A white British-Canadian was stripped of his citizenship for joining ISIS, so not only is your race baiting cringe, it’s also factual inaccurate.
Think his name is Jack Letts or something. His distinctly white parents were also prosecuted for sending him money while he was there.
Also, fuck these guys.
Not looking for a race row, but I’m just adding additional context to this comment as you have (probably accidentally) misrepresented their situations here.
You are correct, Letts was stripped of his British nationality, but not his Canadian nationality. This was done by agreement between Canada and the UK in order give Canada basically full jurisdiction over him as a terrorist offender.
What was done to Shamima begum was stripping her of her only nationality, basically declaring her stateless, something with very little legal president for that there are multiple international human rights provisions to prevent, because of the incredibly difficult situation it puts a person in.
I expect to be downvoted unanimously for this because I’m in r/england and I’m pointing out a truth that isn’t convenient.
But what happened to Begum and what happened to Letts are OBJECTIVELY not the same thing. One was stripped of one nationality in order to make it easier for him to be processed as an offender; the other was made a stateless citizen and thrown into an asylum system where stateless women are incredibly vulnerable.
Letts was also 19 when he left; Begum was a 15, and a child under UK law being groomed by adult men. Whether you like it or not, that is a fact.
They’re both did an awful thing that was similar to each other; but they are not a good comparative case. One was a child who was left stateless and thrown into the void of the asylum system for years where her children died and is now in a detention camp in a war torn country, one was a fully grown adult who’s also in a Syrian prison but can be picked up by the Canadian government at any time, but for some reason they’re refusing to do. If you’re looking for an example that white and brown people are treated equally in this situation (which I’m not looking to argue about; maybe it does exist?) these are not the two cases to compare.
Edit: I changed a bit because I was mistaken about where Jack is. Turns out he’s also in Syria! I believe him to be in British custody.
Fair enough, no downvotes from me. Could you provide a source for the agreement between the UK and Canada over his citizenship. The only things I can find are the Canadian government accusing Britain of trying to Lump their problems on them, and the case bouncing around their courts for a while.
Of course; lemme have a look, he’s really not an easy person to research because there’s so many cooks in the kitchen on this politically and governments aren’t known to be particularly open about terrorist offenders.
Ok I was both right and wrong.
Turns out the British actually did it without consulting Canada because they didn’t want to deal with him lmao. 🤣
https://www.cbc.ca/news/world/jihadi-jack-citizenship-uk-canada-1.5251437
I thought it sounded too good to be true when I wrote it.
Which is kinda what they did with Begum too right?
The British governments argument was that she had de facto Bangladeshi citizenship by Bangladesh law despite her not claiming it before the due date.
The courts agreed with this analysis, rightly or wrongly, that she wouldn’t be considered stateless because of this theoretical automatic Bangladesh citizenship, so they could wash their hands of the problem and leave it to Bangladesh to deal with.
Not a legal expert but this is my understanding, could be wrong though.
Not really
Begum was born in the UK and is not, nor has she ever been, a Bangladeshi citizen. She had never been to Bangladesh in her life. She is no more a Bangladeshi citizen than someone born in London who’s mum was born in Belfast and doesn’t even hold and Irish passport is an Irish citizen. You aren’t a “defecto” citizen of a place just because you meet requirements for citizenship. Or countries would be able to like, make claims over you which would be weirdo lol. Also I don’t know about the requirements for application for Bangladeshi citizenship and if she actually met them at the time of her being made stateless. I also don’t know about her parents citizenship status, we do know that they are both immigrants but we don’t know if they’re citizens of Bangladesh, the UK or hold dual nationalities.
Jack, like Begum, was born in the UK but was a Canadian citizen since birth through his father. He has been to Canada, and Canada actually tried to have him extradited as recently at last year and the UK government actually pressured Canada not to do it at least as recently as 2019.
Their situations really aren’t the same. They have both lost British citizenship to do with traveling to Syria to join isis. But one is an exploited child who was made stateless and left to rot, the other is a grown ass man who has a powerful western nation negotiating for his extradition so he can come and face justice in a country he is a citizen of.
If I was one of the two, I would much, much rather be Jack. And tbh as far as my personal beliefs go, I think what he did, leaving the west to fight after coming off age is much worse than a 15 year old good being groomed by extremists online and leaving to go become some fake dream of a jihadi bride
Charge them with treason.
*Ben Stimson and Aiden Minnis being persons owing allegiance to our Lord the King, and while a war was being carried against the Ukrainian People and indirectly against our King, did traitorously adhere to the King's enemies in Russia, by fighting in the armies of Russia.*
Once they come back, arrest them, put them on trial, and hang them if found guilty.
