culture.

I would however like to thank Sally Jones for volunteering to be drone practice for our American Military. :lol:
Click to expand...

As far as the mother is concerned -- good riddance to bad rubbish.

Sad about the kid, however.
 
Beyond wondering whether the habitual ignorance on ANY European society displayed in the OP is worse, or whether it's the stupidity of the assessment in the OP that it leads to (Brits become IS terrorists on account of different cultures being allowed:roll:), there doesn't really appear to be anything else in the OP that merits address.

As usual.

:failpail:

...............also as usual.
 
truthatallcost said:
It's sad that this confused woman dragged her son into this depravity. The inevitable result of multiculturalism in the UK is that many English people will assimilate to radical Islam, rather than Muslims assimilating to British culture.

I would however like to thank Sally Jones for volunteering to be drone practice for our American Military. :lol:
Click to expand...

People have been known to go over to the dark side for many reasons, and will continue to do so. As for the rest of your assertion, not worth it.
 
joG said:
You mean you think it's not just a bad punk? You think it's the way we allow that and other cultures to exist alongside others that rub? That causes crime?
Click to expand...

Have you ever had British food?
 
While ISIL is surely a monstrous death-cult which must be suppressed and ended vigorously, I am nonetheless of two minds regarding the targeted killing of this woman and her son. As odious and dangerous as her association with ISIL was, to my knowledge she never used direct violence to promote her adopted cause. Her husband did and therefore I have far fewer qualms about his targeted killing and death. She however was a non-combatant who used words and images to spread her creed and recruit others to her adopted cause. While that behaviour was criminal by UK law, it does not normally carry the death penalty. Given that neither the UK nor the USA are formally at war with Syria or ISIL, this seems to me to be an extrajudicial killing based on her expressed beliefs rather than her manifest actions.

Should people be killed outright and without some sort of due process for non-violently promoting an Islamic Caliphate or any other cause against Western interests? Or is the West as arbitrary and intolerant of opposing ideas as ISIL is and thus feels it is fully entitled to summarily take the lives of non-combatants simply because it can? This woman seems to have been purposely targeted for assassination while fleeing from Raqqa and several media reports which I have either read or watched indicated she might have been trying to make her way back to the UK at the time of her alleged death in June. If that is true, why not arrest her upon her return, try her according to UK law and punish her accordingly rather than assassinating her and her 12-year old son?

It is perhaps easier to accept her death after her demonisation by the UK and Western press as the "White Widow". But her crimes were committed by doing exactly what the UK and Western press have also done. She demonised the West and called for the killing of westerners. She recruited supporters and popularised her cause by words and images. But she never took up arms directly to kill. This is no different than what the Western media and legions of military and political pundits have done with regards to the Middle East for at least seven decades and arguably two centuries. So why are the Fleet Street propagandists and the blood thirsty CNN pundits left in peace while she and other non-combatants are blown up by drones, illegally flying in Syrian air space when no formally declared state of war exists? And if she can be killed for her beliefs then who else can be killed for expressing their own beliefs, if such beliefs annoy or threaten power? Killing yesterday's non-combatant jihadist may set the precedent for killing tomorrow's Jean Juares or Mahatma Gandhi. Free and principled states should never be allowed to openly kill people without due process unless they are at formally declared war with the state in which the targeted individual is a citizen or willing resident.

Cheers.
Evilroddy.
 
Chagos said:
Beyond wondering whether the habitual ignorance on ANY European society displayed in the OP is worse, or whether it's the stupidity of the assessment in the OP that it leads to (Brits become IS terrorists on account of different cultures being allowed:roll:), there doesn't really appear to be anything else in the OP that merits address.

As usual.

:failpail:

...............also as usual.
Click to expand...

It would appear that the woman was into some pretty dark religion before she decided to take up with conservative religious extremists. Just goes to show how religion poisons things.
 
Evilroddy said:
While ISIL is surely a monstrous death-cult which must be suppressed and ended vigorously, I am nonetheless of two minds regarding the targeted killing of this woman and her son. As odious and dangerous as her association with ISIL was, to my knowledge she never used direct violence to promote her adopted cause. Her husband did and therefore I have far fewer qualms about his targeted killing and death. She however was a non-combatant who used words and images to spread her creed and recruit others to her adopted cause. While that behaviour was criminal by UK law, it does not normally carry the death penalty. Given that neither the UK nor the USA are formally at war with Syria or ISIL, this seems to me to be an extrajudicial killing based on her expressed beliefs rather than her manifest actions.

