ISIS teenager wants to come home

[Skeptic Ginger]

Apparently her son was born.

[Darat]

Originally Posted by baron

We don't have a constitution. What is it that makes you think a person cannot be tried and imprisoned in a foreign country for crimes committed in that country?

Of course we do.

Sent from my SM-T710 using Tapatalk

[Darat]

Originally Posted by p0lka

Ah, I suspect I am guilty of being a bit confusing too. My question..







probably was not clear enough.



grooming has been around before the internet, your reply seems to be particular to this sort of case, you even said 'this type of grooming' in your response.



I was interested in whether you thought all types of grooming have been allowed by their parents?

As a general rule of thumb yes but I am sure there will be some circumstances that I may not hold to that rule of thumb.

Sent from my SM-T710 using Tapatalk

[angrysoba]

Originally Posted by Vixen

Er, Magna Carta? Habeas corpus ?

This is still irrelevant if she is:
a) captured by forces opposed to ISIS
b) charged with crimes in a foreign country.

For example, if I rob a bank near my home I will be arrested by the police, charged and no doubt convicted and sentenced to jail. I cannot say, “but I am a British citizen, and I used to be 15!? Does no one remember Magna Carta? Did she die in vain?”

Originally Posted by baron

We don't have a constitution. What is it that makes you think a person cannot be tried and imprisoned in a foreign country for crimes committed in that country?

We have a constitution. We have a monarch as head of state and a bicameral parliament, a courts system, a voting system etc... it simply hasn’t been written down in a single document.

[Arcade22]

As far as I'm concerned anyone who'd willingly pledge allegiance towards a power that is totally and absolutely hostile towards basic and fundamental liberal-democratic values should be stripped of their citizenship and, as required by circumstances, be deprived of their freedom so that they pose no threat to the liberal-democratic political structures. If they are abroad then they can stay there. They have chosen to burn their bridges and if they genuinely feel remorse and regret for their actions then they should be required to prove it.

In this case you could assert that, because of the fact that they were "just" 15 years old, they somehow shouldn't be held responsible for their actions but that's utter complete ********. Yes one should take into account that they are less mature and be less rigid in sanctioning them but, as with murder, any normal 15 year old knows that's not acceptable even if their actions are understandable.

I'm sorry if I come off as unsympathetic and uncaring for someone who wants to leave their failed promised land, that openly advertised itself as based upon religious totalitarianism and murderous terrorist slavery fueled by warmongering, just because it became inconvenient to live there now. If she has no regrets about joining a group that openly stood for those things, then that's an admission that she is likely utterly irredeemable.

If the main or even sole motivation for allowing her to return to the UK is humanitarian then there's no shortage of far more desperate and worthy people in need of help and a better life.

[Arcade22]

Originally Posted by cullennz

Because she is British and left when she was 15 and presumably stupid.

You'd have to more than just a little stupid to join a religious fundamentalist terrorist death cult that advertised itself with gratuitous beheadings and massacres of defenseless people, even if you are 15 years old.

[angrysoba]

Originally Posted by Arcade22

You'd have to more than just a little stupid to join a religious fundamentalist terrorist death cult that advertised itself with gratuitous beheadings and massacres of defenseless people, even if you are 15 years old.

What I love is when people who defend those who joined ISIS start arguing that they were "tricked" into thinking it was anything other than the reality. ISIS have made absolutely no bones about what they are. In fact they are almost the purest manifestation of what every "Islamophobe" has ever accused Islam of being about. Not only do they make videos of them behaving in the most despicable way, they also write articles about why it is right to take sex slaves and to chop off heads and to throw gay people off buildings and they go further and say anyone who does not approve or willingly join in are themselves not Muslims.

[Skeptic Ginger]

News interview tonight, she thinks people should care about her because of what she's been through. And by the way, beheadings didn't bother her.

Clueless is an understatement.

Also according to the news, she can come back to the UK but the government is not going to "rescue her" [words the news report used]. Whether she'd be prosecuted remains an unknown.

[angrysoba]

Originally Posted by Skeptic Ginger

News interview tonight, she thinks people should care about her because of what she's been through. And by the way, beheadings didn't bother her.

Clueless is an understatement.

Also according to the news, she can come back to the UK but the government is not going to "rescue her" [words the news report used]. Whether she'd be prosecuted remains an unknown.

That sounds fair. I don't think any resources need to be used to rescue her. She found her way there and she should find her way back.

Although I did hear some reports that she had bought a child return ticket but she is no longer eligible.

