We all have many many instincts.
Think of these as 'apps' maybe.
Particular circumstances trigger one or more instincts, to make you react appropriately.
Most of our 'severe' responses are usually dormant.
And our lives are steady, and we are even tempered.
However, we could be trained to have our usually 'inert' instincts very active indeed.
Then we would react abnormally to situations around us.
And we would most likely not be steady and even tempered.
So it is all a matter of training?
And what is trained can be untrained?
So don't abandon other human beings without a little bit of thought and perhaps effort too.

JD,

I specifically said we should bring the women back eventually. But I'm opposed to letting them use their kids as an excuse to cover their criminality. Although Muhammadian terrorist groups are past-masters at using kids as human shields.

They committed a crime by travelling to ISIS controlled areas and joining ISIS. But what's going to happen when they get back here is that we'll hear sob stories about how they were coerced or naive and not really guilty - the ABC is already running such sob stories. So, among the bleeding-hearts they (the Syrian 11) will become the victims.

"We either believe in our courts and security agencies, or we don't."

DON'T

mhaze,

If you genuinely don't trust our courts or security agencies to handle cases like this, then that's a much bigger problem than these 34 people.

You're not objecting to repatriation. You're objecting to the possibility that the system won't punish them as harshly as you think they deserve.

But the alternative isn't tougher justice. It's indefinite limbo in a foreign camp, with no due process and no Australian oversight.

If they committed offences under Australian law, charge them. If they can't be convicted, that tells us something about evidence and standards, not about "sob stories".

The rule of law isn't tested when we're dealing with people we like. It's tested when we're dealing with people we despise.

If we abandon that because we distrust the outcome, then we've already conceded more than they ever could have taken.

'Bring them home' seems like a naive emotional response.

It seems this group have been assessed as too great a risk.

http://www.abc.net.au/news/2026-02-26/children-isis-brides-politics-anthony-albanese-coalition-greens/106382326

"The government argues there are members of this latest cohort who present a more serious safety risk than previous groups, as evidenced by the application of a temporary exclusion order (TEO) on one woman based on security advice."

It's not just about saying they have a right to come back.
It's also about finding someone dumb enough to risk signing their own name to it, for when it all goes wrong.

"You're objecting to the possibility that the system won't punish them as harshly as you think they deserve."

Not objecting. Just pointing out that they'll be relieved of responsibility for their actions by the courts and allowed to re-join the community despite the possibility of a series of ticking time bombs.

"If they committed offences under Australian law"

Not 'if'. That's established. But it'll be forgiven because they are (1) Muhammadian and (2) taken under the wings of the anti-Jew left.

"If they can't be convicted, that tells us something about evidence and standards, not about "sob stories"."

You fundamentally misunderstand the nature of the current legal system. They can be convicted, that's a given. But the back-story that is being concocted will be used to justify mitigating the crime and letting them free. ( A young Muhammadian thug was convicted of premediated gay bashing recently and allowed to walk free for the same reasons.) That's our current 'legal' system.

I'm not objecting to any of this, just observing how it will pan out. There are favoured groups under the law in Asutralia these days and these women tick all the favoured boxes

You've shifted from "this is risky" to "the system is rigged," mhaze.

That's a serious claim.

//You fundamentally misunderstand the nature of the current legal system.//

I *work* in the current legal system. I can assure you that it's not me here who misunderstands it.

If courts are systematically "relieving responsibility" based on religion or political sympathy, that should be demonstrable in sentencing patterns and appellate outcomes, not anecdote.

Individual cases with controversial sentences don't prove structural bias. They prove that sentencing involves mitigating factors, which has always been the case.

You say convictions are "a given" but mitigation will let them walk free. That's speculation. Australian terrorism offences carry very substantial maximum penalties, and courts have imposed lengthy sentences in past cases.

If we're now at the point of saying courts can't be trusted because of who the defendant is, that's not a counter-terrorism argument. It's a loss of faith in the rule of law itself.

Either we believe Australian courts apply statutes passed by Parliament, subject to appeal, or we're claiming they operate on sectarian preference.

That's a much bigger accusation than this case.