Should people be killed outright and without some sort of due process for non-violently promoting an Islamic Caliphate or any other cause against Western interests? Or is the West as arbitrary and intolerant of opposing ideas as ISIL is and thus feels it is fully entitled to summarily take the lives of non-combatants simply because it can? This woman seems to have been purposely targeted for assassination while fleeing from Raqqa and several media reports which I have either read or watched indicated she might have been trying to make her way back to the UK at the time of her alleged death in June. If that is true, why not arrest her upon her return, try her according to UK law and punish her accordingly rather than assassinating her and her 12-year old son?

It is perhaps easier to accept her death after her demonisation by the UK and Western press as the "White Widow". But her crimes were committed by doing exactly what the UK and Western press have also done. She demonised the West and called for the killing of westerners. She recruited supporters and popularised her cause by words and images. But she never took up arms directly to kill. This is no different than what the Western media and legions of military and political pundits have done with regards to the Middle East for at least seven decades and arguably two centuries. So why are the Fleet Street propagandists and the blood thirsty CNN pundits left in peace while she and other non-combatants are blown up by drones, illegally flying in Syrian air space when no formally declared state of war exists? And if she can be killed for her beliefs then who else can be killed for expressing their own beliefs, if such beliefs annoy or threaten power? Killing yesterday's non-combatant jihadist may set the precedent for killing tomorrow's Jean Juares or Mahatma Gandhi. Free and principled states should never be allowed to openly kill people without due process unless they are at formally declared war with the state in which the targeted individual is a citizen or willing resident.

Cheers.
Evilroddy.
Click to expand...

If you can get people to stop questioning authority then authority wins. The long slow process of getting us to accept this kind of action as justified by the circumstances is just one more way that the extremists win.
 
William Rea said:
It would appear that the woman was into some pretty dark religion before she decided to take up with conservative religious extremists. Just goes to show how religion poisons things.
Click to expand...
Forgive me for not taking this up, but arguing any point here (be it in agreement or objection) provides the OP (specifically it's premise) with attention that in my book is totally unmerited.

Even when that point is raised by a totally different poster and would merit address, were it in a different surrounding than this thread could ever provide.
 
Evilroddy said:
While ISIL is surely a monstrous death-cult which must be suppressed and ended vigorously, I am nonetheless of two minds regarding the targeted killing of this woman and her son. As odious and dangerous as her association with ISIL was, to my knowledge she never used direct violence to promote her adopted cause. Her husband did and therefore I have far fewer qualms about his targeted killing and death. She however was a non-combatant who used words and images to spread her creed and recruit others to her adopted cause. While that behaviour was criminal by UK law, it does not normally carry the death penalty. Given that neither the UK nor the USA are formally at war with Syria or ISIL, this seems to me to be an extrajudicial killing based on her expressed beliefs rather than her manifest actions.

Should people be killed outright and without some sort of due process for non-violently promoting an Islamic Caliphate or any other cause against Western interests? Or is the West as arbitrary and intolerant of opposing ideas as ISIL is and thus feels it is fully entitled to summarily take the lives of non-combatants simply because it can? This woman seems to have been purposely targeted for assassination while fleeing from Raqqa and several media reports which I have either read or watched indicated she might have been trying to make her way back to the UK at the time of her alleged death in June. If that is true, why not arrest her upon her return, try her according to UK law and punish her accordingly rather than assassinating her and her 12-year old son?

It is perhaps easier to accept her death after her demonisation by the UK and Western press as the "White Widow". But her crimes were committed by doing exactly what the UK and Western press have also done. She demonised the West and called for the killing of westerners. She recruited supporters and popularised her cause by words and images. But she never took up arms directly to kill. This is no different than what the Western media and legions of military and political pundits have done with regards to the Middle East for at least seven decades and arguably two centuries. So why are the Fleet Street propagandists and the blood thirsty CNN pundits left in peace while she and other non-combatants are blown up by drones, illegally flying in Syrian air space when no formally declared state of war exists? And if she can be killed for her beliefs then who else can be killed for expressing their own beliefs, if such beliefs annoy or threaten power? Killing yesterday's non-combatant jihadist may set the precedent for killing tomorrow's Jean Juares or Mahatma Gandhi. Free and principled states should never be allowed to openly kill people without due process unless they are at formally declared war with the state in which the targeted individual is a citizen or willing resident.

