ISIS teenager wants to come home - Page 6

theprestige · 16th February 2019, 05:08 PM

Originally Posted by Darat

We know her background so I'm quite happy to state her family are not fit to bring up a child.

Judge, jury, and executioner, huh? What happened to due process?

Darat · 16th February 2019, 05:11 PM

Originally Posted by theprestige

Due process varies by context. What's due a POW is very different from what's due someone accused of a crime. How did you figure what's due process in this context?

Well we know she isn't a POW so seems a strange example to pick. If you follow the thread of the conversation you'd see cullennz was talking about if she was brought back to the UK as a British citizen and was then put on trial, he seemed to be indicating her having a half decent lawyer would be wrong or a bad thing.

Darat · 16th February 2019, 05:12 PM

Originally Posted by theprestige

Judge, jury, and executioner, huh? What happened to due process?

No idea what you are babbling about.

RolandRat · 16th February 2019, 05:15 PM

This woman should not be allowed back into the UK if possible IMO. She is a threat to this country, even if she does nothing herself, she will be imprinting her child with the same disgusting beliefs she holds. She willingly left this country to go and join this medieval organisation. She knows full well the barbaric actions they have inflicted on the populations they infest, yet she still supports them.

going by this article:

https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/...uropean-ruling

The UK can strip citizenship from people. She wont be left without a state. She has made her bed with the Islamic State, whether they are recognised as such or not.

cullennz · 16th February 2019, 05:36 PM

I think people are forgetting what might have happened between her leaving for jollies as 15 year old and now.

It deserves to be heard in a court of law in the UK

angrysoba · 16th February 2019, 06:13 PM

Originally Posted by The Nimble Pianist

I understand that, and I also understand that her chances of getting to the UK are slim to nil and this is more of a pipe dream for her. I'm asking why the conversation is so centered around if she came home how she should be arrested or rehabilitated. Why not hand her over to Syria? It would seem to me that they of all people have proper jurisdiction here, no matter what we think of their criminal justice system.

Originally Posted by Strawberry

They couldn't hand her over to Syria if she was in danger of facing the death penalty, it would breach the ECHR.

I don’t even know if the UK have diplomatic relations with Syria. The UK government would surely not assume justice from a regime that uses chemical weapons.

angrysoba · 16th February 2019, 06:14 PM

Originally Posted by cullennz

I think people are forgetting what might have happened between her leaving for jollies as 15 year old and now.

It deserves to be heard in a court of law in the UK

Why?

p0lka · 16th February 2019, 06:26 PM

Originally Posted by Darat

We know her background so I'm quite happy to state her family are not fit to bring up a child. They allowed their daughter to be groomed by terrorists.

Is that conclusion particular to this case?

or do you generally feel that when young people are groomed, their parents have allowed their children to be groomed?

cullennz · 16th February 2019, 06:40 PM

Originally Posted by angrysoba

Why?

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

Childlike Empress · 16th February 2019, 06:47 PM

Originally Posted by angrysoba

The UK government would surely not assume justice from a regime that uses chemical weapons.

Surely not,

Originally Posted by wikipedia

The modern notion of chemical warfare emerged from the mid-19th century, with the development of modern chemistry and associated industries. The first recorded modern proposal for the use of chemical warfare was made by Lyon Playfair, Secretary of the Science and Art Department, in 1854 during the Crimean War. He proposed a cacodyl cyanide artillery shell for use against enemy ships as way to solve the stalemate during the siege of Sevastopol. The proposal was backed by Admiral Thomas Cochrane of the Royal Navy. It was considered by the Prime Minister, Lord Palmerston, but the British Ordnance Department rejected the proposal as "as bad a mode of warfare as poisoning the wells of the enemy." Playfair's response was used to justify chemical warfare into the next century: [14]

There was no sense in this objection. It is considered a legitimate mode of warfare to fill shells with molten metal which scatters among the enemy, and produced the most frightful modes of death. Why a poisonous vapor which would kill men without suffering is to be considered illegitimate warfare is incomprehensible. War is destruction, and the more destructive it can be made with the least suffering the sooner will be ended that barbarous method of protecting national rights. No doubt in time chemistry will be used to lessen the suffering of combatants, and even of criminals condemned to death.

