ISIS teenager wants to come home - Page 2

dudalb · 14th February 2019, 11:55 AM

Originally Posted by Archie Gemmill Goal

She should be allowed to return and tried in a court. I'm not sure the kid should be allowed to stay with her regardless.

This. She should be allowed to return,but face the consequences for her actions.
I admit my sypmathy for somebody who joins a group as viscous as ISIS is very limited.

Venom · 14th February 2019, 11:56 AM

Converts just can't maintain fever-pitch zeal when their world is not evidently coming to an end. Young Kurd women fought on, but privileged teenage Westerners break after a few years.

Who woulda predicted.

SuburbanTurkey · 14th February 2019, 11:57 AM

Originally Posted by JoeMorgue

I can't help but feel that "You're not welcome back in a country (as a normal, private citizen) after you've declared yourself to an enemy of that country" is just one of those things that in any sane world we would haven't to spell out.

But there's nothing in the rule book that says a golden retriever can't play football yet again I guess.

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.

TragicMonkey · 14th February 2019, 11:58 AM

Originally Posted by dudalb

This. She should be allowed to return,but face the consequences for her actions.
I admit my sypmathy for somebody who joins a group as viscous as ISIS is very limited.

Yes, those high viscosity groups are dreadful, oil of them.

dudalb · 14th February 2019, 12:03 PM

Quote:

Another British jihadi bride, Tareena Shakil, who got out of the war zone with her child, lied to the security services on her return and was jailed for membership of a terrorist group.

If Ms Begum got out of the country, that is the kind of charge she could face - along with encouraging or supporting terrorism.

Shades of Lord Haw Haw and his lying to get a British Passport,,,,,

theprestige · 14th February 2019, 12:05 PM

Originally Posted by JoeMorgue

I can't help but feel that "You're not welcome back in a country (as a normal, private citizen) after you've declared yourself to an enemy of that country" is just one of those things that in any sane world we would haven't to spell out.

I think it's okay to handle these things on a case-by-case basis. In some cases, such as conventional warfare, you can simply detain people as prisoners of war, and repatriate them once the war is over and terms of surrender have been agreed. No harm, no foul, so to speak.

In other cases, such as unconventional warfare against non-state actors who are likely to persist in some form indefinitely, and for whom there will never be any decisive surrender, the POW model breaks down. See the Guantanamo Bay detention camp.

On the other hand, you're only dealing with a relatively small population of enemy combatants. It's much easier to address such prisoners individually, rather than as a class.

I think there's a very strong humanitarian case to be made for bringing this child home and giving her a chance to recover and do something else with her life. I think there's also a very strong criminal and civil justice case to be made for putting her on trial and holding her accountable for going to war against her own country. And I think that both these cases can be made together, in concert.

But to be clear: I'm not proposing a one-size-fits-all solution. I'm not saying this should be a general rule applied to everyone.

I think it's in society's best interests to handle these case-by-case, and reserve the privilege of doing something different in each case.

Quote:

But there's nothing in the rule book that says a golden retriever can't play football yet again I guess.

Well put.

theprestige · 14th February 2019, 12:06 PM

Originally Posted by TragicMonkey

Yes, those high viscosity groups are dreadful, oil of them.

ISIS is spreading through Iraq and Syria like molasses.

cullennz · 14th February 2019, 12:18 PM

Originally Posted by theprestige

ISIS is spreading through Iraq and Syria like molasses.

Sounds like a sticky situation

baron · 14th February 2019, 12:25 PM

Originally Posted by The Great Zaganza

If that kid survives, it's almost certain to become a terrorist to some degree.
Enlightened self-interest suggests that the world is safer when more people get some education instead of growing up in terrorist-controlled refugee camps.

The difference is between the 90% (say) chance of a terrorist over there and a 10% (say) chance of a terrorist over here. If the government has a choice I'd urge them to go with the former.

IanS · 14th February 2019, 12:40 PM

Just on whether she's broken any laws – apart from joining an illegal terrorist organisation and specifically going to Syria to help IS wage a lethal war, in the Times newspaper interview she says of the fighting that's been raging in the last few weeks in Baghuz “I was weak, I could not endure the suffering and hardship that staying on the battlefield involved” .

She appears there to be confirming that although heavily pregnant, she was actually “staying on the battlefield” (of course we might think the “battlefield” involved the entire town, such that she could not avoid “staying on the battlefield” … however, she also says that in the final few days the women were all offered the option of leaving the battlefield, and that after some time (days or weeks), she decided to walk away from that battlefield).

When asked what her reaction was to seeing her first severed head (in a bin), she not only said “it did not phaze me”, but added that “it was from a captured fighter seized on the battlefield, an enemy of Islam, I thought only of what he would have done to a Muslim woman if he had the chance”.

There she appears to be repeating the same propaganda statement that has appeared from almost every UK Islamic fundamentalist on trial in the UK (that's now several hundred of them) where almost all of them said in trial evidence or said in martyrdom videos or where they were recorded in phone transcripts etc., that one reason they were trying to kill the “kuffa” (i.e. non-believers, opponents of hard-line Islam) was because their western opponents were “killing and raping our women and children”.

Regarding her marriage to an Islamic fighter – she was aged 15 when she left the UK, and she says in the article that as soon as she got to Raqqa (Syria) “I applied to marry an English speaking fighter between the ages of 20 and 25 yeas old” and within 10 days she was married. She then had two children who both died, and now she has been pregnant with a third child of the IS fighter for nearly 9 months.

That sounds to me almost like these girls are deliberately going to the front-line battle area to instantly marry a jihadist fighter within days, and producing as many children as possible to be raised in that Jihadist battle environment.

None of that sounds to me anything at all like a person who has much if any concern that she has done anything wrong or that she needs to change her mind about supporting IS in it's campaign of worldwide mass murder.

However, despite all of that - if she is nevertheless allowed back into the UK, then afaik she is likely to be tried for terrorist offences and quite probably jailed for some years. And (according to "experts" discussing this on BBC radio this morning) her child would probably taken into state care and placed with more suitable parents who are not trying to raise Islamist fundamentalist fighters.