That's a joke!

[bluesjnr]

I've just watched the video of her interview for the first time. She comes across as a classic psychopath.

Listening to the vile girl doubles my desire to read of her execution any day soon.

[Vixen]

I for one am gobsmacked that she equates the Manchester bombing as justified by western forces bombing ISIS. I wouldn't be surprised if she has a Borderline Personality Disorder*.

*'Borderline' here does not mean 50-50 or 'grey area' it means 'criminally insane' or, an out and out 100% singing dancing psychopath.

[baron]

Originally Posted by Vixen

I for one am gobsmacked that she equates the Manchester bombing as justified by western forces bombing ISIS. I wouldn't be surprised if she has a Borderline Personality Disorder

She does, it's called Islamic fundamentalism.

[jimbob]

Originally Posted by SuburbanTurkey

Either she was involved in acts of war for a hostile power, aka treason, or she was abetting a criminal organization. It's a bit tricky when you're dealing with a pseudo-state like ISIS and no formal declarations of war.

I don't see any way to slice this that doesn't end with her in a British jail if she comes back, unless they cut her some serious slack for being underage at the time.

The English* age of criminal responsibility is ten.


*Don't know about Scottish

[Skeptic Tank]

Originally Posted by MikeG

It's illegal in international law to declare someone stateless. We can't and won't do that.

Perhaps, but one does not need a state when one is...

[Vixen]

A dead giveaway is Shamima Begum's claim, 'There's no evidence against me'. Not, 'I haven't done anything illegal apart from going to Syria'. So she has 'evidence' at the forefront of her mind and reasons, 'No-one saw me do nuffink', not 'I don't need to worry as I am innocent'.

[Ethan Thane Athen]

So, she agrees she knew what she was doing so that should kill any 'she was only 15' sympathy. She does not regret her decision, which should kill any other sympathy and, whilst mouthing some platitudes about regretting the deaths of women and children she then justified the Manchester bombing because some Isis women and children had also been killed in attacks against Isis, so it was just retaliation.

Basically she is still a committed Isis member but realises they've lost (this battle) and realises the UK is a softer touch, with a young kid, than the current alternatives. That's all that's behind this, pure self-serving, no change of heart at all. Oh and we should feel sorry for her for what she's been through (that she doesn't regret).

If she comes back it will just be to raise another Islamic fundamentalist in the relative peace and security of Britain.

[baron]

Originally Posted by Ethan Thane Athen

If she comes back it will just be to raise another Islamic fundamentalist in the relative peace and security of Britain.

The Western destination of choice for the committed jihadist.

[Ethan Thane Athen]

Mind you, we will take her back...and house her (probably with a new identity to protect her) and educate her son...all while she pours poisonous hatred into his ears about us being evil infidels who deserve to die.

[baron]

Originally Posted by Ethan Thane Athen

Mind you, we will take her back...and house her (probably with a new identity to protect her) and educate her son...all while she pours poisonous hatred into his ears about us being evil infidels who deserve to die.

Of course we will, if she finds her way back, just like we do with all the others. As I said, £18m per year just for 24/7 security monitoring of a single jihadist and not just that; if she's monitored 24/7 that means monitoring of another jihadist must be abandoned. If she's not monitored 24/7 then she's a real risk to the safety of UK citizens.

[p0lka]

Originally Posted by Vixen

I for one am gobsmacked that she equates the Manchester bombing as justified by western forces bombing ISIS. I wouldn't be surprised if she has a Borderline Personality Disorder*.

*'Borderline' here does not mean 50-50 or 'grey area' it means 'criminally insane' or, an out and out 100% singing dancing psychopath.

I'm pretty much impartial, but I don't think she was really making an equivalence between the two things,

She was first asked about the manchester bombings, learnt that women and children died in that situation, then she compared it to women and children dying in the bombings against where she has been.

possibly more of a self-justification sort of thing? Just to feel better about oneself.

[baron]

Originally Posted by p0lka

I'm pretty much impartial, but I don't think she was really making an equivalence between the two things,

She was first asked about the manchester bombings, learnt that women and children died in that situation, then she compared it to women and children dying in the bombings against where she has been.

possibly more of a self-justification sort of thing? Just to feel better about oneself.

That just demonstrates her hateful thought processes. "The West killed Muslim kids so we'll kill some Western kids." Only a terrorist would think like that. How many Brits, after the Manchester bombing, advocated bombing a Muslim school?