Childlike Empress · 16th February 2019, 07:02 PM

For those of you who miss the context (likely all of you), this is not a "whataboutism" or "you started it" argument, this comes while even "serious" BBC journalists expose the false flag nonsense against the Syrian government now, and their voices wouldn't reach your ear if it weren't for yours truly.

Darat · 16th February 2019, 08:45 PM

Originally Posted by p0lka

Is that conclusion particular to this case?

or do you generally feel that when young people are groomed, their parents have allowed their children to be groomed?

Yes.

Sent from my SM-T835 using Tapatalk

cullennz · 16th February 2019, 09:32 PM

Originally Posted by Darat

Yes.

Sent from my SM-T835 using Tapatalk

Two questions, one answer.

Which does the yes refer to?

SusanB-M1 · 16th February 2019, 11:02 PM

A couple of comments:
I have read elsewhere that apparently her father took her to hear the very radical speaker who was removed from this country.
There was a legal person the other day pointing out that she cannot be 'brought' back, but if she presents herself, that is a different matter.

Skeptic Ginger · 16th February 2019, 11:12 PM

Originally Posted by Darat

We know her background so I'm quite happy to state her family are not fit to bring up a child. They allowed their daughter to be groomed by terrorists.

Well if you have additional evidence, I defer to your more thorough knowledge of this particular situation.

Seriously.

Darat · 17th February 2019, 02:40 AM

Originally Posted by cullennz

Two questions, one answer.

Which does the yes refer to?

Sorry for being confusing. The yes was to the second question. We know this type of grooming takes time, takes a lot of communication etc, if a parent is not interested in keeping their child safe when online, allows a kid to travel abroad without their knowledge and so on I do consider that a failure of parenting. I don't expect parents to be able to remove all risks and to be able to 100% protect their children at all times but we are not talking about a kid being kidnapped off the street or being a victim to a random attack.

Darat · 17th February 2019, 02:42 AM

Originally Posted by Skeptic Ginger

Well if you have additional evidence, I defer to your more thorough knowledge of this particular situation.

Seriously.

Her and her friends were subject to much reporting at the time and also over the last 4 years. So plenty of background information about her family and upbringing has been available.

baron · 17th February 2019, 03:16 AM

Originally Posted by p0lka

Did you get your best and worse switched?

Certainly not.

baron · 17th February 2019, 03:17 AM

Originally Posted by Darat

We know her background so I'm quite happy to state her family are not fit to bring up a child. They allowed their daughter to be groomed by terrorists.

They didn't just allow it, they facilitated it. They took her along to talks by known Islamic terrorist supporters, just like most of the parents of children and young people in this position.

baron · 17th February 2019, 04:02 AM

This is hilarious

https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/art...orn-child.html

Quote:

The family of Jihadi bride Shamima Begum have asked the government to give them custody of her unborn child if she is allowed to return to the country and given a prison sentence.

So whilst they failed in their aims of making their daughter into a viable terrorist they want to try again with their granddaughter.

But apparently they're not doing it for themselves.

Quote:

Her family are now urging the government to let them have the baby to avoid putting the burden on the taxpayer.

That is so considerate. What nice people they are (shh! don't mention the £18m annual taxpayer bill the daughter will mandate should she return).

baron · 17th February 2019, 04:03 AM

nm

P.J. Denyer · 17th February 2019, 04:08 AM

Originally Posted by SusanB-M1

Was any mention made of the husband of the girl and, presumably, the father of her children?

I think I read somewhere that he was alive but had been captured and was in a holding camp.

IanS · 17th February 2019, 04:58 AM

Well BBC UK news this morning is that she has now given birth to a baby boy. Info apparetly comes from a lawwyer appointed by her family.

P.J. Denyer · 17th February 2019, 05:26 AM

Originally Posted by Stout

We have the Canadian version only ours is 46 years old and claims she joined up on a "humanitarian mission". Save the women and children. She claims she "didn't know all the politics".

She just decided to throw on a tent and enter a war zone ? She's 46 years old.

Link

It sounds bizarre, but on the other hand you only have to look in Gen Skep and the Paranormal to remind yourself that there are complete fantasists out there. Is it really that much different from people who think that their warm fuzzies mean that they are qualified to treat real people with real illnesses using handwaving, crystals or similar ********?

P.J. Denyer · 17th February 2019, 05:28 AM

Originally Posted by p0lka

yeah, our ministers don't seem to be particularly good at ~~detail~~ anything at the moment.