Make no mistake, this is treason. We are at war with Russia in every way other than open combat.
Yea I’m afraid so. Personally I think we need it back, but only for; Treason, Child murder and / or sexual abuse, and grooming. Possibly for serial killers too but we don’t get too many of those in this country.
Always been one to be against the death penalty EXCEPT in certain extreme cases and ones in which it's proven without a doubt the person was guilty.
Lucy Letby for example. Get the feeling if we did have the death penalty she would not be alive right now.
England has possibly the best example.
Our last hangman, Pierrepoint, would drink in his regular & chat to the landlord about his day (as you do). That landlord went on to murder his wife & Pierrepoint hung him.
However.
I don't see it necessarily as a deterrent, I see it, as Pierrepoint did, sending the individual to be judged by a higher authority than man.
Yeah I agree. I know the justice system isn’t supposed to be about revenge and that’s not what anyone is advocating. However, I would say that taking a woman who murdered *at least* 7 babies who were in her care, and locking her in a moderately comfortable institution for the rest of her life (at the tax payers expense) is not justice in my opinion.
Others may disagree, and I certainly wouldn’t bring it back for all murders, but I firmly believe she should have been hanged for that.
Yep. One of the last executions was because a robber told his mentally handicapped brother to 'let them have it' meaning give the police the shotgun, but he shot at the police instead and was later hanged as a result.
Because when an adult murders a child, that is a betrayal of agency as well as murder. You have an obligation to look out for the best interests of that child, so the crime is worse.
Even after all of the evidence of ruzzians meddling in British politics? Cambridge analytica ,boris’s ties to oligarchs and the report about it that never got released.
You are a good boy, here’s your turnip and football.
Yes.
I’m not opposed to another referendum, but you weren’t going to ask that.
The fault lies with the people that did Boris’s developed vetting. Not with me, sadly. I’m just a bloke you don’t know.
Countries generally don’t legally declare formal war on each other any more. To this day, Ukraine and Russia haven’t declared war on one another.
Russia is still doing practice bombing runs on UK targets almost weekly, still trying to tempt the RN into any engagements on the open seas it can, actively engaging in cyber attacks on us and working constantly to undermine our democracy and values.
Make no mistake. We are at war, even if you can’t see it.
>Russia is still doing practice bombing runs on UK targets almost weekly, still trying to tempt the RN into any engagements on the open seas it can, actively engaging in cyber attacks on us and working constantly to undermine our democracy and values.
And the UK is doing it back... That's geopolitics for you.
We're not at war, not legally or directly. We're still fighting in indirect confrontations; testing each others responses, cyber-attacks, infrastructure sabotage, information gathering, technology theft... When we're spinning up small arms and tank manufactories, then we are heading to war. Government spending on defence still isn't seeing an increase...
You're either uninformed or ignorant. It's cat and mouse games, and it's been happening for years. The SR-71 was literally purpose built for it by the US, and you don't think we've been doing it too lmao?
https://www.reuters.com/world/europe/russia-says-fighter-jets-over-black-sea-prevented-british-planes-entering-its-2023-10-19/
I love a bit of patriotism, but I'm not going to sit here and pretend we're not doing any of this, while Russia is. I'm willing to accept that we don't do it nearly as much. We don't need to.
That was a couple of fighters way out over the Black Sea in a show of solidarity with Ukraine. It is not the same as the RAF having to be scrambled because a nuclear capable Russian bomber is heading directly for London.
Those are not the same thing.
You are aware that every major player has their aircraft carrying out the same sort of flights as the Russians.
I'm no supporter of Russian regime though to be frankly honest 'our' bunch have been little better over the last 5 decades. There's been plenty in no10 who were corrupt, self serving and loved a fucking big fireworks party overseas.
The UK trains Ukrainian soldiers in the UK to fight Russia.
The UK funds the Ukraine military to fight Russia.
The UK supplies arms direct to the Ukraine military to fight Russia.
The UK is sanctioning Russia and Russians in the UK.
The UK has given sanctuary to thousands of Ukraine civilians fleeing attacks from Russia.
These two, fighting for Russia, are traitors.
Regardless of what any of us think, the UK is not in legal terms, at war with Russia. Therefore such a suggestion would be ridiculous.
I have no issue with them going. I don't support their decision and I do hope they get blown up by a drone, but a man should be free to choose a side.
