Reddy Rederson
New Member
It isn't the same thing at all. Not that supporting terrorism is good but the person who puts 5 bucks in a bucket at a NORAID fund raiser in NY may morally have blood on their hands but that is a whole different thing than pulling the trigger that were indirectly funded by the $5. Part of the problem -yes. Exactly the same - no.
And if she has broken the law then a fair and open trial in the UK will show how a democracy deals with things. Making people stateless to stop it being our problem isn't legally or morally supportable imo.
I’m gonna guess you didn’t read much past that first sentence.
But as to your first sentence, paedeophiles who watch videos and look at pictures aren’t directly contributing to child abuse going by your logic. Without the money paid by those that “only” look at videos and pictures there would be no market, without the market there would be no videos or pictures. In that same regard, a terrorist organisation doesn’t get money it can’t buy guns, without guns it can’t arm soldiers, if it can’t arm soldiers it’s just a bunch of angry people with clenched fists and sore throats. But she didn’t just give them money, she gave them support. She’s no different than the guy holding the video camera. She might not have been in gun battles or planting bombs, but she gave physical and emotional aid to terrorists. And by the sounds of things being said about these isis brides she may have done much more than that.
As to your second paragraph, read the rest of my first post. You’ll find my opinion is the same as yours.