FTFY

baron · 17th February 2019, 05:32 AM

Originally Posted by P.J. Denyer

It sounds bizarre, but on the other hand you only have to look in Gen Skep and the Paranormal to remind yourself that there are complete fantasists out there. Is it really that much different from people who think that their warm fuzzies mean that they are qualified to treat real people with real illnesses using handwaving, crystals or similar ********?

I think that's the difference between Muslims and Islamists. The Muslims believe the nonsense and the fairy tales but don't cause anybody harm, the Islamists believe all that plus they are willing to blow up a concert hall full of children on that basis.

angrysoba · 17th February 2019, 06:11 AM

Originally Posted by cullennz

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

Being British does not entitle you to a day in court in the UK. If you commit crimes abroad, you can be subject to the law abroad. Also, you are not entitled to be tried as a child just because you used to be one.

So, I ask again, given that it is irrelevant that she is British and used to be 15, why does she deserve to have her day in court in the UK?

Strawberry · 17th February 2019, 06:25 AM

Originally Posted by angrysoba

Being British does not entitle you to a day in court in the UK. If you commit crimes abroad, you can be subject to the law abroad. Also, you are not entitled to be tried as a child just because you used to be one.

So, I ask again, given that it is irrelevant that she is British and used to be 15, why does she deserve to have her day in court in the UK?

She is still stupid though. I've just seen her interviewed on Sky news, there's not much going on there between the ears. Her teeth are terrible too, presumably IS is not big on dental hygiene.

Childlike Empress · 17th February 2019, 07:36 AM

It would be more interesting if you'd stop obsessing about that girl and face the general problem. Trump has just tweeted about it and threatens to simply release them so they can find their own way back to Europe. Also an alternative.

Originally Posted by @realDonaldTrump

The United States is asking Britain, France, Germany and other European allies to take back over 800 ISIS fighters that we captured in Syria and put them on trial. The Caliphate is ready to fall. The alternative is not a good one in that we will be forced to release them........ ....The U.S. does not want to watch as these ISIS fighters permeate Europe, which is where they are expected to go. We do so much, and spend so much - Time for others to step up and do the job that they are so capable of doing. We are pulling back after 100% Caliphate victory!

Pterodactyl · 17th February 2019, 07:42 AM

Originally Posted by Strawberry

She is still stupid though. I've just seen her interviewed on Sky news, there's not much going on there between the ears. Her teeth are terrible too, presumably IS is not big on dental hygiene.

Sounds like she belongs in the UK to me.

baron · 17th February 2019, 07:56 AM

Originally Posted by Childlike Empress

It would be more interesting if you'd stop obsessing about that girl and face the general problem. Trump has just tweeted about it and threatens to simply release them so they can find their own way back to Europe. Also an alternative.

Trump is right. He should do that. Maybe it would force our government to take action. There's no reason why we can't have a similar facility, and legislation to properly deal with returning terrorists. This girl is in the news because the media got to her purely by accident and it became a story. Several ISIS fighters return to the UK each week and nothing is done to stop them.

Vixen · 17th February 2019, 10:01 AM

Originally Posted by Strawberry

She's eligible for Bangladeshi citizenship through her parents, which means her UK citizenship can be revoked. Whether Bangladesh wants her or not is another matter.

The naiviety of this post is truly touching. First of all, are you suggesting someone applies for Bangladeshi citizenship on her behalf whilst she's laid up in a Kurdish controlled refuge camp?

Secondly, you ought to know, her parents/grandparents may have come to the UK as asylum seekers following on from the partition of Bengal and clashes between Hindus and Shikhs.

Her parents may be ethnically Bangladeshi but are probably full British citizens.

Quote:

Following the founding of Bangladesh in 1971, a large immigration to Britain took place during the 1970s, leading to the establishment of a British Bangladeshi community. Bangladeshis were encouraged to move to Britain during that decade because of changes in immigration laws, natural disasters such as the Bhola cyclone, the Bangladesh Liberation War against Pakistan, and the desire to escape poverty, and the perception of a better living led Sylheti men bringing their families.[1]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Histor...United_Kingdom

Vixen · 17th February 2019, 10:07 AM

Originally Posted by angrysoba

Being British does not entitle you to a day in court in the UK. If you commit crimes abroad, you can be subject to the law abroad. Also, you are not entitled to be tried as a child just because you used to be one.

So, I ask again, given that it is irrelevant that she is British and used to be 15, why does she deserve to have her day in court in the UK?

