International Skeptics Forum

International Skeptics Forum (http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/forumindex.php)
-   Social Issues & Current Events (http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/forumdisplay.php?f=82)
-   -   ISIS teenager wants to come home (http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showthread.php?t=334783)

bluesjnr 9th March 2019 07:59 AM

I'm struggling to find a solitary ounce of sympathy; all the while realising what that says about me.

GlennB 9th March 2019 08:02 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Vixen (Post 12627019)
The BBC and SKY journalists plus attendant camera crews had no problems at all going here and back.

No doubt they have suitable paperwork and are not current/ex ISIS members? I'd guess it would have taken a concerted and possibly lengthy diplomatic intervention to extract an individual refugee.

eta:

'There are currently no British diplomats in Syria because of security risks. If Begum wanted to return to the UK, she would have “to make her way to Turkey or Iraq to consular services there”, [the UK security minister] added.'

Arcade22 9th March 2019 08:36 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Vixen (Post 12627014)
Begum is not an innocent victim by any stretch of imagination but she did beg the British government to let her return to the UK with her expected newborn. It could and should have said yes, as she was clearly a vulnerable individual.

You make it sound so simple and easy. There's millions of those in Syria alone. I don't see why she should expect any preferential treatment considering the circumstances behind her stay in the area, even if she happens to be a British citizen.

Quote:

The baby is an innocent victim.
And there are many more dying out there right now. They not a special.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Vixen (Post 12627024)
I think something concerted now has to be done internationally to save those children in the Syrian refuge camps.

Again, she and her child isn't special. Syria isn't special. This is the kind of thing that's happening in pretty much every violent conflict on earth. There are already aid organizations in place to help with these situations but they can't work miracles.

The reason these peoples situation is so precarious is because they pretty much tried to hold out for as long as possible in a area that only became smaller and smaller. They only decided to escape when they ran out of food and had nowhere else to turn. They should be glad that they are still alive.

Arcade22 9th March 2019 08:38 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Vixen (Post 12627019)
The BBC and SKY journalists plus attendant camera crews had no problems at all going here and back.

They went from the UK straight to the refugee camp she was staying in for the express purpose of interviewing her? It's far more likely they were already in the area documenting the "last stand" of the caliphate which isn't even over.

Garrison 9th March 2019 09:03 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Arcade22 (Post 12627097)
You make it sound so simple and easy. There's millions of those in Syria alone. I don't see why she should expect any preferential treatment considering the circumstances behind her stay in the area, even if she happens to be a British citizen.

The death of babies in a refugee camp is tragic but why should this one entitle a person who rejected Britain in favour of ISIS to special treatment? If we are going to rescue people from the refugee camps lets start with those who were the innocent victims of the very group Begum so enthusiastically supported.

Darat 9th March 2019 09:58 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Vixen (Post 12627013)
Eh? Your UK nationality is not dependent on your personal views. You could be a serial murderer/rapist, a pension-fund raiding crook or granny-bashing mugger, yet still be 100% a British national.



Kimo sabe?

Which is not what you were saying, you were using her losing another baby (she seems quite careless with her children) as why we should be compassionate towards her. Since she had already lost two kids what makes it different now it is?

Darat 9th March 2019 09:59 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Vixen (Post 12627014)
Begum is not an innocent victim by any stretch of imagination but she did beg the British government to let her return to the UK with her expected newborn. It could and should have said yes, as she was clearly a vulnerable individual.



The baby is an innocent victim.

So why didn't she make an application to return to the UK?

Darat 9th March 2019 09:59 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Vixen (Post 12627015)
According to a Save The Children spokesperson, the baby died from pneumonia as the refuge camps get very cold at night. People die from hypothermia. The young child just gets exhausted trying to breathe and dies through sheer lack of strength. The shame is, pneumonia is fully treatable with antibiotics and intensive care, had these been available.

Depends on the type of pneumonia.

Darat 9th March 2019 10:00 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Vixen (Post 12627019)
The BBC and SKY journalists plus attendant camera crews had no problems at all going here and back.

So why didn't she leave with them?

Darat 9th March 2019 10:08 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Arcade22 (Post 12627098)
They went from the UK straight to the refugee camp she was staying in for the express purpose of interviewing her? It's far more likely they were already in the area documenting the "last stand" of the caliphate which isn't even over.

The initial interview came about by chance, the journalist recognised her.

jimbob 9th March 2019 10:29 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Skeptic Ginger (Post 12626845)
She should be allowed back and tried and put in jail. This is a kid that was 15 when she left. I have some compassion for her, but not enough she shouldn't go to jail.