JoeMorgue · 14th February 2019, 12:44 PM

Yeah regardless of everything else this young woman (calling her a 'girl' infantalizes her too much imo) isn't acting like she's sorry she joined ISIS, just that it's too much for her to handle.

It's like she wants to go back to the UK because she doesn't like ISIS's maternal leave policy.

dudalb · 14th February 2019, 12:49 PM

Originally Posted by Venom

Converts just can't maintain fever-pitch zeal when their world is not evidently coming to an end. Young Kurd women fought on, but privileged teenage Westerners break after a few years.

Who woulda predicted.

It's the green soldiers, who have never been under fire, that you have to worry about breaking in combat.

dudalb · 14th February 2019, 12:50 PM

Originally Posted by JoeMorgue

Yeah regardless of everything else this young woman (calling her a 'girl' infantalizes her too much imo) isn't acting like she's sorry she joined ISIS, just that it's too much for her to handle.

It's like she wants to go back to the UK because she doesn't like ISIS's maternal leave policy.

I think the term is she is not sorry she did it, but very sorry she has to face the consequences of her actions.
Sort of a variation of "He's not sorry he commited the crime, but very sorry he got caught".

JoeMorgue · 14th February 2019, 12:51 PM

Originally Posted by dudalb

I think the term is she is not sorry she did it, but very sorry she has to face the consequences of her actions.

*Wailing* "Oh why must my actions have consequences!" - Homer Simpson

Segnosaur · 14th February 2019, 01:04 PM

Originally Posted by dudalb

This. She should be allowed to return,but face the consequences for her actions.
I admit my sypmathy for somebody who joins a group as viscous as ISIS is very limited.

One of the problems we are having (at least in Canada) is actually making a legal case against them... We can claim they are guilty of treason, or "aiding a terrorist organization" (or whatever the charge is), but how do you make the case? Its doubtful ISIS was keeping accurate census records, and trying to interview eye-witnesses in a hostile territory is difficult. Anyone who returns can just claim "I was backpacking in Europe for a couple of years and lost my passport".

theprestige · 14th February 2019, 01:29 PM

Originally Posted by Segnosaur

Anyone who returns can just claim "I was backpacking in Europe for a couple of years and lost my passport".

I'm not sure I see the problem. It's customary for the state to not make a case against someone who has an alibi. Wrongdoers go free all the time because the state can't gather enough evidence to convict - or even prosecute. This is generally considered to be a feature, not a bug, of the system.

That said, if you have someone in custody, and you *can* make a case... Then do it.

JoeMorgue · 14th February 2019, 01:30 PM

And regardless that hardly applies to a case like this where the woman is hardly putting any effort into denying or hiding it.

We'll worry about the cases where they claim they weren't later.

Vixen · 14th February 2019, 01:34 PM

Originally Posted by dudalb

This. She should be allowed to return,but face the consequences for her actions.
I admit my sypmathy for somebody who joins a group as viscous as ISIS is very limited.

True they are very jellylike.

baron · 14th February 2019, 01:34 PM

Originally Posted by Segnosaur

One of the problems we are having (at least in Canada) is actually making a legal case against them... We can claim they are guilty of treason, or "aiding a terrorist organization" (or whatever the charge is), but how do you make the case? Its doubtful ISIS was keeping accurate census records, and trying to interview eye-witnesses in a hostile territory is difficult. Anyone who returns can just claim "I was backpacking in Europe for a couple of years and lost my passport".

She's incriminated herself enough for a number of charges to stick, certainly enough to get her life in jail, and the intelligence services will have her communications from before she went. The problem is, if she does return, she won't get life because of 'sentencing guidelines' relating to her age and 'vulnerability'.

Vixen · 14th February 2019, 01:43 PM

It transpires that the father of one of the girls took part in a flag burning exercise by one of the hate preachers. He has to take some responsibility for his daughter's inculcation with radicalism.

This Shamima Begum woman, although she sounds vile, was just fifteen when she was caught up in idealistic fervour. She has become detached from reality, living as she has for four years in a rabid fanatical environment (rather like people rescued from brainwashing cults). She likely feels cognitive dissonance in feelings of comradeship on the one hand with her fellow 'fighters' and her desire to give her unborn child a better life by returning to the UK.

Perhaps the UK should turn the other cheek, show compassion (for the innocent baby, at least) and demonstrate to the deluded zealots how Christianity works.

Love thine enemy, not behead them.

dudalb · 14th February 2019, 01:48 PM

Originally Posted by Segnosaur

One of the problems we are having (at least in Canada) is actually making a legal case against them... We can claim they are guilty of treason, or "aiding a terrorist organization" (or whatever the charge is), but how do you make the case? Its doubtful ISIS was keeping accurate census records, and trying to interview eye-witnesses in a hostile territory is difficult. Anyone who returns can just claim "I was backpacking in Europe for a couple of years and lost my passport".

God knows I do not want to sound like Trump,but you have a genuine security issue also. I hope if she comes back and is not charged she is kept under very tight police surveillance. She volunatary joined the most murderous Terrorist organization in the world, for heaven's sake.

dudalb · 14th February 2019, 01:50 PM

Originally Posted by Vixen

It transpires that the father of one of the girls took part in a flag burning exercise by one of the hate preachers. He has to take some responsibility for his daughter's inculcation with radicalism.

This Shamima Begum woman, although she sounds vile, was just fifteen when she was caught up in idealistic fervour. She has become detached from reality, living as she has for four years in a rabid fanatical environment (rather like people rescued from brainwashing cults). She likely feels cognitive dissonance in feelings of comradeship on the one hand with her fellow 'fighters' and her desire to give her unborn child a better life by returning to the UK.

Perhaps the UK should turn the other cheek, show compassion (for the innocent baby, at least) and demonstrate to the deluded zealots how Christianity works.

Love thine enemy, not behead them.

By that reasoning, no criminal should ever be punished for any crime.
I have to wonder if you are being serious here.
And you could apply the whole wraped up in a rabid fananticail enviorment statement to the Nazi guards who ran the gas chambers as Auschwitz. It might be an explanation, but it's not an excuse.

