Whoa, this is just getting more and more ridiculous and far-fetched.
I can actually sympathise with the rational side of giving them housing. It's effective.
You have to take into account that the intelligence community thinks about this completely rationally and really doesn't give a shit what the public thinks about their plans.
So long as they catch terrorists (which they do, more than you'd like to know) they don't give a shit about what people think.
And it does work, you can't really deny that. You just think it's morally deplorable. You're not wrong, but as I said, the Intel community doesn't really take that into account.
Could it be, in all your omniscient pro-(regressive) cuckoldry, you haven't considered that our intelligence agencies are completely overwhelmed with the sheer amount of terrorists polluting this country? Steven's cited the numbers already I believe; it's not numerically possible to monitor the amount of radicals in this country when considering the ratio of trained agents vs potential radicals (more accurately described as ticking time bombs at this stage).
Terror in the UK is hardly concentrated and easy to keep an eye on, just look at the distance between the origins of the Parsons Green attackers:
Definitely rational to increase the number of and broaden the distance between terrorists.
I'm not even going to entertain the idea you put forward of paying to import trained mass murderers from Syria, housing them, and then bugging their housing and communications to expose said terrorist network that you just imported. It's
objectively irrational (conservatives arguing on a moral basis lol, that gave me some much needed comic relief).
I can actually sympathise with the rational side of giving them housing. It's effective.
Is that why the refugees who were paid off and taken into care by a well-off family honored by the Queen went on to contribute to the Parsons Green bombing? You have a strange definition of "effective".
But they're not terrorists. They are suspected terrorists, which gives security services justifications for certain actions. If there is enough proof to convict them, they will. But no judge will convict someone of terrorism just because the prosecution can prove he or she visited IS-controlled area. This isn't a political issue.
When somebody asks me why Northwestern Europe is riddled with terrorism and the go-to for defeated Jihadis, mind if I cite this post? Thanks.