I am surprised the baby died that soon. Maybe these three kids had some kind of birth defect like a genetic heart problem.

Agree with the first paragraph.

I think that malnutrition and disease will do that, in winter.

Hungry81 9th March 2019 02:58 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Garrison (Post 12627114)
The death of babies in a refugee camp is tragic but why should this one entitle a person who rejected Britain in favour of ISIS to special treatment? If we are going to rescue people from the refugee camps lets start with those who were the innocent victims of the very group Begum so enthusiastically supported.

Yeah. This.

Skeptic Ginger 9th March 2019 03:01 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Vixen (Post 12627015)
According to a Save The Children spokesperson, the baby died from pneumonia as the refuge camps get very cold at night. People die from hypothermia. The young child just gets exhausted trying to breathe and dies through sheer lack of strength. The shame is, pneumonia is fully treatable with antibiotics and intensive care, had these been available.

Without an x-ray and at least a minimal work-up, I wouldn't put too much credence in the diagnosis of pneumonia. It's a catch-all diagnosis. Not that it couldn't be right, I'm just saying there could be other factors when you see three deaths like that.

And pneumonia is not always treatable with antibiotics.

RSV for example, is very common and has a high fatality rate in infants under 3 months. Respiratory Syncytial Virus.

theprestige 9th March 2019 04:27 PM

Can you imagine being a British citizen, doing good work somewhere dangerous, needing a rescue but not sure if you'll get one, because some terrorist comfort volunteer on the other side of the world managed to get noticed by a reporter?

Hungry81 9th March 2019 05:02 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by theprestige (Post 12627367)
Can you imagine being a British citizen , doing good work somewhere dangerous, needing a rescue but not sure if you'll get one, because some terrorist comfort volunteer on the other side of the world managed to get noticed by a reporter?

Not since Brexit, no.

theprestige 9th March 2019 05:17 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Hungry81 (Post 12627389)
Not since Brexit, no.

Cry harder, off topic Mcgee.

P.J. Denyer 9th March 2019 05:27 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Garrison (Post 12627114)
The death of babies in a refugee camp is tragic but why should this one entitle a person who rejected Britain in favour of ISIS to special treatment? If we are going to rescue people from the refugee camps lets start with those who were the innocent victims of the very group Begum so enthusiastically supported.

The baby was an innocent victim. Primarily of his mother.

DragonLady 11th March 2019 06:44 AM

I'm sorry she lost her children.

No matter what else she has done or not done, I don't wish that horror on anyone.

sadhatter 11th March 2019 06:51 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by DragonLady (Post 12628466)
I'm sorry she lost her children.

No matter what else she has done or not done, I don't wish that horror on anyone.

I wish it on any member of a terrorist organization, white brown or otherwise. Children are future troops after a point, woke I'm not okay with targeting them, I have no sympathy for terrorist parents.

DragonLady 11th March 2019 07:13 AM

Quote:

Children are future troops after a point
That's true.

I'm not sure exactly where I draw the line between total lack of sympathy because of a person's behavior, and at least being able to empathize with a parent's loss.

sadhatter 11th March 2019 09:47 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by DragonLady (Post 12628493)
That's true.

I'm not sure exactly where I draw the line between total lack of sympathy because of a person's behavior, and at least being able to empathize with a parent's loss.

I feel bad for the kids, don't get me wrong. And id never say " now up the school to get rid of future troops" but if we are talking sympathy for the parent?

You choose to bring a kid into that situation. You failed as a parent.

Seismosaurus 8th February 2020 02:28 PM

And she's lost the first round of her appeal. Good news.

shemp 8th February 2020 03:13 PM

It's not all bad news. She got an endorsement deal for a pancake mix and syrup brand: Aunt Shamima.

Thanks, I'll be here all week, try the veal.

Arcade22 9th February 2020 10:19 AM

Quote:

At a hearing in October last year, Ms Begum's lawyers said she had only professed sympathy for the Islamic State group in media interviews to protect herself and her newborn son, who later died in the refugee camp.
That's utter nonsense. She comes off as speaking candidly and rapidly without much hesitation in the interview, which is a strong indication that she was not worried about any consequences of how her words were going to be interpreted.

You don't mouth off like that if you are worried someone is going to mark your words.

Vixen 9th February 2020 10:30 AM

I think it is totally wrong and unconstitutional of Sadid Javid to do this.

a) Begum does not have Bangladeshi nationality - this has to be applied for by age 18 for those born abroad

b) she is likely to be hanged if she enters Bangladesh.