Cheers.
Evilroddy.
Click to expand...

Hitler never killed anyone. He only used his words as well. What an absurd post.
 
stevecanuck said:
Hitler never killed anyone. He only used his words as well. What an absurd post.
Click to expand...

Stevecanuck:

My apologies if the following sounds harsh. Hitler was a soldier in WWI and killed folks in that war. Hitler was not a Goebbels Leni Riefenstahl and Hitler was effectively the commander of OKW, the Lufftwaffe and the Kriegsmarine during the Second World War. Thus he was not a non-combatant and was a legitimate military target. He had authority over the Heer, the SS, the Kriegsmarine, and the Luftwaffe, even if he did not have a uniform on and a military rank after WWI. Learn some more history before you criticise others for their alleged lack of historical knowledge and context.

Cheers.
Evilroddy.
 
Last edited:
Evilroddy said:
Stevecanuck:

My apologies if the following sounds harsh. Hitler was a soldier in WWI and killed folks in that war. Hitler was not a Goebbels Leni Riefenstahl and Hitler was effectively the commander of OKW, the Lufftwaffe and the Kriegsmarine during the Second World War. Thus he was not a non-combatant and was a legitimate military target. He had authority over the Heer, the SS, the Kriegsmarine, and the Luftwaffe, even if he did not have a uniform on and a military rank after WWI. Learn some more history before you criticise others for their alleged lack of historical knowledge and context.

Cheers.
Evilroddy.
Click to expand...
I'll briefly soften my resolve to not grace this thread (specifically its intention) with unmerited attention, in that I'd like to point out a misunderstanding.

I believe Hitler was brought up here to show that your original argument of Sally Jones never having taken up arms herself (let alone personally killing anyone) does precious little by way of mitigation (of her or his conduct).

IOW whether either of them ever pulled a trigger or whether either of them aided, abetted or even instructed others to do so makes no difference.

Where Hitler indeed never killed anyone personally in the time of 1933 to 1945, the taking of his collar size would have been inevitable, had he not done a timely bow-out.

Goes for somebody like Goebbels as well who never even served in any military, let alone saw combat in the field. Of for von Ribbentrop who served in no field (or camp) of WWII and actually was hanged.

The issue of "terminating with extreme prejudice" being a different issue to argue over altogether, but I hope I could clear this here thing up.
 
Last edited:
Chagos said:
Heck, if we take every case of Asian dishes that we watered down and away from their original version so as to fit our palates more, there probably is no such thing as an Asian cuisine at all.

Mars bar in batter and deep-fried anyone?:lol:
Click to expand...

I remember an episode of Madhur Jaffrey's cooking show where she took some British "Indian" prepacked meals to India and none of the chefs there had heard of them.
 
Chagos said:
I'll briefly soften my resolve to not grace this thread (specifically its intention) with unmerited attention, in that I'd like to point out a misunderstanding.

I believe Hitler was brought up here to show that your original argument of Sally Jones never having taken up arms herself (let alone personally killing anyone) does precious little by way of mitigation (of her or his conduct).

IOW whether either of them ever pulled a trigger or whether either of them aided, abetted or even instructed others to do so makes no difference.

Where Hitler indeed never killed anyone personally in the time of 1933 to 1945, the taking of his collar size would have been inevitable, had he not done a timely bow-out.

Goes for somebody like Goebbels as well who never even served in any military, let alone saw combat in the field. Of for von Ribbentrop who served in no field (or camp) of WWII and actually was hanged.

The issue of "terminating with extreme prejudice" being a different issue to argue over altogether, but I hope I could clear this here thing up.
Click to expand...

And that you did.
 
zyzygy said:
I remember an episode of Madhur Jaffrey's cooking show where she took some British "Indian" prepacked meals to India and none of the chefs there had heard of them.
Click to expand...
I recall enthusiastically agreeing to the suggestion of eating a korma (lamb I think) in the manner that the chef spices it for his own family (after having believed for years to know all about it already and always having insisted on not having it spiced too weakly in "the tourist way").

At the time I coincidentally was suffering from a severe head cold that had by then gone to the chest in whooping cough manner.

Where I was healed completely within about half an hour, I was also seriously contemplating whether a .45 straight to the head might not have been a better idea.

What I nevertheless find intriguing to this day is the skill that goes into preparing it in such a manner that the brain runs out of the ears, yet the taste buds are not affected.

Contrary to common belief, the two are clearly not linked at all.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom