This decision has to be one of Turnbulls most stupid yet.

http://au.news.yahoo.com/a/37228328/dozens-of-children-of-isis-jihadists-to-be-resettled-in-australia/

Dozens of children of ISIS jihadists to be resettled in Australia

Some 70 children of ISIS terrorists are to be resettled in Australia following an assessment on any potential security risks.

The Australian government said it plans to bring back children who were either taken with their parents to the conflict in Syria and Iraq or who were born to Australian parents while out there.

The country’s justice minister Michael Keenan said that each child would be vetted for any potential risks before being given new homes, according to the Sydney Morning Herald.

He said: “Agencies then consider the welfare and support needs of the children – from counselling support through to their education needs.”

Anyone born overseas to at least one Australian parent has a right to citizenship meaning the government may face applications from children in Syria and Iraq.

Security agencies estimate that there are around 110 Australians still fighting with terror groups in Iraq and Syria.

I can also see the charities rubbing there hands together seeing the potential for getting millions of dollars to look after them.

Sheer lunacy on the part of the Coalition, who previously told the grandmother of some of these children - who will be very badly damaged by their experiences, and will grow more dangerous to Australian society by the day - that they could not and would not take any action.

Now, they than can and will take action. It is clear that the Turnbull, Leftist government can not be trusted - ever! They believe that they can do what they like, when they like, based on their own whims. They deny any responsibility or loyalty to the country and people. They get more totalitarian all the time.

Is terrorism hereditary?

'Is terrorism hereditary?' by and large yes

Yes, runner. I would say particularly so in the the case of children of the creep who had his son holding a decapitated head. Children of jihadists could not possibly escape having their minds permanently damaged by association.

Dear Philip S.,

Mr Keenan has said that each child who returns
will be individually case-managed and will
receive an education. Plus the fact that they
will also be offered anonymity to distance
themselves from the terror organisation is
surely a good action for the Australian government
to take seeing as by law anyone who is born overseas
and has at least one Australian parent is allowed to
apply for citizenship.

It seems to me as if the government does have
matters well in hand.

I think that to conclude that a criminal is the product
of bad parents may satisfy a theory but it ignores
the reality that children make choices from an early
age and that criminals come from a very wide variety
of backgrounds.

Of course parents who are psychologically disturbed are
likely to have an adverse impact on their offspring.
But this is not to say that invariably their children will
become perpetrators of heinous crimes.

Fortunately most children who suffer abuse do not become
criminals. Some criminals are the children of parents
who are devoted, stable, and responsible.

Blaming parents is easy to do, but it distracts us from
understanding the mind of the perpetrator.
Coming to terms with a person who leaves behind them a
trail of carnage as they victimize others should make us
address the questions of good and evil and to look on
the chilling choices that some people make, whether or
not they had good or bad parents.

Here is a positive link of someone who was able to turn
their life around and today contributes a great deal to
others in our society. We can only hope that if we
help this small number of unfortunate children - they
will also be able to thrive in our country:

http://www.abc.net.au/news/2015-09-10/from-child-soldier-to-refugee-lawyer-an-inspiring-journey/6764088

"given new homes"

"Culturally appropriate" ones no doubt, where the indoctrination will continue unabated.

Are they orphans? Why is that word never mentioned? Or are their parents still fighting?

Foxy - Quote "most children who suffer abuse do not become
criminals." I would say that is a statement you can not provide a credible source for.

Quote "It seems to me as if the government does have
matters well in hand." That is what Dudd had in his head when he opened the floodgates to tens of thousands of economic invaders.

Also your link is good and I commend the individual but that is 1 example in hundreds of thousands of child soldiers worldwide over the last few years alone.

At this stage in time you have not convinced me of even one positive outcome for this decision.

Dear Philip S.,

Children can't be held responsible for decisions
that their parents make/made.
In the matter of these children being allowed back
into the country or not - this is a matter for our
government and I'm sure that ASIO and other security
organisations will decide appropriately as to who
they can let in or not.

As for evidence being provided regarding the backgrounds
of children who become perpertrators of heinous crimes -
fortunately there is enough evidence historically that
show that criminals do come from a wide variety of
backgrounds - take the Menendez brothers who came
from a privileged background of parents who were devoted,
stable and responsible. Yet they murdered their parents.
And this is only one example that I can mention. On the
other side of the coin I cited the link of the child-
soldier who went from child soldier to lawyer and is
today contributing to this country. Sure it may be just
an example as you say - but it does prove the point that
change is possible.

I have no intention of trying to convince you to anything.
That is not my goal. I am not a psychologist and this is
merely an opinion forum. I am expressing an opinion.
Not searching for your acceptance of it.

' "Culturally appropriate" ones no doubt, '

yes shockaholic like Indigeneous girls taken from loving white homes to be raped by uncles etc.

Foxy as usual you take the optimistic view.
Not that there is anything wrong with that but maybe in this case
you have not watched the decapitating classes where 6 or 7 year olds are taught to decapitate prisoners.
Also children that age are used to shoot kneeling prisoners in the
back of the head. Not just one or two but a row of 10 or 20 prisoners.
There are always Warning Graphic Images.
They show the kids how to stand so that they do not get spurts of blood on themselves.
How to hold the knife and how to saw across which part of the neck.
All very educational if you want to be an Arab slaughterman.

That is just a word picture for you but I can assure you watching
the eyes of the prisoner as the little boy saws away at his kneck is something else !

I think that children who have grown from say 7 to 15 with that as
normal behaviour are probably lost forever.

Dear Bazz,

You paint a horrific picture. And who knows what
effect all this would have on children. The child
soldier that I mentioned in the previous link also
experienced many horrors that no child's eyes
should have seen and not child should have been
forced to experience. It turned him into fighting for
and helping other refugees in Sydney.

I can only trust that the psychologists and ASIO
professionals will be able to assess each child
and family correctly. As Mr Keenan has said -
each child who returns will be individually
case-managed. We can only trust that this approach
will be successful.

Toni,

Heredity ? After birth ? How's that work ?

You've heard of socialisation ? Early traumatic experiences ? What people may be raised to regard as 'normal' and right ? Sit back and try to learn.

Joe

This is a complex situation - no question.
And we certainly know that parents who are psychologically
disturbed are likely to have an adverse impact on their
offspring - however this is not to say that invariably
their children will become perpetrators of heinous crimes.
As history has shown fortunately many children who suffer
abuse do not become criminals while some criminals are the
children of parents who are devoted, stable and
responsible. That is why as Mr Keenan points out - each child
who returns will be individually case-managed and will
receive an education. They will also be offered anonymity to
distance themselves from the terror organisation.

Well said, Foxy, stupid, but well said.

//You've heard of socialisation ? Early traumatic experiences ? What people may be raised to regard as 'normal' and right ?//

So why aren't the kids of IRA and UVF terrorists still setting off bombs in Ireland & Britain? Maybe it's a bit more complicated than 'the children of terrorists grow up to be terrorists'. Children's lives can - and often do - take a remarkably different course to that of their parents. I don't see any reason to assume why that wouldn't be the case just because we don't like the parents in question. Children are not their parents.

Toni, the children of IRA members probably never saw the detail of what
their fathers did and never set bombs. After all anyone doing
undercover work would never let children know about it.
Children do chatter you know.

There are quite a few links on the web dealing
with the the subject of children of criminals and
murderers.. Here is just
one example - that may be of interest:

http://www.theatlantic.com/entertainment/archive/2013/02/the-descendants-of-murderers/273221/

To let ISIS children in to Australia is stupid! We will pay like Germany is paying for Merkel's stuff ups. Nearly 1 million rapist refugees!

.

Dear Philip S,

.

It seems only right to me that, like every other country in the world, Australia should and must assume responsibility for its own citizens who become terrorists, jihadists, murderers, rapists, torturers, kidnappers, drug dealers, slave traffickers, etc.

I do not see why Australia should assume responsibility for criminals who are foreign nationals. By the same token, I do not see why some other country should assume responsibility for criminals who are Australian citizens.

Children who have at least one parent who is an Australian citizen have the right to take Australian nationality and I, personally, should vote against any referendum to change that law, even if it were to apply exclusively to children whose parents were terrorists, jihadists or other major criminals.

The right to a "fair go" is the thing almost all Australians put at the top of their list when it comes to values. “Sympathy with the under-dog” is another of our declared values. They are a part of our national identity. If we are not prepared to apply them to children whose parents are terrorists, jihadists or other major criminals, then we might as well forget it. That is not the Australia that I want.

While I am totally opposed to the inhuman methods currently employed by our federal government in respect of illegal migrants, we obviously need to exercise effective control of our borders. A priori, the federal government’s announced policy on the acceptance of the children of Australian citizens who are terrorists, jihadists or other major criminals seems to me to be perfectly responsible and in accordance with our basic values and principles as a free, democratic nation.

In December 2015, amendments were made to citizenship legislation to strip members of terrorist organisations of their Australian citizenship, provided it does not leave them stateless. Not all Australians agree with this. I do, but not as it applies to children :

http://www.theguardian.com/australia-news/2016/may/05/isis-members-can-now-be-stripped-of-australian-citizenship

http://www.abc.net.au/news/2017-02-11/islamic-state-fighter-khaled-sharrouf-stripped-of-citizenship/8262268

Regrettably, our old, obsolete colonial constitution does not indicate what it means to be a “citizen” of Australia. We were all “subjects” in 1901.

.

"Is terrorism hereditary?"
- Yep, it is.

//- Yep, it is.//

Unless you're Irish or British? How does that work?

Obviously you know more about this genetics stuff than I do, Oh Bottomless Font of All Worldly Knowledge. So how do the Poms/Paddies who have the terrorist gene avoid passing it onto their children the way that, say, an American terrorist would?

And if we know about the existence of the terrorist gene, why don't we just work out which one it is, test children for it at birth, and then pre-emptively incarcerate them for their entire life?

Banjo Paterson

Quote "“Sympathy with the under-dog” is another of our declared values. They are a part of our national identity." I would agree with this but over the years we have been taken advantage of by so called refugees and others that this trait is not as it used to be.

Quote "We were all “subjects”" This one I do not agree with insofar as most Governments worldwide think they OWN there citizens and can control them where ever in the world they are. For example you can be jailed for just visiting certain countries as well as jailed in one country for breaking there laws then when you come back home they will prosecute and jail you as well.

When a person has dual citizenship who determines which one the child goes to?

Toni,

To take your idea of terrorist genes a bit further, if one bothered, one might try to isolate the population which may be prone to carrying this gene. Is there such a population ? If so, then why has this gene come to the fore only over the past few decades ? Is it a sort of sleeper gene ? Does it only manifest itself every few generations ? Like this one ?

Of course, groups living close by each other over many centuries would come to share such a gene: has it manifested itself in related populations in their common home regions ? Hmmm, why not, I wonder ? Is there a sort of counter-gene, especially prevalent in those other populations ?

Are you suggesting that the population in which this gene is prevalent should be subjected to the medical/genetic removal of this gene ? Or just the fathers, or the mothers ? Can it be traced through the Y chromosome, thus freeing the women in this population from any need for surgery ?

But if, as you claim, terrorism is the consequence of people having a specific gene, the alternative to surgery may be, as you suggest, lifelong incarceration. How many adults - who may pass on this gene - and young people would have to be incarcerated as a result of your recommendations ?

Or could there possibly be other explanations for terrorism ? Religious ? Ethnic ? Nationalist ? Yet another way of seeking world domination ? All of the above ?

Certainly food for thought. Thanks, Toni :)

//Is there such a population ? If so, then why has this gene come to the fore only over the past few decades ? Is it a sort of sleeper gene ? Does it only manifest itself every few generations ? Like this one ?//

Dunno, you should ask Armchair. I only just learnt this morning that terrorism is hereditary.

I'm still waiting for an answer myself about what it is about being citizen of the British Isles that confers a unique genetic immunity to this hereditary terrorism.

//- Yep, it is.//

Quote>>Unless you're Irish or British? How does that work?

Obviously you know more about this genetics stuff than I do, Oh Bottomless Font of All Worldly Knowledge. So how do the Poms/Paddies who have the terrorist gene avoid passing it onto their children the way that, say, an American terrorist would?

And if we know about the existence of the terrorist gene, why don't we just work out which one it is, test children for it at birth, and then pre-emptively incarcerate them for their entire life?<<

Ah Toni, I'm gonna have fun here making you look stupid.
You know I love highlighting when someone who portrays or thinks of themselves as being smart, well-read, intelligent etc. to be a complete moron.
Why do you bother I wonder?
You're a sucker for punishment.

Firstly all modern terrorist attacks are by Muslims / Islam did you forget that fact you 'PC' idiot?

Too 'PC' to admit the terrorist gene is the Islam gene?
I suppose it's also progressives a SSM advocates like yourself as well.
Hell, go right ahead and lock yourself up and throw away the key if you feel so strongly about it...

You probably belong there, after all it's people like yourself that would play down the facts about stories like:
Cassidy Trevan for example...
- I bet you don't even know who she is.

I don't know about a gene, but there is certainly group think, & it will be strong in these people.

I would love to move our ratbags bleeding hearts from their still comfortable suburbs to somewhere like Allawah/Carlton area of Sydney. Were they to live there their whole attitude to the "Leb" Muslim problem would change dramatically. This is a new area they are taking over, & a dangerous place to live for a white.

They would be very unwise to try walking home from the railway station, particularly if after dark. They would be even more unwise to let a daughter venture onto the street ever.

Ozzies leaving these stations will be subject to harassment by groups of 20 something "Lebs", who living on our welfare, have nothing better to do than ethnically cleanse the area for Muslin domination.

It certainly would not take long for them to change their attitude, if they survived.

All the talk about genes is a bit confused, but with those of Arab
descent it may well be valid. They have been marrying their cousins for 2000 plus years and they have a damaged genome.
It affects their IQ as well as their behaviour so it is a factor in
deciding the fate of the children.
Just considering their parents is not enough as the defect is spread
widely through the whole Arab population.

By co-incidence Foxy, I just came accross this.
They do not have to go to Syria to learn the tecniques in decapitation.

http://tinyurl.com/y8f7l2ec

Dear Bazz,

Who knows what effect this will have on the
children. Fortunately many children who
suffer this kind of indoctrination and/or
abuse often go in the opposite direction.
And eventually reject what they were taught
to believe. A case in point is the example of
the link I gave to the child-soldier and his
life's journey earlier in this discussion.

//Ah Toni, I'm gonna have fun here making you look stupid.//

Wow, doing a great job there buddy...

//Firstly all modern terrorist attacks are by Muslims / Islam//

No they're not. I'm not sure when you think the modern era starts - I'm assuming you've invented your own definition rather than accepting the ones historians use because you're anti-education - but you're wrong. The Troubles were an example of modern terrorism, as was the Oklahoma City bombing, and the Oslo bombing/Utoya Island mass shooting. And so on, and on, and on. I don't know why you're so upset about the idea that some terrorists were Irish, but making shite up won't help.

//did you forget that fact//

No, because it's not a fact. A fact is a true statement, not a statement made by yourself. You seem to have trouble telling the difference.

//Too 'PC' to admit the terrorist gene is the Islam gene?//

Now hang on, that doesn't make sense at all. How can religion be hereditary when both my parents are Catholic and I'm a pantheist? How can one religion be hereditary but not others? I'm starting to wonder if you're really the expert on genetics you claim to be.

//Hell, go right ahead and lock yourself up and throw away the key if you feel so strongly about it//

Why? My parents have never done aught wrong, so therefore I have never done and will never do aught wrong. Because that's how heredity works, apparently.

You still don't get it..
This is 2017 and facts are most if not all terrorist attacks are committed by Muslims.
(Oklahoma City Bombing was a false flag; not withstanding it was 22yrs ago.)
So we're taking now, not last century.

So if all terrorist attacks occur surrounding Muslims, then that means that it's hereditary.
Take a medical condition for example, lets say Adolescent Idiopathic Scoliosis;
It affects mostly girls in families who have a genetic / hereditary predisposition to it. - Hereditary.
Terrorism affects mostly boys in families who have cultural predisposition to Islam right? - Hereditary.
So what's the difference exactly?

The link between crime and genes is not science fiction.
http://www.bbc.com/news/science-environment-29760212

A religion that glorifies violence would attract people with genetic predisposition to crime.

There may also be a related genetic link for a tendency to ideological fanaticism.

Just look at the sea of genetic defects at any Anti-Trump/Antifa protest.

//(Oklahoma City Bombing was a false flag; not withstanding it was 22yrs ago.)//

And they would have gotten away with it if it weren't for you meddling kids!

//So we're taking now, not last century.//

Well that's a very narrow definition of the modern period. Problem is that now is constantly becoming then in accordance with the laws of physics. And also, now is not the same now for everybody simultaneously, also because of physics. Trying to define the modern era in terms of the present runs headlong into the problem of trying to define what the present is. And that's hard enough for physicists let alone historians.

So they decree that the early modern period started quite some time back in the late 1500's (yes, I know. What can you say? They're historians). I prefer the kick off date to be what historians consider the start of the 'contemporary period', 1945. It's a significant date for historians and scientists, because it was the year the first A-bomb was tested. After that, people went a bit nuts testing their bombs for a while. All the fallout we produced will show up in the data for any future radioactive dating measurement. It's a good milestone for the contemporary/'modern' period.

//So if all terrorist attacks occur surrounding Muslims, then that means that it's hereditary.//

Nope, because religion isn't hereditary.

//Take a medical condition for example, lets say Adolescent Idiopathic Scoliosis//

Sure, why not.

""Idiopathic", from the Latin, meaning we're idiots 'cause we can't figure out what's causing it."
- Dr. House

//It affects mostly girls in families who have a genetic / hereditary predisposition to it. - Hereditary.
Terrorism affects mostly boys in families who have cultural predisposition to Islam right? - Hereditary.
So what's the difference exactly?//

Well, the answer is in the question, isn't it? Culture isn't hereditary.

Culture isn't hereditary...
Tell that to families / victims of honour killings.
- Or don't their deaths count for anything; in this particular argument?
Do you know many Aussie families that practice that Toni?
You see where I'm going?

Look technically your right ok.
But what I'm saying isn't too far off the mark.
Sorry I shouldn't have been so hard on you, but you'll get me back I'm sure.

""Idiopathic", from the Latin, meaning we're idiots 'cause we can't figure out what's causing it."
- Dr. House

Pretty harsh when the doctors name the condition 'It's got us baffled', though the fact they know there is a genetic aspect shows they actually know something about the cause, but I digress...

I have to honest; just about all the terrorist incidents we see nowadays are in some way linked to Islam.
Normal non-Muslim western people are far less likely to engage in the type of acts Muslims do, so in some ways if your are born Muslim, the chances of being a terrorist is much much higher.

And just like the previously mentioned medical condition you aren't necessarily going to get it, but the chance are much higher that you will.

.

Dear Philip S.

.

Many thanks for your response.

As regards my comment that « we were all “subjects” in 1901 », I noticed that this was indicated on my passport in 1965 when I first travelled to Europe. I found the following explanation on the federal government web site :

« At Federation in 1901, ‘British subject’ was the sole civic status noted in the Australian Constitution … Throughout the 1960s, Australian citizens were still required to declare their nationality as British. The term ‘Australian nationality’ had no official recognition or meaning until the Act was amended in 1969 and renamed the Citizenship Act. This followed a growing sense of Australian nationalism and the declining importance for Australians of the British Empire. In 1973 the Act was renamed the Australian Citizenship Act. It was not until 1984 that Australian citizens ceased to be British subjects ».

Here is the link :

http://www.naa.gov.au/collection/fact-sheets/fs187.aspx

Since 1984, you and I and all other Australians are no longer British subjects. My current passport indicates that I am an Australian citizen.
.

You ask :

« When a person has dual citizenship, who determines which one the child goes to? »

I presume you mean « to which country does the child go to? ».

I think the answer is that the child has the right to go to whichever country he or she chooses, or whichever country his mother or father (or both) choose to send him/her to.

However, as a number of countries are now passing legislation similar to the new Australian legislation whereby “terrorists” may be stripped of their citizenship provided this does not leave them stateless, it becomes a question of “first in, first served”. In other words, if a “terrorist” has Italian/Australian dual citizenship, and Italy strips him/her of his/her Italian citizenship first, then Australia can no longer strip him/her of his/her Australian citizenship.

In this case, Italy was “first in” and therefore “first served”. Australia is left “holding the bag”, as it were.

.

//Pretty harsh when the doctors name the condition 'It's got us baffled'//

Yeah, it's quote from House. Have you seen the show? 'Pretty harsh' is an excellent summation of the character. I love House.

Armchair Critic,

In his book, The Selfish Gene (1976), Richard Dawkins coined the word ‘meme’ (as opposed to ‘gene’) to describe the passing down of culture and systems of behaviour to successive generations. It’s sounds like you’re conflating memes with genes.

On an off-topic note, just quickly, it is with regret that I inform you that Paul Horner has died.

Hey AJ Philips,
Maybe; maybe even probably Lol,
- But Christians as annoying as they can sometimes be, or regular western citizens - don't go around gangraping or committing acts of terrorism upon native citizens while as guests.

I've never heard of Paul Horner, after 1 minute of my time looking him up, I might agree with a couple of things he may have spoken in support of; but overall he seems like bit of a douche...

Hey Toni,
I watched a couple of the early seasons of House and it was pretty good, it was fairly engaging.
But I didn't keep up watching it; or get around to watching the other seasons I missed.
I did plan to but it just didn't happen; maybe one day I will.

you can be reasonably confident that all the Trump hating dummy spitters who have acted so violently have had parents who told them how wonderful pure they are and have obviously never smacked their bums in their life. These dummy spitters are really their parents on steroids.

What could go wrong with this stupid decision?

Everything.