Shamima Begum, IS teen wants to come back to the UK

MadMike said:
I'm guessing here, but it's probably because..
  1. They couldn't irrefutably prove that he specifically did anything while in Syria. And..
  2. Sentences for simply being a member of a terrorist organisation (without ties to specific actions or plans of action) carry very small sentences under the current legal framework.

6 years for a jihadi soldier of ISIS is basically a joke. And the people are the butt of it.
Click to expand...
I wonder why the Dutch didn’t just declare him an enemy combatant and hold his trial in a military court?
 
If as reported others have returned to the UK after joining ISIS, why is this case courting so much publicity? There is some sort of agenda here that I'm not quite comfortable with.
She will end up back in the UK after her lawyers win an appeal, of that I've no doubt. It's just political posturing that's causing the delay. It's what happens once she arrives back that remains the important issue here.
 
Carolina Red said:
I wonder why the Dutch didn’t just declare him an enemy combatant and hold his trial in a military court?
Click to expand...
Surely that would surely legitimise IS as an actual army, not a terrorist organisation.

Also, why do we have a US English spellcheck on here?
 
Robbo's Shoulder said:
If as reported others have returned to the UK after joining ISIS, why is this case courting so much publicity?
Click to expand...

It’s because it was a high-profile news event when the three friends left. At that time people weren’t used to the idea that normal civilian types were also going off to join ISIS alongside the more typical male-loser types. And three schoolgirls was big news. So the general public was already familiar with her case to an extent not applicable to most others. Her subsequent choice to give a series of interviews has only jogged the public's memory.
 
Robbo's Shoulder said:
If as reported others have returned to the UK after joining ISIS, why is this case courting so much publicity?
Click to expand...

Because their cases were widely publicised when they fled London to join ISIS. They were 3, they were underage, they were girls. Effort was made track them down and prevent them from crossing to Syria, which failed. People are familiar with their story and their names.

Robbo's Shoulder said:
There is some sort of agenda here that I'm not quite comfortable with.
Click to expand...

I'm more uncomfortable with the fact others have returned without us knowing without a big deal being made, rather than the fact that she receives all the attention and publicity.

I feel your worry is misplaced. You seem more worried about her, rather than worrying how to protect the people of this country from her and ilk.
 
2cents said:
It’s because it was a high-profile news event when the three friends left. At that time people weren’t used to the idea that normal civilian types were also going off to join ISIS alongside the more typical male-loser types. And three schoolgirls was big news. So the general public was already familiar with her case to an extent not applicable to most others. Her subsequent choice to give a series of interviews has only jogged the public's memory.
Click to expand...
I get that but you think any ISIS returnee would garner a lot of attention though.
 
Robbo's Shoulder said:
If as reported others have returned to the UK after joining ISIS, why is this case courting so much publicity? There is some sort of agenda here that I'm not quite comfortable with.
She will end up back in the UK after her lawyers win an appeal, of that I've no doubt. It's just political posturing that's causing the delay. It's what happens once she arrives back that remains the important issue here.
Click to expand...
Maybe because they find their own way back and immediately get arrested at an airport/port.
This girl was found by a Times reporter in a refugee camp which naturally was considered a scoop and headline news.
 
MadMike said:
Because their cases were widely publicised when they fled London to join ISIS. They were 3, they were underage, they were girls. Effort was made track them down and prevent them from crossing to Syria, which failed. people are familiar with their story and their names.



I'm more uncomfortable with the fact others have returned without us knowing without a big deal being made, rather than the fact that she receives all the attention and publicity.

I feel your worry is misplaced. You seem more worried about her, rather than how to protect the people of this country from her and ilk.
Click to expand...
I'm not worried for her at all, i'd rather a sas unit goes out there and blows her away if i'm being honest. Worried about her would be logical if she was to come back and be in a position to radicalise others.
 
Red Defence said:
Because the only crime they have evidence of is that he joined IS.
Click to expand...
If you are the courts and fully aware of their atrocities , could you not extend the sentence to at least 10 years? Just being an active member of Isis is a pretty big deal. Can they not review the laws on terrorism like they did with R.I.C.O.
 
Raees said:
Must admit at first I didn’t want her back here but my wife made some pretty good points which were - she’s not the first ‘traitor’ to be let back into their home country and rehabilitated - UK has let plenty of more greater threats back into the country and no one has batted an eyelid, secondly she was in effect ‘groomed’ - her age and the brainwashed personality she still displays now shows something isn’t quite right in her head and she’s psychologically been damaged, thirdly by washing our hands of her we are making her someone else’s problem and if all nations began to operate like that .. disputes would arise as to who is responsible for dealing with problem individuals like this and would lead to administrative chaos , fourthly by taking her back we can guarantee she will face punishment and jail time, fifth - serial murderers and paedos who commit just as bad if not worse crimes are taken care of by the state - what’s makes her such an exceptional case to them?