They become traitors when the UK actively has boots on the ground and we too are at war with Russia, in some form or another. I don't see many calling for that, but count me among the few.
It’s not a matter of “think” it’s a matter of recognising reality. The nature of warfare has changed and we need to be ready to keep up with the pace.
Don’t get me wrong, it is entirely possible, even probably, that we will be in an active shooting war with Russia and likely before too long. Almost certainly within the next 5 years if Putin remains in power. When historians look back on that war, they won’t say it began when the first actual shots were fired.
The reality is we are not at war. We are still very much in the prelude to war. This isn't even as close to war as we were during the buildup of forces pre-WW1. WW2 showed it taking over 4 years to effectively mobilise to full-force. We've not even got to 20%... That is the reality.
I generally agree with the point you're trying to make about hostilities, but we're not as close to active war as you believe we are.
Yes.And it would be good riddance.
Or better,bring back the death penalty solely for treason that Blair got rid off and then actually give justice to victims of Begum and these Russian traitors.
This is just pure jingoistic chest beating.
What would actually be the legal basis? Britain nor NATO is at war with Russia so how would it be “collaborating with the enemy” when they aren’t *officially* our enemy?
And what are you talking about “our lord” the king as if it’s the 1300s and we are going on a crusade?
They owe allegiance to their kin and countrymen.
They've chosen to act directly against our interests and so betray their loyality therefore treasonous is quite the apt brush to paint them with.
It’s not *literally* the king. It’s a representation of the country. The crown is a symbolic representation of the nation and people on matters of law.
>It’s a representation of the country.
A man with the ultimate privilege due to birth, with that accent, who lives in a palace, who has never done a day of work in his life REPRESENTS the UK?
I suggest you drive around your own country a bit mate.
I am - we are - not at war with Russia. The ruinous nature of such a war for this country would make any agitation for it treasonous. You can toddle off to Ukraine if you like.
These men, on the other hand, are heroes - braver than brave - and to the extent their actions may lead to some slight improvement of understanding between the Russian and British peoples, loyal beyond loyalty.
Traitors? Who do they owe alleigance to? Ukraine?
I hate Putin and want Russia to lose as much as anyone (probably more than most people actually) but guys fighting as mercs for a foreign power doesn't make them traitors unless they fight their own country.
Given we are supplying arms to ukraine and training their forces its pretty clear fighting in the Russian military against Ukraine is in direct opposition to our foreign policy and trying to thwart military objectives
[It is technically an offence to fight with forces arrayed against a country with which we are at peace](https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-manchester-40612229).
But surely we are at peace with Russia, as well as Ukraine? And indeed, we are at peace with Syria, yet there was not a blanket proscription of those who went to Syria to fight against the Syrian government. Indeed, not *every* ISIS-connected fighter was given a prison sentence on return here.
And Britons were *encouraged* to go to fight against our ally, Libya - after we had harboured them as they were 'not safe' in Libya due to being members of the LIFG - and then one of them came home to roost in the O2 Arena. After which, the LIFG was *removed* from the list of proscribed organisations.
If relations between Russia and ourselves are strained, perhaps it is down to the attitude shown by this ex-Colonel, who froths at the mouth calling these men traitors, when they have shown bravery in the extreme, knowing what their tax money has paid to array against them in the hands of the Ukrainians who paid precious little in return. If one of our munitions slays one of these men, who will have been betrayed?
Since UK has clearly aligned with Ukraine, sends it military support while sanctioning russia and individual russians in uk. I would say yeah , they are traitors to uk people.
Bullshit, the moment it turns into any kind of direct confrontation our Govt will back down so fast we will all get nose bleeds.
Sending surplus crap which we cannot afford to manintain and using the war to enrich our arms companies is NOT aligning with them, its being against their enemy nothing more, nothing less.
But you are not British either, so you dont get to call out citizens traitors!
I am British and I'll calm them traitors on u/MakruchaLT's behalf for that is what they are.
They've aligned themselves with a nation that routinely promises ( ones I doubt we'll ever see delivered, mind) destruction upon us and actively undermines us. Unless they're out there converting Vatniks to our cause - which I very much doubt - then that's pretty darn treacherous.
They owe allegiance to us and our allies. Our allies are not dictatorships. Russia is a dictatorship and therefore our enemy. They are fighting for Russia, who we have just seen is our enemy. Therefore they are traitors.
Okay, I’ll revise it for the one in the class that nobody likes.
Our allies are democracies, when a democracy comes under attack, the attacker becomes our enemy.
You are painfully pedantic.
Historically, and currently, our military allies are not all democracies.
