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

[Cloud7]

Western world bad does not mean Eastern world good. I think we are equally bad. You are the one who's brainwashed

I’m not brainwashed into anything. I fully accept that the powers that be have done quite a lot of wrong things in that part of the world.

What I disagree with, and will always disagree with, is that the retaliation is not a rational response. It never was and never will be.

At the very least, when the RAF or the US army fire off drone strikes, they’re doing so with a target in mind, which sadly causes innocent casualties. That does not equate in any way or form to the mass slaughter of innocents that ISIS have partaken in, with no specific target in mind when most of these people were killed, both in their own country and their foreign agents. Mowing down random people with a car in Europe or beheading innocent Syrian citizens is not the same as casualties from a drone strike. It’s unfortunate that these innocent people have to get caught in that at all, but it is what it is. It’s not right, but at the same time it’s not equivalent.

It’s weak and cowardly, to target defenseless people who have done you no wrong. If you hate the UK army, then blow up Downing Street, or launch an attack on the White House. Attack the military bases in your region. Why are your targets entirely innocent people? I’m sure that the children at the Ariana Grande concert launched a few air strikes didn’t they? It’s disgusting and cowardly, and for that reason alone I can never subscribe to the view that their actions and retaliations are justified.

 

[Stacks]

400 isis people have returned to the UK

Fair enough. It's proper fecked mate

 

[VeevaVee]

But I won't pretend that we Westerners are saints whilst they are sinners

Why do people keep lumping us in with what other people do (gov and military officials) as if we're the same as people who have joined ISIS?

 

[Cloud7]

Why do people keep lumping us in with what other people do (gov and military officials) as if we're the same as people who have joined ISIS?

It’s because by living in one of the western powers (which I don’t even live in) means that you agree with every decision your government makes, and support everything that they do. Obviously.

 

[VeevaVee]

It’s because by living in one of the western powers (which I don’t even live in) means that you agree with every decision your government makes, and support everything that they do. Obviously.

It's seriously daft because we haven't made the choice, but obviously ISIS members have. And it's not like they have much other schtick going on. At least we have the NHS and Wetherspoons. They just have the whole killing everyone that isn't like them thing going on.

 

[jeff_goldblum]

Corbyn has a habit of being on the right side of history but the wrong side of public opinion. If he was a celebrity or still a backbencher I'd be over the moon that someone with a platform was talking sense. As he's the leader of the political party I want to win elections I sometimes catch myself sighing as I agree with him.

Part of the problem is that there are probably hundreds of politicians who have a similar view on it but don't dare say it for fear of the backlash from armchair patriots and the tabloid press. So instead of the country seeing a debate of multiple points of view on the issue, it sees the discourse dominated by reactionary right wing viewpoints where the odd person talking sense is shouted down.

I was speaking to someone in my office the other day who was saying that Begum was the worst kind of criminal the country has ever seen. I said that at the moment we don't know what crimes she was complicit in and it's not like she's Fred West and she replied "Fred West wasn't a traitor though". That level of stupidity, and the failure of politicians to challenge it, is why the country's fecked.

 

[711]

Corbyn has a habit of being on the right side of history but the wrong side of public opinion. If he was a celebrity or still a backbencher I'd be over the moon that someone with a platform was talking sense. As he's the leader of the political party I want to win elections I sometimes catch myself sighing as I agree with him.

Part of the problem is that there are probably hundreds of politicians who have a similar view on it but don't dare say it for fear of the backlash from armchair patriots and the tabloid press. So instead of the country seeing a debate of multiple points of view on the issue, it sees the discourse dominated by reactionary right wing viewpoints where the odd person talking sense is shouted down.

I was speaking to someone in my office the other day who was saying that Begum was the worst kind of criminal the country has ever seen. I said that at the moment we don't know what crimes she was complicit in and it's not like she's Fred West and she replied "Fred West wasn't a traitor though". That level of stupidity, and the failure of politicians to challenge it, is why the country's fecked.

I suppose you're asking who killed and abused more people, Begum's husband and the people she probably cooked and cleaned for, or Fred West? Wouldn't like to call it personally.

 

[Zarlak]

I think joining in on a genocide, whether actually doing the killing or not, is up there with murder, yeah. It's accomplice to genocide at best. Facilitating a genocide?

It's just not though. That's not reducing the impact of what she did by saying that, but you're hugely reducing the impact of those who actually take part in the killing. There is a clear difference between those who go some of the way and those who go all of the way which is just basic logic that applies to any scenario you could think of. At a certain point you might say, it's all despicable nonetheless and so you no longer care, which is fair, but one still goes further than the other. And if we're prepared to let those who commit murder and rape go on to live normal lives once they've served time then it makes no sense to try and make those who don't do those things suffer more. Let her come back, prosecute her, make her pay a debt to society and in the meantime sort the baby out which should be our priority. Why the feck she wants to come back when she'll be mobbed in the streets I have no idea, but it seems to be illegal to revoke her citizenship anyway and leave her stateless, and there's a baby involved who didn't ask for any of this. That doesn't mean the mother has to go free or get away with anything.