Finally point was made that the conservatives have taken this so called hard stance to take people’s minds of Brexit and win over the right wing populace knowing full well that they’re most likely going to be overturned on appeal by the courts - so that way they can blame the courts if she is let back in.
Click to expand...

I just want to address the bold because I don't believe this point is valid. First, "brainwashing" is a loaded, unscientific term that most psychologists and psychiatrists never use because it invokes this fantastical idea from fiction where people get programmed like robots (think Clockwork Orange or Manchurian Candidate). This view of "brainwashing" is completely exaggerated and misleading about what coercion actually is. The best academic work on this topic that I am aware is Robert Jay Lifton's Thought Reform and the Psychology of Totalism: A Study of 'brainwashing' in China. Lifton was a Harvard Psychiatry professor who spent many years researching and interviewing people influenced by thought reform.
This girl would not really qualify as a passive actor here. She was an active agent in her radicalization from my view not someone who just had something happen to her.
Secondly, I don't know about the UK but at least the law in the US doesn't absolve someone of guilt because they were under someone's coercive influence. For example look at Squeaky Fromme and the other Manson killers. They still had to face life in prison despite the clear coercive influence of Charles Manson.
 
Stacks said:
If you are the courts and fully aware of their atrocities , could you not extend the sentence to at least 10 years? Just being an active member of Isis is a pretty big deal. Can they not review the laws on terrorism like they did with R.I.C.O.
Click to expand...
It’s probably quite difficult. You will have people saying that once they arrived they wanted to come home etc. but couldn’t because their passports were taken and no-one will necessarily have any evidence to the contrary. Then they become a “victim”.
 
Carolina Red said:
How in the world do the Dutch think that’s worth only 6 years...?
Click to expand...

It's not rocket science though? There's simply hardly any proof at this point in time. One Syrian refugee testified to Dutch police that he thinks the guy worked for ISIS, and there is a Facebook picture of the guy holding a gun and that's literally it. The verdict took place in the summer of 2018, when they didn't even have a single clue where the guy was. It's more preliminary and setting the tone for future prosecution than anything.
 
Robbo's Shoulder said:
I get that but you think any ISIS returnee would garner a lot of attention though.
Click to expand...

With numbers in the 100s it’ll probably only be the high-profile cases we hear this much about. For example the rapper from London Abdel-Majed Abdel Bary was big in the news as his dad was in al Qaeda, some of his music got airtime on the radio, and he did stuff in Syria like posting a photo of himself holding a severed head captioned “hanging with my homie, or what’s left of him.” He was rumored to have fled ISIS in 2015, suspiciously coinciding with the refugee surge in Europe that summer. If he was to turn up somewhere in Britain we’d hear all about it for weeks.
 
Stacks said:
The Saudi Arabia situation in Yemen is a far cry from Isis ideological genocide whilst screaming "there is only one religion". From what I understand the Saudi's are part of a coalition who are quashing a rebellion where they have picked a side. Isis simply want to take over Syria and Iraq whilst murdering ALL other groups who don't believe. This includes selling into slavery and other barbaric acts like genocide. You are conflating too different actions, not that I support the Saudi's mind.
I did not say I support selling weapons to the Saudi's I am stating this is an argument that will be put forward.
Click to expand...

Genocide whilst enslaving people is an oxymoron. You're either killing them or enslaving them, you can't do both at the same time.