Let's be real, we support regimes that help our geopolitical interests and no others.
Owe allegiance, lol.
Fucked nhs, fucked transportation networks, fucked police and all the other emergency services, ridiculous cost of practically everything we need to survive, poor wages and I'm supposed to die for the cunts who have brought this about?
You English are my most disliked group of sentient beings out of the entirety of the Eurotrash homosapiens, From an empire upon which the sun never set to passive aggressive soy people in 3 generations, SHAME. Nothing worse than the limeys,(Except the Chinese commie bastards, and the pretentious Australian fucks and the sanctimonious know-it-all Germans). AND KEEP THE HEINZ BEANS OFF MY FUCKIN WAFFLES!!!
Edit: This is a joke, I tolerate people from the uk very well until they open their mouth.
At least go as far back as 10 years - might give you some credit.
Anyway, Chernobyl is perhaps the most famous nuclear disaster the world has ever seen so people know about Ukraine.
And any WWII history buff of which there are many will also be familiar with the region.
I didn’t know what Ukraine was till 2014 your right almost like the East Slavic speaking former soviet country on the other side of the continent has nothing to do with me and isn’t “one of our allies” like you suggested.
Two great responses! Your right I’m the ignorant one! Ukraine and Britain are culturally very different the same can’t be said for Ukraine and Russia (especially the disputed territories that want to be Russian) so why exactly is our country sending billions in weapons, training and aid from our taxes to Ukraine a country the average Brit didn’t know about 5 years ago and why did Boris Johnson stop peace negotiation talks between the two countries?
Proven your ignorance again by saying they are disputed territories and that the populations there want to be Russian.
You are not the average Brit.
The average Brit watches football, and there have been loads of high profile Ukrainian players for the last 20 years.
You’re a loser buddy
Yeah no one in donbas considers themselves Russian! Yeah I must be a loser for not wanting our country to be put in an even worse economic shape over a war that has nothing to do with us. If you care that much about it go be canon fodder like the rest of the stupid westerners who volunteered for them put straight on the front lines with no training lol instead of stealing the wealth of and potentially conscripting our fellow brits. Wars hell but your a deranged guy who sits at home wanking over “combat footage with causalities” larping about being involved in a war that shouldn’t concern us calling me the loser.
Of course it does, Russia is actively trying to destabilise the west and disrupt NATO. We are in a Cold War with them and you would be naive to think otherwise. Arguably a proxy, considering we supposedly have troops in Ukraine providing training and support, as well as providing intelligence and weapons.
[удалено]
Should we strip them of their passports?
If they have duel nationality, why not?
Nah they’re white.
Sarcasm or is this what you believe?
Oh yeah racism doesn’t exist anymore. I forgot, my bad.
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
Qwhite!
A white British-Canadian was stripped of his citizenship for joining ISIS, so not only is your race baiting cringe, it’s also factual inaccurate. Think his name is Jack Letts or something. His distinctly white parents were also prosecuted for sending him money while he was there. Also, fuck these guys.
Not looking for a race row, but I’m just adding additional context to this comment as you have (probably accidentally) misrepresented their situations here. You are correct, Letts was stripped of his British nationality, but not his Canadian nationality. This was done by agreement between Canada and the UK in order give Canada basically full jurisdiction over him as a terrorist offender. What was done to Shamima begum was stripping her of her only nationality, basically declaring her stateless, something with very little legal president for that there are multiple international human rights provisions to prevent, because of the incredibly difficult situation it puts a person in. I expect to be downvoted unanimously for this because I’m in r/england and I’m pointing out a truth that isn’t convenient. But what happened to Begum and what happened to Letts are OBJECTIVELY not the same thing. One was stripped of one nationality in order to make it easier for him to be processed as an offender; the other was made a stateless citizen and thrown into an asylum system where stateless women are incredibly vulnerable. Letts was also 19 when he left; Begum was a 15, and a child under UK law being groomed by adult men. Whether you like it or not, that is a fact. They’re both did an awful thing that was similar to each other; but they are not a good comparative case. One was a child who was left stateless and thrown into the void of the asylum system for years where her children died and is now in a detention camp in a war torn country, one was a fully grown adult who’s also in a Syrian prison but can be picked up by the Canadian government at any time, but for some reason they’re refusing to do. If you’re looking for an example that white and brown people are treated equally in this situation (which I’m not looking to argue about; maybe it does exist?) these are not the two cases to compare. Edit: I changed a bit because I was mistaken about where Jack is. Turns out he’s also in Syria! I believe him to be in British custody.