[p0lka]

Originally Posted by baron

That just demonstrates her hateful thought processes. "The West killed Muslim kids so we'll kill some Western kids." Only a terrorist would think like that. How many Brits, after the Manchester bombing, advocated bombing a Muslim school?

At no point did she mention muslim, or western? Where did you get that from?

Have you actually bothered to watch it?

A simple yes or no would surfice.

bit of friendly advice, you cannot just make up **** about what you think people are going to think, stick with reality peeps.

[baron]

Originally Posted by p0lka

At no point did she mention muslim, or western? Where did you get that from?

Have you actually bothered to watch it?

A simple yes or no would surfice.

bit of friendly advice, you cannot just make up **** about what you think people are going to think, stick with reality peeps.

Oops. Hoisted by your own petard, I believe that's called.

Originally Posted by Begum_Interview

Just people like the women and children in Baghuz that are being killed right now unjustly, the bombings. It's a two-way thing really.

Because women and children are being killed back in the Islamic State right now and it's kind of retaliation.

Like, their justification was that it was retaliation so I thought 'OK, that is a fair justification'."

[p0lka]

Originally Posted by baron

Oops. Hoisted by your own petard, I believe that's called.

Well, if it's someone elses petard, in a world of your own making, then congrats.
My point stands.

EDIT: just to be clear.
...

Originally Posted by baron

Originally Posted by Begum_Interview
Just people like the women and children in Baghuz that are being killed right now unjustly, the bombings. It's a two-way thing really.

Because women and children are being killed back in the Islamic State right now and it's kind of retaliation.

Like, their justification was that it was retaliation so I thought 'OK, that is a fair justification'."

which is literally what I said..

Originally Posted by p0lka

possibly more of a self-justification sort of thing? Just to feel better about oneself.

[Vixen]

Originally Posted by p0lka

Well, if it's someone elses petard, in a world of your own making, then congrats.
My point stands.

Er, p0lka, you see this woman Shamima sitting on the London tube, dressed all in black, smirking, looking a bit bulky around the middle. Would you sit next to her?

[p0lka]

Originally Posted by Vixen

Er, p0lka, you see this woman Shamima sitting on the London tube, dressed all in black, smirking, looking a bit bulky around the middle. Would you sit next to her?

What?
you missed the bit where she is stroking her beard with a maniacal grin whilst staring through her monacle like a pantomime baddie.

[angrysoba]

Originally Posted by Vixen

Er, p0lka, you see this woman Shamima sitting on the London tube, dressed all in black, smirking, looking a bit bulky around the middle. Would you sit next to her?

Are we fat-shaming again? I'd just ask her to move up.

Originally Posted by p0lka

What?
you missed the bit where she is stroking her beard with a maniacal grin whilst staring through her monacle like a pantomime baddie.

Oh, wait. That reminds me...

YouTube Video This video is not hosted by the ISF. The ISF can not be held responsible for the suitability or legality of this material. By clicking the link below you agree to view content from an external website.

I AGREE

[IanS]

Originally Posted by baron

She does, it's called Islamic fundamentalism.

If we just look Muslims in the UK, what is the difference between "Islamic fundamentalists" and those who are seen as merely devout followers of the faith and who pray the required numbers of times per day, go to the mosque the required number of times, regularly read the koran, and generally live their every day lives according the teaching of the Imams and the words of the koran etc? ...

... at a rough guess (from my experience living all my life in London, and reading the UK news and listening to the BBC each day on all aspects of Muslim involvement in the UK) I'd say at least half of the Muslims in the UK are at least as devout and religious as described above, probably more like 75% or more ...

... so how wide is the dividing line between any of them (the UK Muslim population is about 6 million) and those in the same community and the same families that we'd class as "fundamentalists"? ...

... how easy is it for any of them to pass backwards or forwards accross that divide from being just a typical strict/devout Muslim to being a dangerous fundamentalist? ...

... how easy was it for Shamima Begum & her two friends (and actually thousands of other known cases in the UK) to have done that?

[baron]

Originally Posted by p0lka

Well, if it's someone elses petard, in a world of your own making, then congrats.
My point stands.

EDIT: just to be clear.
...

which is literally what I said..

Stop digging a hole for yourself. You ridiculed me when I said she supported the idea that killing Western civilians was justified in the light of the West killing Muslim civilians, saying I hadn't even watched the video and how I should 'stop making **** up'. I then presented a quote that proved she said precisely this and you respond, Oh! Oh! That's what I was saying!

Give it up, please, it's embarrassing.