And I've shown how that argument makes Britain morally bankrupt
 
Stacks said:
  • Who are these greater threats we let back in? whose ideology is more dangerous than Isil's? She may not be the first traitor but perhaps these laws need reform? Also based off her speech, she does not seem a candidate for deradicalisation. This was the claim of an extremism expert from Kings College London. I listened to his podcast and the straight up said it does not work for everyone and there are tell tell signs if it is likely to succeed.
  • The word "groomed" is being thrown about and is often inaccurate. Groomed means "trained for a purpose". who was she groomed by when she did a lot of research herself, made an informed decision and was basically just following her mate who had already left? The idea of these girls being "groomed" is manipulative language reserved exclusively for Jihadi "females" to present the idea that they are weak, innocent, flowers,"passive" to this experience and therefore victims. Again plenty experts have identified that in the vast majority of cases, these jihadi brides are self radicalised, do a lot of research and make an informed decision as they want to get married. sources include Nikita Malik (Director, Centre on Radicalisation and Terrorism at Henry Jackson Society) and Shiraz Maher (Director at the International Centre for the Study of Radicalisation and Political Violence at King's College London). research has suggested that girls are more likely than boys to have chosen to join Isil for themselves by self-radicalisation and made independent decisions to become members, as well as more active in seeking extremist material. Please bear in mind that Shamima admitted she had seen the beheading videos before leaving for Isil and that is did not phase her. Boys tended to join under the influence of family.
  • Her age is not that relevant as 19 year olds, 30 year olds, 25 year olds have also done the exact same thing in similar circumstances (e.g. Hoda Muthana). Age is not the deciding factor of radicalisation. This idea of "brainwashed", again removes any agency from these women and is a liberal narrative. A few months after she had left, she was legally able to raise a family here in the UK yet she is portrayed as a 9 year old by some. Nothing suggests this could not happen to her at 22, since it does happen often. its more the ideologies aligning with her principles.
  • I agree mostly that washing our hands with her is wrong, unless the Syrian authorities want to trial her themselves.
  • I am anxious about how our authorities will deal with her as they keep saying they need evidence of foul play, where as in other countries, simply joining Isil is illegal. I do agree that serial killers and Peados are dealt with by the state but if they were abroad and dual national, they could have their citizenship stripped too. I doubt it happens though as I am unsure as to whether these grooming gangs get sent packing.
Click to expand...

400 isis people have returned to the UK
 
Mozza said:
Genocide whilst enslaving people is an oxymoron. You're either killing them or enslaving them, you can't do both at the same time.
Click to expand...

More nonsense. Genocide is about exterminating a people, killing is not the only means:

“ISIS has sought to erase the Yazidis through killings; sexual slavery, enslavement, torture and inhuman and degrading treatment and forcible transfer causing serious bodily and mental harm; the infliction of conditions of life that bring about a slow death; the imposition of measures to prevent Yazidi children from being born, including forced conversion of adults, the separation of Yazidi men and women, and mental trauma; and the transfer of Yazidi children from their own families and placing them with ISIS fighters, thereby cutting them off from beliefs and practices of their own religious community.”

https://news.un.org/en/story/2016/0...udes-isil-committing-genocide-against-yazidis

UN human rights panel concludes ISIL is committing genocide against Yazidis
 
Robbo's Shoulder said:
If as reported others have returned to the UK after joining ISIS, why is this case courting so much publicity? There is some sort of agenda here that I'm not quite comfortable with.
She will end up back in the UK after her lawyers win an appeal, of that I've no doubt. It's just political posturing that's causing the delay. It's what happens once she arrives back that remains the important issue here.
Click to expand...

Agenda? :lol: She'd have thought nothing of it if her husband massacred you and your family mate. I'm sick of hearing people trying to defend her or make this into a race issue.

Myself personally wish that other returning ISIS members had gone through the same (or more, preferably). That's the real issue in what you've said - why didn't the rest have the same scrutiny and are now back amongst us?
 
Carolina Red said:
That's literally what the Nazis did in the Holocaust.
Click to expand...

It’s incredible. A genocide which was conducted right in front of the world, with the perpetrators not only not denying it but boasting about and celebrating it, has a denier on the Cafe.

fecking unbelievable.
 
2cents said:
It’s incredible. A genocide which was conducted right in front of the world, with the perpetrators not only not denying it but boasting about and celebrating it, has a denier on the Cafe.

fecking unbelievable.
Click to expand...

Presumably he's splitting hairs? One hopes, at least...
 
He is not splitting hairs. Anyone who has read his posts should know, that this is perfectly in line with everything he has written in the CE forum. Calling him an ISIS apologist would be an understatement.
 
Stacks said:
  • Who are these greater threats we let back in? whose ideology is more dangerous than Isil's? She may not be the first traitor but perhaps these laws need reform? Also based off her speech, she does not seem a candidate for deradicalisation. This was the claim of an extremism expert from Kings College London. I listened to his podcast and the straight up said it does not work for everyone and there are tell tell signs if it is likely to succeed.
  • The word "groomed" is being thrown about and is often inaccurate. Groomed means "trained for a purpose". who was she groomed by when she did a lot of research herself, made an informed decision and was basically just following her mate who had already left? The idea of these girls being "groomed" is manipulative language reserved exclusively for Jihadi "females" to present the idea that they are weak, innocent, flowers,"passive" to this experience and therefore victims. Again plenty experts have identified that in the vast majority of cases, these jihadi brides are self radicalised, do a lot of research and make an informed decision as they want to get married. sources include Nikita Malik (Director, Centre on Radicalisation and Terrorism at Henry Jackson Society) and Shiraz Maher (Director at the International Centre for the Study of Radicalisation and Political Violence at King's College London). research has suggested that girls are more likely than boys to have chosen to join Isil for themselves by self-radicalisation and made independent decisions to become members, as well as more active in seeking extremist material. Please bear in mind that Shamima admitted she had seen the beheading videos before leaving for Isil and that is did not phase her. Boys tended to join under the influence of family.
  • Her age is not that relevant as 19 year olds, 30 year olds, 25 year olds have also done the exact same thing in similar circumstances (e.g. Hoda Muthana). Age is not the deciding factor of radicalisation. This idea of "brainwashed", again removes any agency from these women and is a liberal narrative. A few months after she had left, she was legally able to raise a family here in the UK yet she is portrayed as a 9 year old by some. Nothing suggests this could not happen to her at 22, since it does happen often. its more the ideologies aligning with her principles.
  • I agree mostly that washing our hands with her is wrong, unless the Syrian authorities want to trial her themselves.
  • I am anxious about how our authorities will deal with her as they keep saying they need evidence of foul play, where as in other countries, simply joining Isil is illegal. I do agree that serial killers and Peados are dealt with by the state but if they were abroad and dual national, they could have their citizenship stripped too. I doubt it happens though as I am unsure as to whether these grooming gangs get sent packing.
Click to expand...