Vixen · 14th February 2019, 01:54 PM

Originally Posted by dudalb

By that reasoning, no criminal should ever be punished for any crime.
I have to wonder if you are being serious here.
And you could apply the whole wraped up in a rabid fananticail enviorment statement to the Nazi guards who ran the gas chambers as Auschwitz. It might be an explanation, but it's not an excuse.

She should be subject to due process of course.

We should also fight bad ideology with a good one.

Otherwise she is not going to change.

theprestige · 14th February 2019, 01:57 PM

Originally Posted by baron

She's incriminated herself enough for a number of charges to stick, certainly enough to get her life in jail, and the intelligence services will have her communications from before she went. The problem is, if she does return, she won't get life because of 'sentencing guidelines' relating to her age and 'vulnerability'.

I'm okay with all of this.

Segnosaur · 14th February 2019, 02:04 PM

Originally Posted by theprestige

Quote:

Anyone who returns can just claim "I was backpacking in Europe for a couple of years and lost my passport".

I'm not sure I see the problem. It's customary for the state to not make a case against someone who has an alibi.

The problem is, the returning ISIS people don't actually have an alibi... at least not a verified one.

So, you're potentially introducing a large number of individuals who (at one point anyways) were hostile to the ideals of their home nation with no punishment for any illegal actions that they have done and little ability to track their activities upon returning.

Quote:

Wrongdoers go free all the time because the state can't gather enough evidence to convict - or even prosecute. This is generally considered to be a feature, not a bug, of the system.

Yes, innocent until proven guilty and all that... Yes, its the preferred way that we should want the legal system to function. Still doesn't mean that we shouldn't be worried about potential side effects of that policy.

Segnosaur · 14th February 2019, 02:08 PM

Originally Posted by baron

Quote:

One of the problems we are having (at least in Canada) is actually making a legal case against them...

She's incriminated herself enough for a number of charges to stick, certainly enough to get her life in jail...

I agree that in this case (and many others) they have enough evidence to make the charges stick. But its not that way for everyone.

Quote:

and the intelligence services will have her communications from before she went.

Maybe they will (at least in this case). But like I said, not every case is the same. Not everyone leaves the same digital footprint behind.

IanS · 14th February 2019, 02:10 PM

Originally Posted by Segnosaur

One of the problems we are having (at least in Canada) is actually making a legal case against them... We can claim they are guilty of treason, or "aiding a terrorist organization" (or whatever the charge is), but how do you make the case? Its doubtful ISIS was keeping accurate census records, and trying to interview eye-witnesses in a hostile territory is difficult. Anyone who returns can just claim "I was backpacking in Europe for a couple of years and lost my passport".

In this UK case the woman (Shamima Begum) has admitted her deliberate and intentional part in joining IS specifically to fight a jihadist war. And just the few quotes that I gave above from her interview with the Times journalist, show beyond doubt that she knew what she was doing, knew why she was doing it, and that even now she still thinks it was and is the best & most correct thing to do (she is still supporting IS attempts to form a religious caliphate by jihadist war) ...

... if she is charged in the UK with terrorist offences (and afaik there's a long list of things she'd probably be charged with), then her admissions to the journalist (where she knew who she was talking to, and knew that it would all be published for people to read in Times newspaper), are really undeniable in any trial.

This is not like the many other cases where a person returning from IS in Syria (or wherever), is arrested at a UK airport, and where they immediately maintain their innocence. That actually did happen in the case of another UK Muslim woman Tareena Shakil who was arrested on her return to the UK after a year with IS in Syria (2014 to 2015), but in her case she protested her innocence and told a story about how she was actually trying to escape from IS … but in court it was shown that her escape story was untrue. She was found guilty and sentenced to 6 years in prison. When she left to join IS in Syria she also took her 14 month old son ... she had posed him in photos wearing an IS inscribed wooly hat and with an AK47 alongside him ... it was shown in court that her intention was to ensure that he was raised to grow up as an IS fighter).

p0lka · 14th February 2019, 02:24 PM

Originally Posted by theprestige

Rescue the girl, abort the fetus, put her on trial.

chop her head off, put it in a bin and see how she likes it.

theprestige · 14th February 2019, 02:32 PM

Originally Posted by Segnosaur

The problem is, the returning ISIS people don't actually have an alibi... at least not a verified one.

They also don't have solid incriminating evidence against them. Again, in our system of criminal justice, this is fine.

Quote:

So, you're potentially introducing a large number of individuals who (at one point anyways) were hostile to the ideals of their home nation with no punishment for any illegal actions that they have done and little ability to track their activities upon returning.

Our society has a large number of such individuals running around at all times anyway.

I think we would all be overjoyed if you could solve the problem of the murderer who walked away free because we couldn't find enough evidence to convict him. If for no other reason than that we could apply the same solution to the problem of the terrorist soldier who goes free for lack of evidence.

Quote:

Yes, innocent until proven guilty and all that... Yes, its the preferred way that we should want the legal system to function. Still doesn't mean that we shouldn't be worried about potential side effects of that policy.

To be honest, I'm more worried about the side effects of the countervailing policy. See: Guantanamo Bay detention camp, the no-fly list, etc.

baron · 14th February 2019, 02:41 PM

Originally Posted by theprestige

Our society has a large number of such individuals running around at all times anyway.

All the more reason not to import more, or to cage them if that's not an option. The resources to monitor a single person 24/7 are staggering - 20 to 30 security agents costing millions a year for one individual (the free housing and benefits given to the terrorist and her family pale into insignificance compared to this this cost). The UK harbours between 500 and 1000 known violent extremists (I hate that word) and around 23,000 more known terrorist supporters and viable terrorist risks. Our security services have the resource to monitor only a few dozen of these round the clock at any one time. It only takes one to cause carnage, as we've seen so often. The problem here is not insufficient evidence to convict, nor is it inadequate legislation, it's soft sentencing guidelines.

IanS · 14th February 2019, 02:41 PM

One other rather unexpected thing Shamima Begun said in that interview, is that she now wants to return to the UK and she says “I will do anything required just to come home and live quietly with my child”. She appears not to realise that she is likely to be arrested and that she probably will not be simply left to “live quietly with my child” as if nothing wrong had ever happened.