In effect, she has been made stateless, which is totally illegal.

Now, I despise and loathe terrorists. However, I do think the governe#ment has a duty to act within the laws and constitution.

The total disregard of the current government for common decency is one reason I am so glad I have left the UK. From being the fairest place in the world, it is now a tinpot dictatorship that does whatever it likes and could not care less what anybody thinks.

Arcade22 9th February 2020 10:48 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Vixen (Post 12983634)
In effect, she has been made stateless, which is totally illegal.

Isn't it up to the British courts of law to determine what is and isn't legal? At least that's how i think it's supposed to work...

Vixen 9th February 2020 11:06 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Arcade22 (Post 12983665)
Isn't it up to the British courts of law to determine what is and isn't legal? At least that's how i think it's supposed to work...

Wrong. The Home Office, Sajid Javid removed her British citizenship.

Lawyers acting on Begum's behalf have had to take it to the High Court of Appeal.

She has lost stage one of her appeal. There is still stage two to go. There is an appeal on second grounds.

As a constitutional issue it might well go to Supreme Court.

Gilbert Syndrome 9th February 2020 11:34 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by DragonLady (Post 12628466)
I'm sorry she lost her children.

No matter what else she has done or not done, I don't wish that horror on anyone.

I'm sorry that she presumed an ISIS-run society, with an ISIS soldier as the father, was the perfect place to even have kids and raise them in, I mean, that's just baffling, but then again, this is a baffling, idiotic young woman we're talking about.

theprestige 9th February 2020 01:06 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by DragonLady (Post 12628493)
That's true.

I'm not sure exactly where I draw the line between total lack of sympathy because of a person's behavior, and at least being able to empathize with a parent's loss.

I generally don't have a lot of empathy for people who kill their children.

Arcade22 9th February 2020 01:12 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Vixen (Post 12983685)
Wrong. The Home Office, Sajid Javid removed her British citizenship.

Lawyers acting on Begum's behalf have had to take it to the High Court of Appeal.

She has lost stage one of her appeal. There is still stage two to go. There is an appeal on second grounds.

As a constitutional issue it might well go to Supreme Court.

You tell me I'm wrong to say that it's the British courts that determine wheter this was legal, then you agree with me.

Okay.

Darat 9th February 2020 01:35 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Vixen (Post 12983634)
I think it is totally wrong and unconstitutional of Sadid Javid to do this.

a) Begum does not have Bangladeshi nationality - this has to be applied for by age 18 for those born abroad

b) she is likely to be hanged if she enters Bangladesh.

In effect, she has been made stateless, which is totally illegal.

Now, I despise and loathe terrorists. However, I do think the governe#ment has a duty to act within the laws and constitution.

The total disregard of the current government for common decency is one reason I am so glad I have left the UK. From being the fairest place in the world, it is now a tinpot dictatorship that does whatever it likes and could not care less what anybody thinks.

Yet you are wrong, the court decision is of course a constitutional decision.

Planigale 9th February 2020 05:08 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Darat (Post 12983826)
Yet you are wrong, the court decision is of course a constitutional decision.

But it is literally racist. Had she been the offspring of white British people this would not have happened. The removal of her citizenship is a consequence of the racial origins of her parents (specifically I believe her mother). She was born and brought up in the UK, she is being judged on the basis of actions of her parents. I think this is wrong. I may be more empathic because I now realise that should I upset HMG they could arbitrarily strip my citizenship because I too am brown. Any policy that disproprtionately effects one ethnic group is racist by definition. That she was a minor when she left the country is I think another significant issue. That she has not been found guilty of any crime is another issue.

It may be legal but I think it is wrong. It is certainly racist.

Seismosaurus 9th February 2020 07:25 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Planigale (Post 12984053)
Any policy that disproprtionately effects one ethnic group is racist by definition.

I don't see why. If it were the case that black people committed murder at a disproportionate rate and were therefore disproportionately convicted and sentenced, would that make the law against murder racist by definition? Seems to me that it would not.

The law lays out the grounds on which statehood can be stripped. Those grounds say nothing about gender, ethnicity, religion, etc. The fact that one group may be disproportionately affected because they disproportionally engage in those behaviours does not make the law racist.

Quote:

It may be legal but I think it is wrong.
It appears to be legal. But legal or not, it's certainly not wrong in my (and I suspect, most people's) mind. She chose to turn against and reject this country. To come now demanding the benefits of this country after doing so is absurd. She can rot so far as I'm concerned.