Er, Magna Carta? Habeas corpus ?

Vixen · 17th February 2019, 10:09 AM

Originally Posted by Pterodactyl

Sounds like she belongs in the UK to me.

Oi!

baron · 17th February 2019, 10:12 AM

Originally Posted by Vixen

Er, Magna Carta? Habeas corpus ?

No.

Vixen · 17th February 2019, 10:15 AM

Originally Posted by baron

No.

If she's a Brit, the British constitution applies to her.

Her looks are irrelevant.

baron · 17th February 2019, 10:18 AM

Originally Posted by Vixen

If she's a Brit, the British constitution applies to her.

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?

p0lka · 17th February 2019, 01:09 PM

Originally Posted by Darat

Sorry for being confusing. The yes was to the second question. We know this type of grooming takes time, takes a lot of communication etc, if a parent is not interested in keeping their child safe when online, allows a kid to travel abroad without their knowledge and so on I do consider that a failure of parenting. I don't expect parents to be able to remove all risks and to be able to 100% protect their children at all times but we are not talking about a kid being kidnapped off the street or being a victim to a random attack.

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

Originally Posted by p0lka

Is that conclusion particular to this case?

or do you generally feel that when young people are groomed, their parents have allowed their children to be groomed?

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?

baron · 17th February 2019, 01:11 PM

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?

The parents are the ones who did it, or at least got her started.

p0lka · 17th February 2019, 01:19 PM

Originally Posted by baron

The parents are the ones who did it, or at least got her started.

Yeah, I don't disagree. I will paste my original post again..

Originally Posted by p0lka

Is that conclusion particular to this case?

or do you generally feel that when young people are groomed, their parents have allowed their children to be groomed?

I'm interested in this idea that anyone who has been groomed in a general context is somehow the parents allowing it. That is why I asked.

16th February 2019, 05:11 PM	#202
Darat Lackey Administrator Join Date: Aug 2001 Location: South East, UK Posts: 89,708	Originally Posted by theprestige Due process varies by context. What's due a POW is very different from what's due someone accused of a crime. How did you figure what's due process in this context? Well we know she isn't a POW so seems a strange example to pick. If you follow the thread of the conversation you'd see cullennz was talking about if she was brought back to the UK as a British citizen and was then put on trial, he seemed to be indicating her having a half decent lawyer would be wrong or a bad thing.
	__________________ I wish I knew how to quit you

16th February 2019, 05:12 PM	#203
Darat Lackey Administrator Join Date: Aug 2001 Location: South East, UK Posts: 89,708	Originally Posted by theprestige Judge, jury, and executioner, huh? What happened to due process? No idea what you are babbling about.
	__________________ I wish I knew how to quit you

16th February 2019, 05:15 PM	#204
RolandRat Thinker Join Date: Feb 2018 Posts: 200	This woman should not be allowed back into the UK if possible IMO. She is a threat to this country, even if she does nothing herself, she will be imprinting her child with the same disgusting beliefs she holds. She willingly left this country to go and join this medieval organisation. She knows full well the barbaric actions they have inflicted on the populations they infest, yet she still supports them. going by this article: https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/...uropean-ruling The UK can strip citizenship from people. She wont be left without a state. She has made her bed with the Islamic State, whether they are recognised as such or not.
RolandRat Thinker Join Date: Feb 2018 Posts: 200

16th February 2019, 05:36 PM	#205
cullennz Embarrasingly illiterate Join Date: Sep 2006 Posts: 18,188	I think people are forgetting what might have happened between her leaving for jollies as 15 year old and now. It deserves to be heard in a court of law in the UK
	__________________ I generally oppose gun control, but I support the ban on assault weapons and I support a slightly longer waiting period to purchase a gun. With today’s Internet technology we should be able to tell within 72-hours if a potential gun owner has a record. Source: The America We Deserve, by Donald Trump, p.102 , Jul 2, 2000

16th February 2019, 06:13 PM	#206
angrysoba Philosophile Join Date: Dec 2009 Location: Osaka, Japan Posts: 26,411	Originally Posted by The Nimble Pianist I understand that, and I also understand that her chances of getting to the UK are slim to nil and this is more of a pipe dream for her. I'm asking why the conversation is so centered around if she came home how she should be arrested or rehabilitated. Why not hand her over to Syria? It would seem to me that they of all people have proper jurisdiction here, no matter what we think of their criminal justice system. Originally Posted by Strawberry They couldn't hand her over to Syria if she was in danger of facing the death penalty, it would breach the ECHR. I don’t even know if the UK have diplomatic relations with Syria. The UK government would surely not assume justice from a regime that uses chemical weapons.
	__________________ "The thief and the murderer follow nature just as much as the philanthropist. Cosmic evolution may teach us how the good and the evil tendencies of man may have come about; but, in itself, it is incompetent to furnish any better reason why what we call good is preferable to what we call evil than we had before." "Evolution and Ethics" T.H. Huxley (1893)

16th February 2019, 05:08 PM	#201
theprestige Penultimate Amazing Join Date: Aug 2007 Posts: 41,772	Originally Posted by Darat We know her background so I'm quite happy to state her family are not fit to bring up a child. Judge, jury, and executioner, huh? What happened to due process?

16th February 2019, 06:14 PM	#207
angrysoba Philosophile Join Date: Dec 2009 Location: Osaka, Japan Posts: 26,411	Originally Posted by cullennz I think people are forgetting what might have happened between her leaving for jollies as 15 year old and now. It deserves to be heard in a court of law in the UK Why?
	__________________ "The thief and the murderer follow nature just as much as the philanthropist. Cosmic evolution may teach us how the good and the evil tendencies of man may have come about; but, in itself, it is incompetent to furnish any better reason why what we call good is preferable to what we call evil than we had before." "Evolution and Ethics" T.H. Huxley (1893)

16th February 2019, 06:26 PM	#208
p0lka Graduate Poster Join Date: Sep 2012 Posts: 1,744	Originally Posted by Darat We know her background so I'm quite happy to state her family are not fit to bring up a child. They allowed their daughter to be groomed by terrorists. Is that conclusion particular to this case? or do you generally feel that when young people are groomed, their parents have allowed their children to be groomed?
p0lka Graduate Poster Join Date: Sep 2012 Posts: 1,744

16th February 2019, 06:40 PM	#209
cullennz Embarrasingly illiterate Join Date: Sep 2006 Posts: 18,188	Originally Posted by angrysoba Why? Because she is British and left when she was 15 and presumably stupid.
	__________________ I generally oppose gun control, but I support the ban on assault weapons and I support a slightly longer waiting period to purchase a gun. With today’s Internet technology we should be able to tell within 72-hours if a potential gun owner has a record. Source: The America We Deserve, by Donald Trump, p.102 , Jul 2, 2000

16th February 2019, 06:47 PM	#210
Childlike Empress Ewige Blumenkraft Join Date: Jun 2006 Location: Ivory Tower Posts: 17,896	Originally Posted by angrysoba The UK government would surely not assume justice from a regime that uses chemical weapons. Surely not, Originally Posted by wikipedia The modern notion of chemical warfare emerged from the mid-19th century, with the development of modern chemistry and associated industries. The first recorded modern proposal for the use of chemical warfare was made by Lyon Playfair, Secretary of the Science and Art Department, in 1854 during the Crimean War. He proposed a cacodyl cyanide artillery shell for use against enemy ships as way to solve the stalemate during the siege of Sevastopol. The proposal was backed by Admiral Thomas Cochrane of the Royal Navy. It was considered by the Prime Minister, Lord Palmerston, but the British Ordnance Department rejected the proposal as "as bad a mode of warfare as poisoning the wells of the enemy." Playfair's response was used to justify chemical warfare into the next century: [14] There was no sense in this objection. It is considered a legitimate mode of warfare to fill shells with molten metal which scatters among the enemy, and produced the most frightful modes of death. Why a poisonous vapor which would kill men without suffering is to be considered illegitimate warfare is incomprehensible. War is destruction, and the more destructive it can be made with the least suffering the sooner will be ended that barbarous method of protecting national rights. No doubt in time chemistry will be used to lessen the suffering of combatants, and even of criminals condemned to death.
	__________________ Audiatur et altera pars

16th February 2019, 07:02 PM	#211
Childlike Empress Ewige Blumenkraft Join Date: Jun 2006 Location: Ivory Tower Posts: 17,896	For those of you who miss the context (likely all of you), this is not a "whataboutism" or "you started it" argument, this comes while even "serious" BBC journalists expose the false flag nonsense against the Syrian government now, and their voices wouldn't reach your ear if it weren't for yours truly.
	__________________ Audiatur et altera pars Last edited by Childlike Empress; 16th February 2019 at 07:04 PM.

16th February 2019, 08:45 PM	#212
Darat Lackey Administrator Join Date: Aug 2001 Location: South East, UK Posts: 89,708	Originally Posted by p0lka Is that conclusion particular to this case? or do you generally feel that when young people are groomed, their parents have allowed their children to be groomed? Yes. Sent from my SM-T835 using Tapatalk
	__________________ I wish I knew how to quit you

16th February 2019, 09:32 PM	#213
cullennz Embarrasingly illiterate Join Date: Sep 2006 Posts: 18,188	Originally Posted by Darat Yes. Sent from my SM-T835 using Tapatalk Two questions, one answer. Which does the yes refer to?
	__________________ I generally oppose gun control, but I support the ban on assault weapons and I support a slightly longer waiting period to purchase a gun. With today’s Internet technology we should be able to tell within 72-hours if a potential gun owner has a record. Source: The America We Deserve, by Donald Trump, p.102 , Jul 2, 2000

16th February 2019, 11:02 PM	#214
SusanB-M1 Incurable Optimist Join Date: Jul 2006 Posts: 3,645	A couple of comments: I have read elsewhere that apparently her father took her to hear the very radical speaker who was removed from this country. There was a legal person the other day pointing out that she cannot be 'brought' back, but if she presents herself, that is a different matter.
	Last edited by SusanB-M1; 16th February 2019 at 11:05 PM.

16th February 2019, 11:12 PM	#215
Skeptic Ginger Nasty Woman Join Date: Feb 2005 Posts: 78,742	Originally Posted by Darat We know her background so I'm quite happy to state her family are not fit to bring up a child. They allowed their daughter to be groomed by terrorists. Well if you have additional evidence, I defer to your more thorough knowledge of this particular situation. Seriously.
	__________________ TRUMP CHEATS What color hat should I order with that logo? Red on black maybe? Or black on pink? Space Force. Because feeding poor people is socialism.

17th February 2019, 02:40 AM	#216
Darat Lackey Administrator Join Date: Aug 2001 Location: South East, UK Posts: 89,708	Originally Posted by cullennz Two questions, one answer. Which does the yes refer to? Sorry for being confusing. The yes was to the second question. We know this type of grooming takes time, takes a lot of communication etc, if a parent is not interested in keeping their child safe when online, allows a kid to travel abroad without their knowledge and so on I do consider that a failure of parenting. I don't expect parents to be able to remove all risks and to be able to 100% protect their children at all times but we are not talking about a kid being kidnapped off the street or being a victim to a random attack.
	__________________ I wish I knew how to quit you

17th February 2019, 02:42 AM	#217
Darat Lackey Administrator Join Date: Aug 2001 Location: South East, UK Posts: 89,708	Originally Posted by Skeptic Ginger Well if you have additional evidence, I defer to your more thorough knowledge of this particular situation. Seriously. Her and her friends were subject to much reporting at the time and also over the last 4 years. So plenty of background information about her family and upbringing has been available.
	__________________ I wish I knew how to quit you

17th February 2019, 03:16 AM	#218
baron Guest Join Date: Dec 2006 Posts: 8,627	Originally Posted by p0lka Did you get your best and worse switched? Certainly not.
baron Guest Join Date: Dec 2006 Posts: 8,627

17th February 2019, 03:17 AM	#219
baron Guest Join Date: Dec 2006 Posts: 8,627	Originally Posted by Darat We know her background so I'm quite happy to state her family are not fit to bring up a child. They allowed their daughter to be groomed by terrorists. They didn't just allow it, they facilitated it. They took her along to talks by known Islamic terrorist supporters, just like most of the parents of children and young people in this position.
baron Guest Join Date: Dec 2006 Posts: 8,627

17th February 2019, 04:02 AM	#220
baron Guest Join Date: Dec 2006 Posts: 8,627	This is hilarious https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/art...orn-child.html Quote: The family of Jihadi bride Shamima Begum have asked the government to give them custody of her unborn child if she is allowed to return to the country and given a prison sentence. So whilst they failed in their aims of making their daughter into a viable terrorist they want to try again with their granddaughter. But apparently they're not doing it for themselves. Quote: Her family are now urging the government to let them have the baby to avoid putting the burden on the taxpayer. That is so considerate. What nice people they are (shh! don't mention the £18m annual taxpayer bill the daughter will mandate should she return).
baron Guest Join Date: Dec 2006 Posts: 8,627	Last edited by baron; 17th February 2019 at 04:05 AM.