[Worm]

Originally Posted by jimbob

The English* age of criminal responsibility is ten.


*Don't know about Scottish

Currently 8 - they're looking to raise it to 12.

[baron]

Originally Posted by IanS

If we just look Muslims in the UK, what is the difference between "Islamic fundamentalists" and those who are seen as merely devout followers of the faith and who pray the required numbers of times per day, go to the mosque the required number of times, regularly read the koran, and generally live their every day lives according the teaching of the Imams and the words of the koran etc? ...

There's no difference, they are the same thing. That's assuming you're talking of 'fundamentalists' with respect to the dictionary definition as opposed to the leftist media hijacking of the word to mean 'terrorists' because they're too **** scared to say the word outright.

Originally Posted by IanS

... at a rough guess (from my experience living all my life in London, and reading the UK news and listening to the BBC each day on all aspects of Muslim involvement in the UK) I'd say at least half of the Muslims in the UK are at least as devout and religious as described above, probably more like 75% or more ...

... so how wide is the dividing line between any of them (the UK Muslim population is about 6 million) and those in the same community and the same families that we'd class as "fundamentalists"? ...

There is no dividing line. There's a spectrum of belief that starts with nominal association and progresses to fundamentalism (incorporating religious, cultural and political Islam) with the majority of UK Muslims being grouped towards the latter end. Active terrorism is another matter and a terrorist can emerge anywhere on that line although they tend to be more towards the fundamentalist end.

Originally Posted by IanS

... how easy is it for any of them to pass backwards or forwards accross that divide from being just a typical strict/devout Muslim to being a dangerous fundamentalist? ...

You're looking at it the wrong way. There is no critical mass of belief that turns a Muslim into a terrorist, fundamentalist belief just increases their likelihood of becoming a terrorist and also their predilection to terrorist sympathy.

Originally Posted by IanS

... how easy was it for Shamima Begum & her two friends (and actually thousands of other known cases in the UK) to have done that?

I'm guessing here, but if it were easily evidenced I'd place a bet that I know more about Islam than Shamima Begum. Like a number of young Western ISIS recruits she's simply a degenerate human being, groomed by her terrorist-supporting father to hate the West, wound up and left to do her worst on the basis that anything non-Islamic is evil and must be destroyed.

This, of course, does not apply to ISIS themselves, who are scholars of Islam and ensure that every one of their actions can be supported with direct reference to scripture.

But this is getting away from the point which you quoted which is yes, I believe anyone who accepts the fundamentals of Islam as fact is mentally deranged.

[The Great Zaganza]

Originally Posted by baron

But this is getting away from the point which you quoted which is yes, I believe anyone who accepts the fundamentals of Islam as fact is mentally deranged.

we might have to agree on what those fundamentals are before we can make such a judgement.

[baron]

Originally Posted by The Great Zaganza

we might have to agree on what those fundamentals are before we can make such a judgement.

Indeed, you can't make that judgement before you know what they are.

[The Great Zaganza]

Originally Posted by baron

Indeed, you can't make that judgement before you know what they are.

I would argue that, like any active religion (or organization), the fundamentals of Islam have shifted of time, and continue to do so. Only nowadays, they have visibly fractured into purely scholarly, purely superficial and fanatical in a much more obvious way than before.

[baron]

Originally Posted by The Great Zaganza

I would argue that, like any active religion (or organization), the fundamentals of Islam have shifted of time, and continue to do so. Only nowadays, they have visibly fractured into purely scholarly, purely superficial and fanatical in a much more obvious way than before.

I don't think they've shifted at all, or if they have it's in the wrong direction. That's the problem with Islam, it's immutable, and because it incorporates direction to make apostates of all who challenge the word of the Koran (i.e. the word of Allah) reformists are few and far between and have a hard time just staying alive let alone achieving any sort of revisionist progress.

[The Great Zaganza]

I doubt very much that Islam is immutable - just like 17th century Christians wouldn't recognize current Christians as such, first and second generation followers of Mohammed would not consider any current forms of Islam as legitimate.
What ISIS has done is the same as Christian Fundamentalists: taken a text without any context, not even the original context. It represents a form of Islam today, but its connection to "original" Islam is as remote as that of all other forms of the faith.

[IanS]

Originally Posted by baron

There's no difference, they are the same thing. That's assuming you're talking of 'fundamentalists' with respect to the dictionary definition as opposed to the leftist media hijacking of the word to mean 'terrorists' because they're too **** scared to say the word outright.