I don't want to be unkind to this woman. And I'd always prefer to see compassion and tolerance shown by the UK security services. But there have been several hundred UK Muslims who have now returned to the UK after fighting with IS or silmilar groups abroad, and apart from the fact that it seems like a large number of those have now gone missing and are untraceable within the UK, afaik most of the rest have all had to be kept under constant surveillance as a security risk … i.e., these are dangerous people (some of them, very dangerous indeed), and I'm not sure how the UK security services could exclude Miss Begum from that “dangeorus” group.

Skeptic Ginger · 14th February 2019, 02:42 PM

Originally Posted by The Great Zaganza

If that kid survives, it's almost certain to become a terrorist to some degree.
Enlightened self-interest suggests that the world is safer when more people get some education instead of growing up in terrorist-controlled refugee camps.

That does not explain "can't support the war", but whatever.

Skeptic Ginger · 14th February 2019, 02:48 PM

Originally Posted by theprestige

Rescue the girl, abort the fetus, put her on trial.

Abort a full term fetus?

theprestige · 14th February 2019, 02:52 PM

Originally Posted by Skeptic Ginger

Abort a full term fetus? : rolleyes :

Good point. Probably easier to let her give birth, and then just bin it.

Parsman · 14th February 2019, 03:02 PM

Originally Posted by Vixen

It transpires that the father of one of the girls took part in a flag burning exercise by one of the hate preachers. He has to take some responsibility for his daughter's inculcation with radicalism.

This Shamima Begum woman, although she sounds vile, was just fifteen when she was caught up in idealistic fervour. She has become detached from reality, living as she has for four years in a rabid fanatical environment (rather like people rescued from brainwashing cults). She likely feels cognitive dissonance in feelings of comradeship on the one hand with her fellow 'fighters' and her desire to give her unborn child a better life by returning to the UK.

Perhaps the UK should turn the other cheek, show compassion (for the innocent baby, at least) and demonstrate to the deluded zealots how Christianity works.

Love thine enemy, not behead them.

Not Christianity. Western secular values. Despite the oddity that has CoE Bishops in one house of our legislature the UK is a very secular country, far more so than the USA seems to be.

baron · 14th February 2019, 03:16 PM

Her father is quoted as saying, "'They were manipulated by evil people and they should be brought home and helped. Not punished."

He's correct, they were manipulated by evil people, and he is one of them - the main one, in fact. He took her along to hear Anjem Choudary speak (Choudary is an open supporter of ISIS and is associated with practically every convicted Islamic terrorist in the UK) and was integral in making her what she is today.

What in the name of Christ are these people even doing in the UK? It boggles the mind.

MRC_Hans · 14th February 2019, 03:54 PM

Seems she wanted to join ISIS, regardless of the consequences.

Now she seems to want to join the ordinary society.

Let her do it, regardless of consequences.

Hans

Childlike Empress · 14th February 2019, 04:31 PM

Folks, again, she didn't decide to leave ISIS because of her pregnancy or anything else. She HAD TO flee the daily bombardment of the few villages (now only a few street corners) the cult's territory has been reduced to. Now she is in a refugee camp controlled by Kurdish fighters, the ground forces of the "US-led coalition" that does the bombing. They have a busy schedule awaiting a possible Turkish invasion. Why should they shoulder the burden of taking care for these people (or "getting rid of them" somehow)? They have to return to the societies that produced them.

theprestige · 14th February 2019, 04:34 PM

Originally Posted by Childlike Empress

Why should they take the burden to care for these people? They have to return to the societies that produced them.

I understand the remnants of ISIS-held territory are right nearby.

Childlike Empress · 14th February 2019, 04:40 PM

Originally Posted by theprestige

I understand the remnants of ISIS-held territory are right nearby.

What? Look at the map I posted earlier. The remaining people in that 1 km² will soon surrender or die in the creation of a nice parking lot at the Euphrates shores. There is no returning, as there is no Islamic State in Iraq and al-Sham anymore.

14th February 2019, 11:55 AM	#41
dudalb Penultimate Amazing Join Date: Aug 2007 Location: Sacramento Posts: 49,813	Originally Posted by Archie Gemmill Goal She should be allowed to return and tried in a court. I'm not sure the kid should be allowed to stay with her regardless. This. She should be allowed to return,but face the consequences for her actions. I admit my sypmathy for somebody who joins a group as viscous as ISIS is very limited.
	__________________ Pacifism is a shifty doctrine under which a man accepts the benefits of the social group without being willing to pay - and claims a halo for his dishonesty. Robert Heinlein.

14th February 2019, 11:57 AM	#43
SuburbanTurkey Philosopher Join Date: Apr 2018 Location: Massachusetts, USA Posts: 7,102	Originally Posted by JoeMorgue I can't help but feel that "You're not welcome back in a country (as a normal, private citizen) after you've declared yourself to an enemy of that country" is just one of those things that in any sane world we would haven't to spell out. But there's nothing in the rule book that says a golden retriever can't play football yet again I guess. 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.
	__________________ Gobble gobble

14th February 2019, 11:58 AM	#44
TragicMonkey Poisoned Waffles Join Date: Jun 2004 Location: Monkey Posts: 58,813	Originally Posted by dudalb This. She should be allowed to return,but face the consequences for her actions. I admit my sypmathy for somebody who joins a group as viscous as ISIS is very limited. Yes, those high viscosity groups are dreadful, oil of them.
	__________________ You added nothing to that conversation, Barbara.

14th February 2019, 12:03 PM	#45
dudalb Penultimate Amazing Join Date: Aug 2007 Location: Sacramento Posts: 49,813	Quote: Another British jihadi bride, Tareena Shakil, who got out of the war zone with her child, lied to the security services on her return and was jailed for membership of a terrorist group. If Ms Begum got out of the country, that is the kind of charge she could face - along with encouraging or supporting terrorism. Shades of Lord Haw Haw and his lying to get a British Passport,,,,,
	__________________ Pacifism is a shifty doctrine under which a man accepts the benefits of the social group without being willing to pay - and claims a halo for his dishonesty. Robert Heinlein.