17th February 2019, 04:03 AM	#221
baron Guest Join Date: Dec 2006 Posts: 8,627	nm
baron Guest Join Date: Dec 2006 Posts: 8,627	Last edited by baron; 17th February 2019 at 04:05 AM.

17th February 2019, 04:08 AM	#222
P.J. Denyer Philosopher Join Date: Aug 2008 Posts: 6,316	Originally Posted by SusanB-M1 Was any mention made of the husband of the girl and, presumably, the father of her children? I think I read somewhere that he was alive but had been captured and was in a holding camp.
P.J. Denyer Philosopher Join Date: Aug 2008 Posts: 6,316	__________________ "I know my brain cannot tell me what to think." - Scorpion "Nebulous means Nebulous" - Adam Hills

17th February 2019, 04:58 AM	#223
IanS Illuminator Join Date: Jun 2011 Posts: 4,889	Well BBC UK news this morning is that she has now given birth to a baby boy. Info apparetly comes from a lawwyer appointed by her family.
IanS Illuminator Join Date: Jun 2011 Posts: 4,889

17th February 2019, 05:26 AM	#224
P.J. Denyer Philosopher Join Date: Aug 2008 Posts: 6,316	Originally Posted by Stout We have the Canadian version only ours is 46 years old and claims she joined up on a "humanitarian mission". Save the women and children. She claims she "didn't know all the politics". She just decided to throw on a tent and enter a war zone ? She's 46 years old. Link It sounds bizarre, but on the other hand you only have to look in Gen Skep and the Paranormal to remind yourself that there are complete fantasists out there. Is it really that much different from people who think that their warm fuzzies mean that they are qualified to treat real people with real illnesses using handwaving, crystals or similar ********?
P.J. Denyer Philosopher Join Date: Aug 2008 Posts: 6,316	__________________ "I know my brain cannot tell me what to think." - Scorpion "Nebulous means Nebulous" - Adam Hills

17th February 2019, 05:28 AM	#225
P.J. Denyer Philosopher Join Date: Aug 2008 Posts: 6,316	Originally Posted by p0lka yeah, our ministers don't seem to be particularly good at ~~detail~~ anything at the moment. FTFY
P.J. Denyer Philosopher Join Date: Aug 2008 Posts: 6,316	__________________ "I know my brain cannot tell me what to think." - Scorpion "Nebulous means Nebulous" - Adam Hills

17th February 2019, 05:32 AM	#226
baron Guest Join Date: Dec 2006 Posts: 8,627	Originally Posted by P.J. Denyer It sounds bizarre, but on the other hand you only have to look in Gen Skep and the Paranormal to remind yourself that there are complete fantasists out there. Is it really that much different from people who think that their warm fuzzies mean that they are qualified to treat real people with real illnesses using handwaving, crystals or similar *******? I think that's the difference between Muslims and Islamists. The Muslims believe the nonsense and the fairy tales but don't cause anybody harm, the Islamists believe all that plus* they are willing to blow up a concert hall full of children on that basis.
baron Guest Join Date: Dec 2006 Posts: 8,627

17th February 2019, 06:11 AM	#227
angrysoba Philosophile Join Date: Dec 2009 Location: Osaka, Japan Posts: 26,411	Originally Posted by cullennz Because she is British and left when she was 15 and presumably stupid. Being British does not entitle you to a day in court in the UK. If you commit crimes abroad, you can be subject to the law abroad. Also, you are not entitled to be tried as a child just because you used to be one. So, I ask again, given that it is irrelevant that she is British and used to be 15, why does she deserve to have her day in court in the UK?
	__________________ "The thief and the murderer follow nature just as much as the philanthropist. Cosmic evolution may teach us how the good and the evil tendencies of man may have come about; but, in itself, it is incompetent to furnish any better reason why what we call good is preferable to what we call evil than we had before." "Evolution and Ethics" T.H. Huxley (1893)

17th February 2019, 06:25 AM	#228
Strawberry Master Poster Join Date: Nov 2011 Posts: 2,137	Originally Posted by angrysoba Being British does not entitle you to a day in court in the UK. If you commit crimes abroad, you can be subject to the law abroad. Also, you are not entitled to be tried as a child just because you used to be one. So, I ask again, given that it is irrelevant that she is British and used to be 15, why does she deserve to have her day in court in the UK? She is still stupid though. I've just seen her interviewed on Sky news, there's not much going on there between the ears. Her teeth are terrible too, presumably IS is not big on dental hygiene.