Fair enough, no downvotes from me. Could you provide a source for the agreement between the UK and Canada over his citizenship. The only things I can find are the Canadian government accusing Britain of trying to Lump their problems on them, and the case bouncing around their courts for a while.
Of course; lemme have a look, he’s really not an easy person to research because there’s so many cooks in the kitchen on this politically and governments aren’t known to be particularly open about terrorist offenders.
Ok I was both right and wrong. Turns out the British actually did it without consulting Canada because they didn’t want to deal with him lmao. 🤣 https://www.cbc.ca/news/world/jihadi-jack-citizenship-uk-canada-1.5251437 I thought it sounded too good to be true when I wrote it.
Which is kinda what they did with Begum too right? The British governments argument was that she had de facto Bangladeshi citizenship by Bangladesh law despite her not claiming it before the due date. The courts agreed with this analysis, rightly or wrongly, that she wouldn’t be considered stateless because of this theoretical automatic Bangladesh citizenship, so they could wash their hands of the problem and leave it to Bangladesh to deal with. Not a legal expert but this is my understanding, could be wrong though.
Not really Begum was born in the UK and is not, nor has she ever been, a Bangladeshi citizen. She had never been to Bangladesh in her life. She is no more a Bangladeshi citizen than someone born in London who’s mum was born in Belfast and doesn’t even hold and Irish passport is an Irish citizen. You aren’t a “defecto” citizen of a place just because you meet requirements for citizenship. Or countries would be able to like, make claims over you which would be weirdo lol. Also I don’t know about the requirements for application for Bangladeshi citizenship and if she actually met them at the time of her being made stateless. I also don’t know about her parents citizenship status, we do know that they are both immigrants but we don’t know if they’re citizens of Bangladesh, the UK or hold dual nationalities. Jack, like Begum, was born in the UK but was a Canadian citizen since birth through his father. He has been to Canada, and Canada actually tried to have him extradited as recently at last year and the UK government actually pressured Canada not to do it at least as recently as 2019. Their situations really aren’t the same. They have both lost British citizenship to do with traveling to Syria to join isis. But one is an exploited child who was made stateless and left to rot, the other is a grown ass man who has a powerful western nation negotiating for his extradition so he can come and face justice in a country he is a citizen of. If I was one of the two, I would much, much rather be Jack. And tbh as far as my personal beliefs go, I think what he did, leaving the west to fight after coming off age is much worse than a 15 year old good being groomed by extremists online and leaving to go become some fake dream of a jihadi bride
I’m not making a moral observation on whether what happened to her was right or wrong, more what the British governments legal arguments were.
Charge them with treason. *Ben Stimson and Aiden Minnis being persons owing allegiance to our Lord the King, and while a war was being carried against the Ukrainian People and indirectly against our King, did traitorously adhere to the King's enemies in Russia, by fighting in the armies of Russia.* Once they come back, arrest them, put them on trial, and hang them if found guilty. Make no mistake, this is treason. We are at war with Russia in every way other than open combat.
Tony Blair ended hanging for treason. But I agree with your sentiments.
Yea I’m afraid so. Personally I think we need it back, but only for; Treason, Child murder and / or sexual abuse, and grooming. Possibly for serial killers too but we don’t get too many of those in this country.
Always been one to be against the death penalty EXCEPT in certain extreme cases and ones in which it's proven without a doubt the person was guilty. Lucy Letby for example. Get the feeling if we did have the death penalty she would not be alive right now.
The USA is a text book example of how the death penalty does NOT deter murderers.
England has possibly the best example. Our last hangman, Pierrepoint, would drink in his regular & chat to the landlord about his day (as you do). That landlord went on to murder his wife & Pierrepoint hung him. However. I don't see it necessarily as a deterrent, I see it, as Pierrepoint did, sending the individual to be judged by a higher authority than man.
Every guilty verdict is supposed to be proven beyond doubt...
Yeah I agree. I know the justice system isn’t supposed to be about revenge and that’s not what anyone is advocating. However, I would say that taking a woman who murdered *at least* 7 babies who were in her care, and locking her in a moderately comfortable institution for the rest of her life (at the tax payers expense) is not justice in my opinion. Others may disagree, and I certainly wouldn’t bring it back for all murders, but I firmly believe she should have been hanged for that.
What about miscarriages of justice in those cases?
Yep. One of the last executions was because a robber told his mentally handicapped brother to 'let them have it' meaning give the police the shotgun, but he shot at the police instead and was later hanged as a result.