14th February 2019, 12:18 PM	#48
cullennz Embarrasingly illiterate Join Date: Sep 2006 Posts: 19,656	Originally Posted by theprestige ISIS is spreading through Iraq and Syria like molasses. Sounds like a sticky situation
	__________________ "I mean, you've got the first sort of mainstream African-American who is articulate and bright and clean and a nice-looking guy. I mean, that's a story-book, man," Biden said. 2007 https://www.nbcnews.com/id/wbna16911044

14th February 2019, 11:56 AM	#42
Venom Illuminator Join Date: Apr 2011 Location: United States Posts: 4,819	Converts just can't maintain fever-pitch zeal when their world is not evidently coming to an end. Young Kurd women fought on, but privileged teenage Westerners break after a few years. Who woulda predicted.

14th February 2019, 12:05 PM	#46
theprestige Penultimate Amazing Join Date: Aug 2007 Location: Hong Kong Posts: 48,489	Originally Posted by JoeMorgue I can't help but feel that "You're not welcome back in a country (as a normal, private citizen) after you've declared yourself to an enemy of that country" is just one of those things that in any sane world we would haven't to spell out. I think it's okay to handle these things on a case-by-case basis. In some cases, such as conventional warfare, you can simply detain people as prisoners of war, and repatriate them once the war is over and terms of surrender have been agreed. No harm, no foul, so to speak. In other cases, such as unconventional warfare against non-state actors who are likely to persist in some form indefinitely, and for whom there will never be any decisive surrender, the POW model breaks down. See the Guantanamo Bay detention camp. On the other hand, you're only dealing with a relatively small population of enemy combatants. It's much easier to address such prisoners individually, rather than as a class. I think there's a very strong humanitarian case to be made for bringing this child home and giving her a chance to recover and do something else with her life. I think there's also a very strong criminal and civil justice case to be made for putting her on trial and holding her accountable for going to war against her own country. And I think that both these cases can be made together, in concert. But to be clear: I'm not proposing a one-size-fits-all solution. I'm not saying this should be a general rule applied to everyone. I think it's in society's best interests to handle these case-by-case, and reserve the privilege of doing something different in each case. Quote: But there's nothing in the rule book that says a golden retriever can't play football yet again I guess. Well put.

14th February 2019, 12:06 PM	#47
theprestige Penultimate Amazing Join Date: Aug 2007 Location: Hong Kong Posts: 48,489	Originally Posted by TragicMonkey Yes, those high viscosity groups are dreadful, oil of them. ISIS is spreading through Iraq and Syria like molasses.

14th February 2019, 12:25 PM	#49
baron Guest Join Date: Dec 2006 Posts: 8,627	Originally Posted by The Great Zaganza If that kid survives, it's almost certain to become a terrorist to some degree. Enlightened self-interest suggests that the world is safer when more people get some education instead of growing up in terrorist-controlled refugee camps. The difference is between the 90% (say) chance of a terrorist over there and a 10% (say) chance of a terrorist over here. If the government has a choice I'd urge them to go with the former.
baron Guest Join Date: Dec 2006 Posts: 8,627

14th February 2019, 12:40 PM	#50
IanS Philosopher Join Date: Jun 2011 Posts: 5,075	Just on whether she's broken any laws – apart from joining an illegal terrorist organisation and specifically going to Syria to help IS wage a lethal war, in the Times newspaper interview she says of the fighting that's been raging in the last few weeks in Baghuz *“I was weak, I could not endure the suffering and hardship that staying on the battlefield involved”* . She appears there to be confirming that although heavily pregnant, she was actually “staying on the battlefield” (of course we might think the “battlefield” involved the entire town, such that she could not avoid “staying on the battlefield” … however, she also says that in the final few days the women were all offered the option of leaving the battlefield, and that after some time (days or weeks), she decided to walk away from that battlefield). When asked what her reaction was to seeing her first severed head (in a bin), she not only said *“it did not phaze me”, but added that “it was from a captured fighter seized on the battlefield, an enemy of Islam, I thought only of what he would have done to a Muslim woman if he had the chance”. There she appears to be repeating the same propaganda statement that has appeared from almost every UK Islamic fundamentalist on trial in the UK (that's now several hundred of them) where almost all of them said in trial evidence or said in martyrdom videos or where they were recorded in phone transcripts etc., that one reason they were trying to kill the “kuffa” (i.e. non-believers, opponents of hard-line Islam) was because their western opponents were “killing and raping our women and children”. Regarding her marriage to an Islamic fighter – she was aged 15 when she left the UK, and she says in the article that as soon as she got to Raqqa (Syria) “I applied to marry an English speaking fighter between the ages of 20 and 25 yeas old”* and within 10 days she was married. She then had two children who both died, and now she has been pregnant with a third child of the IS fighter for nearly 9 months. That sounds to me almost like these girls are deliberately going to the front-line battle area to instantly marry a jihadist fighter within days, and producing as many children as possible to be raised in that Jihadist battle environment. None of that sounds to me anything at all like a person who has much if any concern that she has done anything wrong or that she needs to change her mind about supporting IS in it's campaign of worldwide mass murder. However, despite all of that - if she is nevertheless allowed back into the UK, then afaik she is likely to be tried for terrorist offences and quite probably jailed for some years. And (according to "experts" discussing this on BBC radio this morning) her child would probably taken into state care and placed with more suitable parents who are not trying to raise Islamist fundamentalist fighters.
IanS Philosopher Join Date: Jun 2011 Posts: 5,075

14th February 2019, 12:44 PM	#51
JoeMorgue Self Employed Remittance Man Join Date: Nov 2009 Location: Florida Posts: 29,716	Yeah regardless of everything else this young woman (calling her a 'girl' infantalizes her too much imo) isn't acting like she's sorry she joined ISIS, just that it's too much for her to handle. It's like she wants to go back to the UK because she doesn't like ISIS's maternal leave policy.
	__________________ Yahtzee: "You're doing that thing again where when asked a question you just discuss the philosophy of the question instead of answering the bloody question." Gabriel: "Well yeah, you see..." Yahtzee: "No. When you are asked a Yes or No question the first word out of your mouth needs to be Yes or No. Only after that have you earned the right to elaborate."