Not to mention, the only reason any of you ever heard about this is because a baby was born. If this was just any other person returning home like the hundreds who have done so already it'd be a nothing story. The only reason I can see that it even became news is because there's a bit of drama you can throw in about a baby about to be born to ignite a discussion and get people opposed right in the middle of a Brexit time when 'muslims out' is a sentiment that a lot of people deny having but express regularly. So it's a little weird to see people getting so angered by one specific woman and telling her to feck off and condemning her innocent baby while nobody ever gave 2 shits enough to vocally oppose or speak up about any of the other people that came back from Syria.

Seems like effort should be better spent challenging the laws and processes that are in place for when this happens which is likely to happen a lot more as time goes on. Personal biased emotions should have no place in this discussion. No other criminal who left the country got told they're not allowed back in, in fact the opposite happened we actively worked with foreign agencies specifically to get them back and prosecute them. What's different here? If John Smith went off to a hypothetical none ISIS/Muslim but equally horrific war then I'd be willing to put money on the overwhelming consensus being to prosecute and hold him accountable for his crimes.

 

[VeevaVee]

It's just not though. That's not reducing the impact of what she did by saying that, but you're hugely reducing the impact of those who actually take part in the killing. There is a clear difference between those who go some of the way and those who go all of the way which is just basic logic that applies to any scenario you could think of. At a certain point you might say, it's all despicable nonetheless and so you no longer care, which is fair, but one still goes further than the other. And if we're prepared to let those who commit murder and rape go on to live normal lives once they've served time then it makes no sense to try and make those who don't do those things suffer more. Let her come back, prosecute her, make her pay a debt to society and in the meantime sort the baby out which should be our priority. Why the feck she wants to come back when she'll be mobbed in the streets I have no idea, but it seems to be illegal to revoke her citizenship anyway and leave her stateless, and there's a baby involved who didn't ask for any of this. That doesn't mean the mother has to go free or get away with anything.

Not to mention, the only reason any of you ever heard about this is because a baby was born. If this was just any other person returning home like the hundreds who have done so already it'd be a nothing story. The only reason I can see that it even became news is because there's a bit of drama you can throw in about a baby about to be born to ignite a discussion and get people opposed so it's a little weird to see people getting so angered by one specific woman and telling her to feck off and condemning her innocent baby while nobody ever gave 2 shits enough to vocally oppose or speak up about any of the other people that came back from Syria. Seems like effort should be better spent challenging the laws and processes that are in place for when this happens which is likely to happen a lot more as time goes on. No other criminal who left the country ever got told they're not allowed back in, in fact the opposite happened we actively worked with foreign agencies specifically to get them back and prosecute them.

You're comparing regular old murder and criminals with genocidal terrorists that have been hellbent on taking over as much land as they can in as despicable a way as possible though, and arranging/influencing many other attacks on innocent people. I feel like some people aren't appreciating what ISIS are and do now, as if they've barely existed. This isn't normal crime. What they've done as a collective is as bad as it can possibly get for humans on earth. It doesn't get worse, other than on an even bigger scale in the past.
She's part of all this, even if she hasn't committed an orthodox crime. She and others who have done the same have helped them get stronger.
I know that doesn't leave much law to bring down on her, but that's not my point or my job. I'm just looking at it as a real thing that's happened and judging accordingly. This can't really be compared with 'normal' criminals.

On the second paragraph, of course people will talk about what's presented to them. Of course it's done by the media on purpose to get people disagreeing as much as possible. Their views and clicks will be through the roof because of it, not to mention it's made everyone stop talking about Brexit. We're hearing about it because of this and because we'd heard about them when they left. The baby just added a great edge to the story for them, making the discussion more complicated and emotive. But here we are.

Just as a footnote in case anyone reading it gets the wrong end of the stick, I'm a liberal. I believe on the grand scale the world is everyone's and when people need help we should help them, but my line is drawn before ISIS.

 

[Mozza]

Mozza’s posts stem from the belief that political crimes/violence/atrocities committed by non-Western and especially Muslim peoples are ultimately a product of “our” actions, our violence and brutalization of “them”. It’s a worldview in which “they” can only respond to “our” acts, either by submitting as puppets or rebelling with brutal violence. Their basic powerlessness in this world renders them incapable of any autonomous actions. So “we” are not only guilty of our own crimes, but also theirs.

Which is why something like the Yazidi genocide has him coming out with such embarrassing nonsense, scrambling to fit random assertions around this worldview. Because it can’t reasonably be rationalized with reference to the West. It’s an attack on a long persecuted non-Western religious minority justified explicitly with reference to a tradition and ideology completely indigenous to the conceptual world ISIS emerged from and operate within. And given that, we have to accept that the perpetrators of these crimes - which are in intent of a magnitude to rival or even exceed the very worst of humanity - have an agenda which is completely autonomous/independent of whatever actions the West has taken. That’s earth-shattering for his worldview, so instead ISIS and its crimes must be minimized/played down/relativized away - “just another group”/“not genocide”/“no worse than us” - while those of us who accept the reality of ISIS must be motivated by racism/Islamophobia.