17th February 2019, 07:36 AM	#229
Childlike Empress Ewige Blumenkraft Join Date: Jun 2006 Location: Ivory Tower Posts: 17,896	It would be more interesting if you'd stop obsessing about that girl and face the general problem. Trump has just tweeted about it and threatens to simply release them so they can find their own way back to Europe. Also an alternative. Originally Posted by @realDonaldTrump The United States is asking Britain, France, Germany and other European allies to take back over 800 ISIS fighters that we captured in Syria and put them on trial. The Caliphate is ready to fall. The alternative is not a good one in that we will be forced to release them........ ....The U.S. does not want to watch as these ISIS fighters permeate Europe, which is where they are expected to go. We do so much, and spend so much - Time for others to step up and do the job that they are so capable of doing. We are pulling back after 100% Caliphate victory!
	__________________ Audiatur et altera pars

17th February 2019, 07:42 AM	#230
Pterodactyl Graduate Poster Join Date: Dec 2013 Posts: 1,199	Originally Posted by Strawberry She is still stupid though. I've just seen her interviewed on Sky news, there's not much going on there between the ears. Her teeth are terrible too, presumably IS is not big on dental hygiene. Sounds like she belongs in the UK to me.

17th February 2019, 07:56 AM	#231
baron Guest Join Date: Dec 2006 Posts: 8,627	Originally Posted by Childlike Empress It would be more interesting if you'd stop obsessing about that girl and face the general problem. Trump has just tweeted about it and threatens to simply release them so they can find their own way back to Europe. Also an alternative. Trump is right. He should do that. Maybe it would force our government to take action. There's no reason why we can't have a similar facility, and legislation to properly deal with returning terrorists. This girl is in the news because the media got to her purely by accident and it became a story. Several ISIS fighters return to the UK each week and nothing is done to stop them.
baron Guest Join Date: Dec 2006 Posts: 8,627

17th February 2019, 10:01 AM	#232
Vixen Suspended Join Date: Apr 2015 Location: Suomi Posts: 18,321	Originally Posted by Strawberry She's eligible for Bangladeshi citizenship through her parents, which means her UK citizenship can be revoked. Whether Bangladesh wants her or not is another matter. The naiviety of this post is truly touching. First of all, are you suggesting someone applies for Bangladeshi citizenship on her behalf whilst she's laid up in a Kurdish controlled refuge camp? Secondly, you ought to know, her parents/grandparents may have come to the UK as asylum seekers following on from the partition of Bengal and clashes between Hindus and Shikhs. Her parents may be ethnically Bangladeshi but are probably full British citizens. Quote: Following the founding of Bangladesh in 1971, a large immigration to Britain took place during the 1970s, leading to the establishment of a British Bangladeshi community. Bangladeshis were encouraged to move to Britain during that decade because of changes in immigration laws, natural disasters such as the Bhola cyclone, the Bangladesh Liberation War against Pakistan, and the desire to escape poverty, and the perception of a better living led Sylheti men bringing their families.[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Histor...United_Kingdom

17th February 2019, 10:07 AM	#233
Vixen Suspended Join Date: Apr 2015 Location: Suomi Posts: 18,321	Originally Posted by angrysoba Being British does not entitle you to a day in court in the UK. If you commit crimes abroad, you can be subject to the law abroad. Also, you are not entitled to be tried as a child just because you used to be one. So, I ask again, given that it is irrelevant that she is British and used to be 15, why does she deserve to have her day in court in the UK? Er, Magna Carta? Habeas corpus ?

17th February 2019, 10:09 AM	#234
Vixen Suspended Join Date: Apr 2015 Location: Suomi Posts: 18,321	Originally Posted by Pterodactyl Sounds like she belongs in the UK to me. Oi!

17th February 2019, 10:12 AM	#235
baron Guest Join Date: Dec 2006 Posts: 8,627	Originally Posted by Vixen Er, Magna Carta? Habeas corpus ? No.
baron Guest Join Date: Dec 2006 Posts: 8,627