14th February 2019, 12:49 PM	#52
dudalb Penultimate Amazing Join Date: Aug 2007 Location: Sacramento Posts: 49,813	Originally Posted by Venom Converts just can't maintain fever-pitch zeal when their world is not evidently coming to an end. Young Kurd women fought on, but privileged teenage Westerners break after a few years. Who woulda predicted. It's the green soldiers, who have never been under fire, that you have to worry about breaking in combat.
	__________________ Pacifism is a shifty doctrine under which a man accepts the benefits of the social group without being willing to pay - and claims a halo for his dishonesty. Robert Heinlein.

14th February 2019, 12:50 PM	#53
dudalb Penultimate Amazing Join Date: Aug 2007 Location: Sacramento Posts: 49,813	Originally Posted by JoeMorgue Yeah regardless of everything else this young woman (calling her a 'girl' infantalizes her too much imo) isn't acting like she's sorry she joined ISIS, just that it's too much for her to handle. It's like she wants to go back to the UK because she doesn't like ISIS's maternal leave policy. I think the term is she is not sorry she did it, but very sorry she has to face the consequences of her actions. Sort of a variation of "He's not sorry he commited the crime, but very sorry he got caught".
	__________________ Pacifism is a shifty doctrine under which a man accepts the benefits of the social group without being willing to pay - and claims a halo for his dishonesty. Robert Heinlein.

14th February 2019, 12:51 PM	#54
JoeMorgue Self Employed Remittance Man Join Date: Nov 2009 Location: Florida Posts: 29,716	Originally Posted by dudalb I think the term is she is not sorry she did it, but very sorry she has to face the consequences of her actions. Wailing "Oh why must my actions have consequences!" - Homer Simpson
	__________________ Yahtzee: "You're doing that thing again where when asked a question you just discuss the philosophy of the question instead of answering the bloody question." Gabriel: "Well yeah, you see..." Yahtzee: "No. When you are asked a Yes or No question the first word out of your mouth needs to be Yes or No. Only after that have you earned the right to elaborate."

14th February 2019, 01:04 PM	#55
Segnosaur Penultimate Amazing Join Date: Jan 2002 Location: Canada, eh? Posts: 16,770	Originally Posted by dudalb This. She should be allowed to return,but face the consequences for her actions. I admit my sypmathy for somebody who joins a group as viscous as ISIS is very limited. One of the problems we are having (at least in Canada) is actually making a legal case against them... We can claim they are guilty of treason, or "aiding a terrorist organization" (or whatever the charge is), but how do you make the case? Its doubtful ISIS was keeping accurate census records, and trying to interview eye-witnesses in a hostile territory is difficult. Anyone who returns can just claim "I was backpacking in Europe for a couple of years and lost my passport".
	__________________ Trust me, I know what I'm doing. - Sledgehammer I'm Mary Poppin's Y'all! - Yondu We are Groot - Groot

14th February 2019, 01:29 PM	#56
theprestige Penultimate Amazing Join Date: Aug 2007 Location: Hong Kong Posts: 48,489	Originally Posted by Segnosaur Anyone who returns can just claim "I was backpacking in Europe for a couple of years and lost my passport". I'm not sure I see the problem. It's customary for the state to not make a case against someone who has an alibi. Wrongdoers go free all the time because the state can't gather enough evidence to convict - or even prosecute. This is generally considered to be a feature, not a bug, of the system. That said, if you have someone in custody, and you can make a case... Then do it.

14th February 2019, 01:30 PM	#57
JoeMorgue Self Employed Remittance Man Join Date: Nov 2009 Location: Florida Posts: 29,716	And regardless that hardly applies to a case like this where the woman is hardly putting any effort into denying or hiding it. We'll worry about the cases where they claim they weren't later.
	__________________ Yahtzee: "You're doing that thing again where when asked a question you just discuss the philosophy of the question instead of answering the bloody question." Gabriel: "Well yeah, you see..." Yahtzee: "No. When you are asked a Yes or No question the first word out of your mouth needs to be Yes or No. Only after that have you earned the right to elaborate."

14th February 2019, 01:34 PM	#58
Vixen Penultimate Amazing Join Date: Apr 2015 Location: Suomi Posts: 20,135	Originally Posted by dudalb This. She should be allowed to return,but face the consequences for her actions. I admit my sypmathy for somebody who joins a group as viscous as ISIS is very limited. True they are very jellylike.
	__________________ Blott en dag, ett ögonblick i sänder, vilken tröst, vad än som kommer på!

14th February 2019, 01:34 PM	#59
baron Guest Join Date: Dec 2006 Posts: 8,627	Originally Posted by Segnosaur One of the problems we are having (at least in Canada) is actually making a legal case against them... We can claim they are guilty of treason, or "aiding a terrorist organization" (or whatever the charge is), but how do you make the case? Its doubtful ISIS was keeping accurate census records, and trying to interview eye-witnesses in a hostile territory is difficult. Anyone who returns can just claim "I was backpacking in Europe for a couple of years and lost my passport". She's incriminated herself enough for a number of charges to stick, certainly enough to get her life in jail, and the intelligence services will have her communications from before she went. The problem is, if she does return, she won't get life because of 'sentencing guidelines' relating to her age and 'vulnerability'.
baron Guest Join Date: Dec 2006 Posts: 8,627

14th February 2019, 01:43 PM	#60
Vixen Penultimate Amazing Join Date: Apr 2015 Location: Suomi Posts: 20,135	It transpires that the father of one of the girls took part in a flag burning exercise by one of the hate preachers. He has to take some responsibility for his daughter's inculcation with radicalism. This Shamima Begum woman, although she sounds vile, was just fifteen when she was caught up in idealistic fervour. She has become detached from reality, living as she has for four years in a rabid fanatical environment (rather like people rescued from brainwashing cults). She likely feels cognitive dissonance in feelings of comradeship on the one hand with her fellow 'fighters' and her desire to give her unborn child a better life by returning to the UK. Perhaps the UK should turn the other cheek, show compassion (for the innocent baby, at least) and demonstrate to the deluded zealots how Christianity works. Love thine enemy, not behead them.
	__________________ Blott en dag, ett ögonblick i sänder, vilken tröst, vad än som kommer på! Last edited by Vixen; 14th February 2019 at 01:45 PM.