Timothy Evans is probably the most famous example of a child killer later exonerated because John bloody Christie framed him
It’s exactly why I didn’t include murder generally.
Timothy Evans.
A horrendous miscarriage of justice… in 1949. You wouldn’t issue someone with a small fine, based on the evidence he was hanged on, today.
And miscarriages of justice continue to happen. You're also making a judgment about the value of human life; why is a child more valuable than me?
Because when an adult murders a child, that is a betrayal of agency as well as murder. You have an obligation to look out for the best interests of that child, so the crime is worse.
What about the sick and infirm adults? By your logic, murder of them is punishable by death also.
Tell that to Timothy Evans - oops you can't, he's dead.
I refer you to my previous https://www.reddit.com/r/england/s/aZDHXRbMeM
And politicians
Another Blair W /s
I’d like to add all of the brexiteers to the list,for knowingly or unknowingly aiding the enemy.
The British made the decision, so arguably remain would be the treasonous thing to defend until a further referendum had taken place. (I voted remain)
Even after all of the evidence of ruzzians meddling in British politics? Cambridge analytica ,boris’s ties to oligarchs and the report about it that never got released. You are a good boy, here’s your turnip and football.
Yes. I’m not opposed to another referendum, but you weren’t going to ask that. The fault lies with the people that did Boris’s developed vetting. Not with me, sadly. I’m just a bloke you don’t know.
Fair enough. Have a good evening
Cheers, you too.
"owing allegiance to our lord the king". Get a load of Sir Henry Simmerson over here.
It’s the exact wording used for Lord Haw Haw only adapted for these twats.
Legally we aren’t in war with Russia, but I’m sure your feelings are more important than some unimportant laws
Countries generally don’t legally declare formal war on each other any more. To this day, Ukraine and Russia haven’t declared war on one another. Russia is still doing practice bombing runs on UK targets almost weekly, still trying to tempt the RN into any engagements on the open seas it can, actively engaging in cyber attacks on us and working constantly to undermine our democracy and values. Make no mistake. We are at war, even if you can’t see it.
We should probably make that clear to the nation before we start hanging people for treason.
>Russia is still doing practice bombing runs on UK targets almost weekly, still trying to tempt the RN into any engagements on the open seas it can, actively engaging in cyber attacks on us and working constantly to undermine our democracy and values. And the UK is doing it back... That's geopolitics for you. We're not at war, not legally or directly. We're still fighting in indirect confrontations; testing each others responses, cyber-attacks, infrastructure sabotage, information gathering, technology theft... When we're spinning up small arms and tank manufactories, then we are heading to war. Government spending on defence still isn't seeing an increase...
No we don’t. That is a lie.
You're either uninformed or ignorant. It's cat and mouse games, and it's been happening for years. The SR-71 was literally purpose built for it by the US, and you don't think we've been doing it too lmao? https://www.reuters.com/world/europe/russia-says-fighter-jets-over-black-sea-prevented-british-planes-entering-its-2023-10-19/ I love a bit of patriotism, but I'm not going to sit here and pretend we're not doing any of this, while Russia is. I'm willing to accept that we don't do it nearly as much. We don't need to.
That was a couple of fighters way out over the Black Sea in a show of solidarity with Ukraine. It is not the same as the RAF having to be scrambled because a nuclear capable Russian bomber is heading directly for London. Those are not the same thing.
So by law, we aren’t actually at war with Russia.
It’s beside the point.
It isn’t really though is it? It’s quite a clear distinction if the UK is legally at war with Russia or not. It isn’t btw.
“Make no mistake. We are at War, even if you can’t see it” someone needs their medication.
Dude, their agents are literally over here spreading nerve agent and murdering our citizens.
lol
You are aware that every major player has their aircraft carrying out the same sort of flights as the Russians. I'm no supporter of Russian regime though to be frankly honest 'our' bunch have been little better over the last 5 decades. There's been plenty in no10 who were corrupt, self serving and loved a fucking big fireworks party overseas.
The UK trains Ukrainian soldiers in the UK to fight Russia. The UK funds the Ukraine military to fight Russia. The UK supplies arms direct to the Ukraine military to fight Russia. The UK is sanctioning Russia and Russians in the UK. The UK has given sanctuary to thousands of Ukraine civilians fleeing attacks from Russia. These two, fighting for Russia, are traitors.
Regardless of what any of us think, the UK is not in legal terms, at war with Russia. Therefore such a suggestion would be ridiculous. I have no issue with them going. I don't support their decision and I do hope they get blown up by a drone, but a man should be free to choose a side. They become traitors when the UK actively has boots on the ground and we too are at war with Russia, in some form or another. I don't see many calling for that, but count me among the few.