Darat 10th February 2020 05:35 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Planigale (Post 12984053)
But it is literally racist. Had she been the offspring of white British people this would not have happened. The removal of her citizenship is a consequence of the racial origins of her parents (specifically I believe her mother). She was born and brought up in the UK, she is being judged on the basis of actions of her parents. I think this is wrong. I may be more empathic because I now realise that should I upset HMG they could arbitrarily strip my citizenship because I too am brown. Any policy that disproprtionately effects one ethnic group is racist by definition. That she was a minor when she left the country is I think another significant issue. That she has not been found guilty of any crime is another issue.



It may be legal but I think it is wrong. It is certainly racist.

What's the skin colour got to do with it? The decision is based on her right to citizenship of particular countries.

Or are you meaning citizenship as a concept is racist?

rockysmith76 10th February 2020 07:27 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Planigale (Post 12984053)
But it is literally racist. Had she been the offspring of white British people this would not have happened. The removal of her citizenship is a consequence of the racial origins of her parents (specifically I believe her mother). She was born and brought up in the UK, she is being judged on the basis of actions of her parents. I think this is wrong. I may be more empathic because I now realise that should I upset HMG they could arbitrarily strip my citizenship because I too am brown. Any policy that disproprtionately effects one ethnic group is racist by definition. That she was a minor when she left the country is I think another significant issue. That she has not been found guilty of any crime is another issue.

It may be legal but I think it is wrong. It is certainly racist.

No, what it is, is karma.

Arcade22 10th February 2020 07:58 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Planigale (Post 12984053)
It may be legal but I think it is wrong. It is certainly racist.

I'm not sure "race" has anything to do with it. Had they been the descendant of immigrants from Russia they might still have been wound up losing their British citizenship.

Vixen 10th February 2020 10:22 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Arcade22 (Post 12984523)
I'm not sure "race" has anything to do with it. Had they been the descendant of immigrants from Russia they might still have been wound up losing their British citizenship.

You are wrong, as Begum was British and had British citizenship. She has never had dual nationality. Usually, to get dual nationality via descent - and not all countries use bloodline descent (for example, USA and France, where you have to be born there) - you have to apply by age 18, as is the case for Bangadesh. It is absurd for Javid to expect Begum to assume Bangladeshi nationality, especially if she has never been there in her life or speaks the language.

The precedent for stripping British citizenship was also Javid, in the case of the so-called Beatles. Now, the two remaining 'Beatles' appear to have committed terrible heinous crimes, which is beside the point, but as a result of being stripped, they will now be tried in the USA and likely executed. \now, this is not about the rights and wrongs of execution nor how they should be punished, it is about their nationality as British citizens to be tried in the UK. Making them, and Begum (there is no way Bangadesh is going to make her a citizen as she doesn't even qualify) stateless is technically illegal under international law. Secondly, the UK has it in their constitution it will not deport someone to a country where they will almost certainly face the death penalty.

The current government really could not care less about the constitution.

It's all very well posters on here saying, who cares, let her have it? One day it could be you or your family for the flimsiest reason. Perhaps a child is born disabled or you fall on hard time, perhaps acquiring a gambling or drinking addict. Javid will strike you out. Who cares what Magna Carta declared.

rockysmith76 10th February 2020 10:36 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Vixen (Post 12984680)

It's all very well posters on here saying, who cares, let her have it? One day it could be you or your family for the flimsiest reason. Perhaps a child is born disabled or you fall on hard time, perhaps acquiring a gambling or drinking addict. Javid will strike you out. Who cares what Magna Carta declared.

SHe joined a group that abandoned all principles of Civilization, so there are consequences. No sympathy.

JoeMorgue 10th February 2020 10:56 AM

"If we punish (hell not even punish just 'let them deal with the consequences of their actions') a person (please stop initializing this woman by girling her a girl or a child) for joining a world famous terrorist organization today, who's to know what might happen tomorrow?" is the slipperiest slope that ever slippered a slope.

I get that this is the internet and every time someone says "I'm an extremist, I admit it, I'm not denying it" we have to hang ring over "Okay but whatever completely other cases in completely different scenarios where other people call other people extremists for bad reasons? What about that? WHAT ABOUT THAT!?" because... for some reason we just have to but... we don't have to. Everyone knows that right?

Matthew Best 10th February 2020 11:04 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Vixen (Post 12984680)
and not all countries use bloodline descent (for example, USA and France, where you have to be born there

Nope. You don't have to be born in the USA to have US citizenship.


All times are GMT -7. The time now is 10:02 PM.

Powered by vBulletin. Copyright ©2000 - 2020, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
2015-19, TribeTech AB. All Rights Reserved.