14th February 2019, 01:48 PM	#61
dudalb Penultimate Amazing Join Date: Aug 2007 Location: Sacramento Posts: 49,813	Originally Posted by Segnosaur One of the problems we are having (at least in Canada) is actually making a legal case against them... We can claim they are guilty of treason, or "aiding a terrorist organization" (or whatever the charge is), but how do you make the case? Its doubtful ISIS was keeping accurate census records, and trying to interview eye-witnesses in a hostile territory is difficult. Anyone who returns can just claim "I was backpacking in Europe for a couple of years and lost my passport". God knows I do not want to sound like Trump,but you have a genuine security issue also. I hope if she comes back and is not charged she is kept under very tight police surveillance. She volunatary joined the most murderous Terrorist organization in the world, for heaven's sake.
	__________________ Pacifism is a shifty doctrine under which a man accepts the benefits of the social group without being willing to pay - and claims a halo for his dishonesty. Robert Heinlein.

14th February 2019, 01:50 PM	#62
dudalb Penultimate Amazing Join Date: Aug 2007 Location: Sacramento Posts: 49,813	Originally Posted by Vixen It transpires that the father of one of the girls took part in a flag burning exercise by one of the hate preachers. He has to take some responsibility for his daughter's inculcation with radicalism. This Shamima Begum woman, although she sounds vile, was just fifteen when she was caught up in idealistic fervour. She has become detached from reality, living as she has for four years in a rabid fanatical environment (rather like people rescued from brainwashing cults). She likely feels cognitive dissonance in feelings of comradeship on the one hand with her fellow 'fighters' and her desire to give her unborn child a better life by returning to the UK. Perhaps the UK should turn the other cheek, show compassion (for the innocent baby, at least) and demonstrate to the deluded zealots how Christianity works. Love thine enemy, not behead them. By that reasoning, no criminal should ever be punished for any crime. I have to wonder if you are being serious here. And you could apply the whole wraped up in a rabid fananticail enviorment statement to the Nazi guards who ran the gas chambers as Auschwitz. It might be an explanation, but it's not an excuse.
	__________________ Pacifism is a shifty doctrine under which a man accepts the benefits of the social group without being willing to pay - and claims a halo for his dishonesty. Robert Heinlein. Last edited by dudalb; 14th February 2019 at 01:52 PM.

14th February 2019, 01:54 PM	#63
Vixen Penultimate Amazing Join Date: Apr 2015 Location: Suomi Posts: 20,135	Originally Posted by dudalb By that reasoning, no criminal should ever be punished for any crime. I have to wonder if you are being serious here. And you could apply the whole wraped up in a rabid fananticail enviorment statement to the Nazi guards who ran the gas chambers as Auschwitz. It might be an explanation, but it's not an excuse. She should be subject to due process of course. We should also fight bad ideology with a good one. Otherwise she is not going to change.
	__________________ Blott en dag, ett ögonblick i sänder, vilken tröst, vad än som kommer på!

14th February 2019, 01:57 PM	#64
theprestige Penultimate Amazing Join Date: Aug 2007 Location: Hong Kong Posts: 48,489	Originally Posted by baron She's incriminated herself enough for a number of charges to stick, certainly enough to get her life in jail, and the intelligence services will have her communications from before she went. The problem is, if she does return, she won't get life because of 'sentencing guidelines' relating to her age and 'vulnerability'. I'm okay with all of this.

14th February 2019, 02:04 PM	#65
Segnosaur Penultimate Amazing Join Date: Jan 2002 Location: Canada, eh? Posts: 16,770	Originally Posted by theprestige Quote: Anyone who returns can just claim "I was backpacking in Europe for a couple of years and lost my passport". I'm not sure I see the problem. It's customary for the state to not make a case against someone who has an alibi. The problem is, the returning ISIS people don't actually have an alibi... at least not a verified one. So, you're potentially introducing a large number of individuals who (at one point anyways) were hostile to the ideals of their home nation with no punishment for any illegal actions that they have done and little ability to track their activities upon returning. Quote: Wrongdoers go free all the time because the state can't gather enough evidence to convict - or even prosecute. This is generally considered to be a feature, not a bug, of the system. Yes, innocent until proven guilty and all that... Yes, its the preferred way that we should want the legal system to function. Still doesn't mean that we shouldn't be worried about potential side effects of that policy.
	__________________ Trust me, I know what I'm doing. - Sledgehammer I'm Mary Poppin's Y'all! - Yondu We are Groot - Groot

14th February 2019, 02:08 PM	#66
Segnosaur Penultimate Amazing Join Date: Jan 2002 Location: Canada, eh? Posts: 16,770	Originally Posted by baron Quote: One of the problems we are having (at least in Canada) is actually making a legal case against them... She's incriminated herself enough for a number of charges to stick, certainly enough to get her life in jail... I agree that in this case (and many others) they have enough evidence to make the charges stick. But its not that way for everyone. Quote: and the intelligence services will have her communications from before she went. Maybe they will (at least in this case). But like I said, not every case is the same. Not everyone leaves the same digital footprint behind.
	__________________ Trust me, I know what I'm doing. - Sledgehammer I'm Mary Poppin's Y'all! - Yondu We are Groot - Groot