Well said mate. People just throwing the 'groomed' word around are the ones skewing this whole debate by bringing in things that are non-factual. She's a grown adult now and just the other day she said that she stood by her decision to leave and that she knew perfectly well what she was doing at 15 years old, as we all did. Yet here we are, people are making excuses on her behalf and their argument seems to be "well we let 400 other ISIS fighters back in" :wenger:
 
Sweet Square said:
Finally some fecking sense.

Click to expand...


Mmm I wouldn't call that sense, more like political seppuku.

He's right that she should be allowed to return. But If you're gonna go with that angle then the immediate next phrase you should use is "to face the full force of Justice". He chose to go for "to answer some questions and also receive our support". Britons are not in mood to give collaborators and enablers of genocidal maniacs support. Every poll shows that.

But I guess there's no real change here, if you think about it. Corbyn was unelectable before this anyway. I wonder what will be left of the Labour party by the time his leadership ends. The Tories are thanking their lucky stars he's in opposition, they know they'll get re-elected despite fecking up Brexit spectacularly.
 
pocco said:
Agenda? :lol: She'd have thought nothing of it if her husband massacred you and your family mate. I'm sick of hearing people trying to defend her or make this into a race issue.

Myself personally wish that other returning ISIS members had gone through the same (or more, preferably). That's the real issue in what you've said - why didn't the rest have the same scrutiny and are now back amongst us?
Click to expand...
A race issue? What the feck you talking about, race has nothing to do with this.
 
Robbo's Shoulder said:
Can you point out where i've attempted to make it a race issue then?
Click to expand...

He didnt say you. It was a general observation "Im sick of hearing people". Hes throwing you in with all the other excuses he thinks are dumb. You say "agenda against her" others will say "Its cause shes muslim/brown/whatever".

Its all the same thing, an excuse that takes away from the fact that people should be held accountable for the things that they do and say.
 
MadMike said:
Mmm I wouldn't call that sense, more like political seppuku.

He's right that she should be allowed to return. But If you're gonna go with that angle then the immediate next phrase you should use is "to face the full force of Justice". He chose to go for "to answer some questions and also receive our support". Britons are not in mood to give collaborators and enablers of genocidal maniacs support. Every poll shows that.

But I guess there's no real change here, if you think about it. Corbyn was unelectable before this anyway. I wonder what will be left of the Labour party by the time his leadership ends. The Tories are thanking their lucky stars he's in opposition, they know they'll get re-elected despite fecking up Brexit spectacularly.
Click to expand...

Yeah, it's outright political suicide. The mood of the country is clearly very much against her, so you come out and say you think she deserves support?

Does he even want to get elected at this point?
 
pocco said:
Ok if you're not talking about race then I'm intrigued to know what you meant.

You question why this has so much publicity and then said there is an agenda that you're not comfortable with. What's the agenda?
Click to expand...
It's the political agenda of Sajid Javid i'm not comfortable with. He knows damn well that she will win an appeal and be returned to the UK. Instead of admitting that, he acts the tough guy who will then blame whichever court overturns his decision all to aid his leadership campaign when May is turfed out.
If he had come out and said that we have no choice but to take her back but we will hit her with the full force of the law, including a prison sentence and a de-radicalisation programme he would have far more respect.
 
Reddy Rederson said:
He didnt say you. It was a general observation "Im sick of hearing people". Hes throwing you in with all the other excuses he thinks are dumb. You say "agenda against her" others will say "Its cause shes muslim/brown/whatever".

Its all the same thing, an excuse that takes away from the fact that people should be held accountable for the things that they do and say.
Click to expand...
It wasn't an agenda against her i was talking about though. I couldn't give a damn what happens to her.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.