There is no dividing line. There's a spectrum of belief that starts with nominal association and progresses to fundamentalism (incorporating religious, cultural and political Islam) with the majority of UK Muslims being grouped towards the latter end. Active terrorism is another matter and a terrorist can emerge anywhere on that line although they tend to be more towards the fundamentalist end.



You're looking at it the wrong way. There is no critical mass of belief that turns a Muslim into a terrorist, fundamentalist belief just increases their likelihood of becoming a terrorist and also their predilection to terrorist sympathy.



I'm guessing here, but if it were easily evidenced I'd place a bet that I know more about Islam than Shamima Begum. Like a number of young Western ISIS recruits she's simply a degenerate human being, groomed by her terrorist-supporting father to hate the West, wound up and left to do her worst on the basis that anything non-Islamic is evil and must be destroyed.

This, of course, does not apply to ISIS themselves, who are scholars of Islam and ensure that every one of their actions can be supported with direct reference to scripture.

But this is getting away from the point which you quoted which is yes, I believe anyone who accepts the fundamentals of Islam as fact is mentally deranged.

I'm not sure how much any of us here agree on, but the point that I'm making (though putting it in the form of a series of questions), is that as soon as you have people committed to religious beliefs and feeling absolutely certain that their holy books are the words of God which they must follow, then there is a very easy transition from being what most people would describe as a benign "moderate" Muslim to a dangerous "fundamentalist" Muslim.

And if that's true (as I think it very obviously is), then the really worrying conclusion that follows, is that all such deeply religious people (Muslims in the present case) are potentially very dangerous (because they can pass very easily and very quickly from being quite moderate to dangerously extreme).

That's probably a very unpalatable thought for most people, I know. But I think they have to face up to that conclusion – religious beliefs can very easily and quickly become extremely dangerous, and particularly so in the case of Islam over the last 20 to 30 years or so.

However, that does not mean we should always disown people like Shamima Begum and refuse to allow them back to live in the UK (we might not be able to legally prevent that anyway). What it means is that, no matter how long it takes, the key to all such problems with religious fanaticism, is education (particularly scientific education). People have to be far better educated in subjects, discoveries & evidence that show why religious beliefs about gods, holy books, paradise, praying etc. are wrong & no more than ancient superstitious myths born out of what was at the time (thousands of years ago) relatively almost complete ignorance.

[epeeist]

I'm not suggesting a rescue mission or anything like that, but if she were able to get to a safe place, she should be able to return, for at least two reasons:

1. She was 15 when she went there - most places don't consider 15-year-olds to be as fully responsible. That she was able to do what she did at 15 speaks poorly of the UK's child protective services generally (and from what little I've read, they're disgustingly poor at protecting children if doing so might involve interfering with proclaimed religious or cultural beliefs?).

2. She has a child who is or I assume has a claim to UK citizenship - if only for the child's sake, she should be allowed to return.

3. What happens when she returns, whether she is a fit mother or not, etc. are other considerations.

[Darat]

Not seeing where this is a failure of the child protection services?

[baron]

Originally Posted by IanS

I'm not sure how much any of us here agree on, but the point that I'm making (though putting it in the form of a series of questions), is that as soon as you have people committed to religious beliefs and feeling absolutely certain that their holy books are the words of God which they must follow, then there is a very easy transition from being what most people would describe as a benign "moderate" Muslim to a dangerous "fundamentalist" Muslim.

And if that's true (as I think it very obviously is), then the really worrying conclusion that follows, is that all such deeply religious people (Muslims in the present case) are potentially very dangerous (because they can pass very easily and very quickly from being quite moderate to dangerously extreme).

That's probably a very unpalatable thought for most people, I know. But I think they have to face up to that conclusion – religious beliefs can very easily and quickly become extremely dangerous, and particularly so in the case of Islam over the last 20 to 30 years or so.

I don't disagree with any of that.

Originally Posted by IanS

However, that does not mean we should always disown people like Shamima Begum and refuse to allow them back to live in the UK (we might not be able to legally prevent that anyway). What it means is that, no matter how long it takes, the key to all such problems with religious fanaticism, is education (particularly scientific education). People have to be far better educated in subjects, discoveries & evidence that show why religious beliefs about gods, holy books, paradise, praying etc. are wrong & no more than ancient superstitious myths born out of what was at the time (thousands of years ago) relatively almost complete ignorance.

It's a problem that nobody is showing signs of getting a handle on. Indeed, the authorities don't even admit it exists in its broader form.