14th February 2019, 02:10 PM	#67
IanS Philosopher Join Date: Jun 2011 Posts: 5,075	Originally Posted by Segnosaur One of the problems we are having (at least in Canada) is actually making a legal case against them... We can claim they are guilty of treason, or "aiding a terrorist organization" (or whatever the charge is), but how do you make the case? Its doubtful ISIS was keeping accurate census records, and trying to interview eye-witnesses in a hostile territory is difficult. Anyone who returns can just claim "I was backpacking in Europe for a couple of years and lost my passport". In this UK case the woman (Shamima Begum) has admitted her deliberate and intentional part in joining IS specifically to fight a jihadist war. And just the few quotes that I gave above from her interview with the Times journalist, show beyond doubt that she knew what she was doing, knew why she was doing it, and that even now she still thinks it was and is the best & most correct thing to do (she is still supporting IS attempts to form a religious caliphate by jihadist war) ... ... if she is charged in the UK with terrorist offences (and afaik there's a long list of things she'd probably be charged with), then her admissions to the journalist (where she knew who she was talking to, and knew that it would all be published for people to read in Times newspaper), are really undeniable in any trial. This is not like the many other cases where a person returning from IS in Syria (or wherever), is arrested at a UK airport, and where they immediately maintain their innocence. That actually did happen in the case of another UK Muslim woman Tareena Shakil who was arrested on her return to the UK after a year with IS in Syria (2014 to 2015), but in her case she protested her innocence and told a story about how she was actually trying to escape from IS … but in court it was shown that her escape story was untrue. She was found guilty and sentenced to 6 years in prison. When she left to join IS in Syria she also took her 14 month old son ... she had posed him in photos wearing an IS inscribed wooly hat and with an AK47 alongside him ... it was shown in court that her intention was to ensure that he was raised to grow up as an IS fighter).
IanS Philosopher Join Date: Jun 2011 Posts: 5,075

14th February 2019, 02:24 PM	#68
p0lka Master Poster Join Date: Sep 2012 Location: near trees, houses and a lake. Posts: 2,169	Originally Posted by theprestige Rescue the girl, abort the fetus, put her on trial. chop her head off, put it in a bin and see how she likes it.

14th February 2019, 02:32 PM	#69
theprestige Penultimate Amazing Join Date: Aug 2007 Location: Hong Kong Posts: 48,489	Originally Posted by Segnosaur The problem is, the returning ISIS people don't actually have an alibi... at least not a verified one. They also don't have solid incriminating evidence against them. Again, in our system of criminal justice, this is fine. Quote: So, you're potentially introducing a large number of individuals who (at one point anyways) were hostile to the ideals of their home nation with no punishment for any illegal actions that they have done and little ability to track their activities upon returning. Our society has a large number of such individuals running around at all times anyway. I think we would all be overjoyed if you could solve the problem of the murderer who walked away free because we couldn't find enough evidence to convict him. If for no other reason than that we could apply the same solution to the problem of the terrorist soldier who goes free for lack of evidence. Quote: Yes, innocent until proven guilty and all that... Yes, its the preferred way that we should want the legal system to function. Still doesn't mean that we shouldn't be worried about potential side effects of that policy. To be honest, I'm more worried about the side effects of the countervailing policy. See: Guantanamo Bay detention camp, the no-fly list, etc.

14th February 2019, 02:41 PM	#70
baron Guest Join Date: Dec 2006 Posts: 8,627	Originally Posted by theprestige Our society has a large number of such individuals running around at all times anyway. All the more reason not to import more, or to cage them if that's not an option. The resources to monitor a single person 24/7 are staggering - 20 to 30 security agents costing millions a year for one individual (the free housing and benefits given to the terrorist and her family pale into insignificance compared to this this cost). The UK harbours between 500 and 1000 known violent extremists (I hate that word) and around 23,000 more known terrorist supporters and viable terrorist risks. Our security services have the resource to monitor only a few dozen of these round the clock at any one time. It only takes one to cause carnage, as we've seen so often. The problem here is not insufficient evidence to convict, nor is it inadequate legislation, it's soft sentencing guidelines.
baron Guest Join Date: Dec 2006 Posts: 8,627

14th February 2019, 02:42 PM	#72
Skeptic Ginger Nasty Woman Join Date: Feb 2005 Posts: 85,649	Originally Posted by The Great Zaganza If that kid survives, it's almost certain to become a terrorist to some degree. Enlightened self-interest suggests that the world is safer when more people get some education instead of growing up in terrorist-controlled refugee camps. That does not explain "can't support the war", but whatever.
	__________________ Trump lost and he knows it.

14th February 2019, 02:48 PM	#73
Skeptic Ginger Nasty Woman Join Date: Feb 2005 Posts: 85,649	Originally Posted by theprestige Rescue the girl, abort the fetus, put her on trial. Abort a full term fetus?
	__________________ Trump lost and he knows it.

14th February 2019, 02:52 PM	#74
theprestige Penultimate Amazing Join Date: Aug 2007 Location: Hong Kong Posts: 48,489	Originally Posted by Skeptic Ginger Abort a full term fetus? : rolleyes : Good point. Probably easier to let her give birth, and then just bin it.

14th February 2019, 03:02 PM	#75
Parsman Muse Join Date: Sep 2006 Location: Bonnie Scotland Posts: 739	Originally Posted by Vixen It transpires that the father of one of the girls took part in a flag burning exercise by one of the hate preachers. He has to take some responsibility for his daughter's inculcation with radicalism. This Shamima Begum woman, although she sounds vile, was just fifteen when she was caught up in idealistic fervour. She has become detached from reality, living as she has for four years in a rabid fanatical environment (rather like people rescued from brainwashing cults). She likely feels cognitive dissonance in feelings of comradeship on the one hand with her fellow 'fighters' and her desire to give her unborn child a better life by returning to the UK. Perhaps the UK should turn the other cheek, show compassion (for the innocent baby, at least) and demonstrate to the deluded zealots how Christianity works. Love thine enemy, not behead them. Not Christianity. Western secular values. Despite the oddity that has CoE Bishops in one house of our legislature the UK is a very secular country, far more so than the USA seems to be.
	__________________ I was not; I have been; I am not; I am content - Epicurus When you're dead you don't know that you're dead, all the pain is felt by others....................the same thing happens when you're stupid. Last edited by Parsman; 14th February 2019 at 03:03 PM. Reason: Spelling

14th February 2019, 03:16 PM	#76
baron Guest Join Date: Dec 2006 Posts: 8,627	Her father is quoted as saying, "'They were manipulated by evil people and they should be brought home and helped. Not punished." He's correct, they were manipulated by evil people, and he is one of them - the main one, in fact. He took her along to hear Anjem Choudary speak (Choudary is an open supporter of ISIS and is associated with practically every convicted Islamic terrorist in the UK) and was integral in making her what she is today. What in the name of Christ are these people even doing in the UK? It boggles the mind.
baron Guest Join Date: Dec 2006 Posts: 8,627