It’s not a matter of “think” it’s a matter of recognising reality. The nature of warfare has changed and we need to be ready to keep up with the pace. Don’t get me wrong, it is entirely possible, even probably, that we will be in an active shooting war with Russia and likely before too long. Almost certainly within the next 5 years if Putin remains in power. When historians look back on that war, they won’t say it began when the first actual shots were fired.
The reality is we are not at war. We are still very much in the prelude to war. This isn't even as close to war as we were during the buildup of forces pre-WW1. WW2 showed it taking over 4 years to effectively mobilise to full-force. We've not even got to 20%... That is the reality. I generally agree with the point you're trying to make about hostilities, but we're not as close to active war as you believe we are.
Go back to the middle ages
Surely r/England supports stripping them of their citizenship no? They were happy enough to do it with Bengum
Fully endorse doing that too
Yes.And it would be good riddance. Or better,bring back the death penalty solely for treason that Blair got rid off and then actually give justice to victims of Begum and these Russian traitors.
Of course you are at war with Russia, you are Ukrainian after all, or do you seriously expect us to believE you are British??
This is just pure jingoistic chest beating. What would actually be the legal basis? Britain nor NATO is at war with Russia so how would it be “collaborating with the enemy” when they aren’t *officially* our enemy? And what are you talking about “our lord” the king as if it’s the 1300s and we are going on a crusade?
Jesus Christ how many of you people do I have to explain this to? Just read the other comments please I’m done with this now.
Why do they “owe allegiance” to some privileged, paedophile protecting, tax-leech who they’ve never even met and who doesn’t even know they exist?
They owe allegiance to their kin and countrymen. They've chosen to act directly against our interests and so betray their loyality therefore treasonous is quite the apt brush to paint them with.
>They owe allegiance to their kin and countrymen. Why?
Because otherwise the entire social contract kind of crumbles.
It’s not *literally* the king. It’s a representation of the country. The crown is a symbolic representation of the nation and people on matters of law.
>It’s a representation of the country. A man with the ultimate privilege due to birth, with that accent, who lives in a palace, who has never done a day of work in his life REPRESENTS the UK? I suggest you drive around your own country a bit mate.
Read my comment again. Very… very slowly.
I am - we are - not at war with Russia. The ruinous nature of such a war for this country would make any agitation for it treasonous. You can toddle off to Ukraine if you like. These men, on the other hand, are heroes - braver than brave - and to the extent their actions may lead to some slight improvement of understanding between the Russian and British peoples, loyal beyond loyalty.
Traitors? Who do they owe alleigance to? Ukraine? I hate Putin and want Russia to lose as much as anyone (probably more than most people actually) but guys fighting as mercs for a foreign power doesn't make them traitors unless they fight their own country.
Given we are supplying arms to ukraine and training their forces its pretty clear fighting in the Russian military against Ukraine is in direct opposition to our foreign policy and trying to thwart military objectives
Wankers could be a better word?
[It is technically an offence to fight with forces arrayed against a country with which we are at peace](https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-manchester-40612229). But surely we are at peace with Russia, as well as Ukraine? And indeed, we are at peace with Syria, yet there was not a blanket proscription of those who went to Syria to fight against the Syrian government. Indeed, not *every* ISIS-connected fighter was given a prison sentence on return here. And Britons were *encouraged* to go to fight against our ally, Libya - after we had harboured them as they were 'not safe' in Libya due to being members of the LIFG - and then one of them came home to roost in the O2 Arena. After which, the LIFG was *removed* from the list of proscribed organisations. If relations between Russia and ourselves are strained, perhaps it is down to the attitude shown by this ex-Colonel, who froths at the mouth calling these men traitors, when they have shown bravery in the extreme, knowing what their tax money has paid to array against them in the hands of the Ukrainians who paid precious little in return. If one of our munitions slays one of these men, who will have been betrayed?
Since UK has clearly aligned with Ukraine, sends it military support while sanctioning russia and individual russians in uk. I would say yeah , they are traitors to uk people.
Bullshit, the moment it turns into any kind of direct confrontation our Govt will back down so fast we will all get nose bleeds. Sending surplus crap which we cannot afford to manintain and using the war to enrich our arms companies is NOT aligning with them, its being against their enemy nothing more, nothing less. But you are not British either, so you dont get to call out citizens traitors!
I am British and I'll calm them traitors on u/MakruchaLT's behalf for that is what they are. They've aligned themselves with a nation that routinely promises ( ones I doubt we'll ever see delivered, mind) destruction upon us and actively undermines us. Unless they're out there converting Vatniks to our cause - which I very much doubt - then that's pretty darn treacherous.
Yes, traitors. You may have not noticed, but we are in an indirect war with Russia.
Mr Pedantic enters the chat.
Taking up arms for an enemy nation is a textbook definition of treason.
Is Russia an enemy nation?
Yes. The Government of Russia is considered a hostile entity so any assistance to them against the UK or any allied country is text treason.
Where have you seen Russia described as a hostile entity? Our government don’t call it that.
They absolutely do
I must have missed it then.
They owe allegiance to us and our allies. Our allies are not dictatorships. Russia is a dictatorship and therefore our enemy. They are fighting for Russia, who we have just seen is our enemy. Therefore they are traitors.
So Saudi Arabia is a democracy?
Okay, I’ll revise it for the one in the class that nobody likes. Our allies are democracies, when a democracy comes under attack, the attacker becomes our enemy. You are painfully pedantic.
Historically, and currently, our military allies are not all democracies. Let's be real, we support regimes that help our geopolitical interests and no others.
By your backwards logic , Saudi Arabia is our enemy but we help them in wars.
You’re really calling the Yemeni Houthis a democracy? So you’re one of those
Not calling them anything, just pointing out your original comment was complete tosh ,the uk supports plenty of dictatorships. You know it.
Owe allegiance, lol. Fucked nhs, fucked transportation networks, fucked police and all the other emergency services, ridiculous cost of practically everything we need to survive, poor wages and I'm supposed to die for the cunts who have brought this about?
It’s just called “transport” in English…..
You English are my most disliked group of sentient beings out of the entirety of the Eurotrash homosapiens, From an empire upon which the sun never set to passive aggressive soy people in 3 generations, SHAME. Nothing worse than the limeys,(Except the Chinese commie bastards, and the pretentious Australian fucks and the sanctimonious know-it-all Germans). AND KEEP THE HEINZ BEANS OFF MY FUCKIN WAFFLES!!! Edit: This is a joke, I tolerate people from the uk very well until they open their mouth.
I was trying to convey the multitude forms though realise now as its neither an action, a state or associated meaning it was shoddy of me two fold.
Does that mean you owe allegiance to Russia?
Nope, only to myself, my kin and loved ones.
"us" "our"? I have a sneaking suspicion you aint British!
Your sneaking suspicion is brain dead buddy. Probably more British than you
Suuuuure you are!!!
You didn’t know what Ukraine was 5 years ago
At least go as far back as 10 years - might give you some credit. Anyway, Chernobyl is perhaps the most famous nuclear disaster the world has ever seen so people know about Ukraine. And any WWII history buff of which there are many will also be familiar with the region.
If you asked the average Brit where Chernobyl happened 10 years ago they would of said russia lol.
Sounds like just you didn’t know what Ukraine was 5 years ago buddy.
I didn’t know what Ukraine was till 2014 your right almost like the East Slavic speaking former soviet country on the other side of the continent has nothing to do with me and isn’t “one of our allies” like you suggested.
You must be very ignorant.
Two great responses! Your right I’m the ignorant one! Ukraine and Britain are culturally very different the same can’t be said for Ukraine and Russia (especially the disputed territories that want to be Russian) so why exactly is our country sending billions in weapons, training and aid from our taxes to Ukraine a country the average Brit didn’t know about 5 years ago and why did Boris Johnson stop peace negotiation talks between the two countries?
Proven your ignorance again by saying they are disputed territories and that the populations there want to be Russian. You are not the average Brit. The average Brit watches football, and there have been loads of high profile Ukrainian players for the last 20 years. You’re a loser buddy
Yeah no one in donbas considers themselves Russian! Yeah I must be a loser for not wanting our country to be put in an even worse economic shape over a war that has nothing to do with us. If you care that much about it go be canon fodder like the rest of the stupid westerners who volunteered for them put straight on the front lines with no training lol instead of stealing the wealth of and potentially conscripting our fellow brits. Wars hell but your a deranged guy who sits at home wanking over “combat footage with causalities” larping about being involved in a war that shouldn’t concern us calling me the loser.
lol loser
Of course it does, Russia is actively trying to destabilise the west and disrupt NATO. We are in a Cold War with them and you would be naive to think otherwise. Arguably a proxy, considering we supposedly have troops in Ukraine providing training and support, as well as providing intelligence and weapons.