ISIS just sprouted in a vacumn. Nothing we did had any motivating factor. Righto

 

[Mozza]

Why do people keep lumping us in with what other people do (gov and military officials) as if we're the same as people who have joined ISIS?

It's our government who we vote, the collective will of the British people is its OK to murder innocents abroad. Many of the people we deem fair targets abroad haven't even had a chance to vote for whoever we are fighting

 

[fishfingers15]

ISIS just sprouted in a vacumn. Nothing we did had any motivating factor. Righto

So hand on heart, you think ISIS is a result of Iraq invasion and nothing to do with the extremist interpretation of Islam? You honestly think ISIS is a land grab scheme of a vacuum in middle east and the foreign jihadists were just people interested in real estate? I'm sorry but that's dangerously close to making you an apologist for terrorism.

 

[4bars]

I’m not brainwashed into anything. I fully accept that the powers that be have done quite a lot of wrong things in that part of the world.

What I disagree with, and will always disagree with, is that the retaliation is not a rational response. It never was and never will be.

At the very least, when the RAF or the US army fire off drone strikes, they’re doing so with a target in mind, which sadly causes innocent casualties. That does not equate in any way or form to the mass slaughter of innocents that ISIS have partaken in, with no specific target in mind when most of these people were killed, both in their own country and their foreign agents. Mowing down random people with a car in Europe or beheading innocent Syrian citizens is not the same as casualties from a drone strike. It’s unfortunate that these innocent people have to get caught in that at all, but it is what it is. It’s not right, but at the same time it’s not equivalent.

It’s weak and cowardly, to target defenseless people who have done you no wrong. If you hate the UK army, then blow up Downing Street, or launch an attack on the White House. Attack the military bases in your region. Why are your targets entirely innocent people? I’m sure that the children at the Ariana Grande concert launched a few air strikes didn’t they? It’s disgusting and cowardly, and for that reason alone I can never subscribe to the view that their actions and retaliations are justified.

I agree in part and disagree in part. As I understand @Mozza and @2cents about Mozza. For me is a matter of greys.

Points and questions( If any ones to answer). I warn that i usually play devils advocate and I am not happy of many of the western policies, basically because I tend to improve where I am from, local, and global

- So is worse when ISIS kills innocent people because of his archaical a abhorrent believes from the medieval age or is better to kill (soldiers and civilians) because of the greed of the west because the Carter doctrine? and adding that we are more advanced and shoould have more advanced values and set an example?


- Till which extend the west is responsible on your opinion of the perpetual clusterfeck in the middle east? 0%, 100%, 50% 21.69%?

-Why is the west has to interviene to stop ISIS killing, enslaving, raping and the EU allows the same in refugee "prisions" in Lybia? not only allowing but financing groups to control that the refugees don't leave north africa and this groups put them on these prisons were there are actual slaves auctions, they put men and women like cattle and being the latest being rape without control, day and night in a mix shithole prison?

 

[jeff_goldblum]

I suppose you're asking who killed and abused more people, Begum's husband and the people she probably cooked and cleaned for, or Fred West? Wouldn't like to call it personally.

Not really no. I'm talking about how, in the minds of some people, the perceived crime of being a "traitor to your country" is worse than being a confirmed serial murderer. Obviously Begum might be directly complicit in a lot more than we're currently aware, but we have a due process of law to decide what crimes she is accountable for and sentence her accordingly, we don't leave it up to the imaginations of a baying mob to decide what she's done.

I'm also talking about how, in the minds of some people, the citizenship of people whose families have come from overseas in the last couple of generations is less legitimate than the citizenship of "indigenous Britons" and it's something to be granted and taken away as if it's a favour rather than a right.

Ultimately, we're talking about taking her citizenship because her lineage isn't "White British", not because of the severity of her crimes. I'm entirely up for holding her and charging her of joining a terrorist organisation straight off the plane and investigating her for the other crimes committed by her organisation. What I'm not up for is for politicians to take away her citizenship to simply to save themselves a headache and satisfy the Daily Mail crowd.

 

[2cents]

ISIS just sprouted in a vacumn. Nothing we did had any motivating factor. Righto

No, that’s the kind of reductionist thinking that you indulge in. I try my best to avoid it. The emergence of ISIS can’t be pinned down to one ideologically comforting factor which happens to serve any particular agenda. There were numerous forces at work* which combined to produce them, and if these forces are analyzed honestly instead of ignored, denied or twisted, they collectively challenge everyone’s preconceived bias about how the world works. Because that’s the way real history actually works. It’s complicated.

* (The policies and agendas, both short and long-term, of certain Western actors played a huge role in creating the conditions which produced ISIS. As did other factors including but not limited to the failure of the dictatorships and their brutalization of the societies they ruled over; regional interstate power politics which helped fuel Sunni-Shi’i sectarian hostility; the Islamicization of Arab society and politics since the 60s; the long tradition of Islamic reformist activism in the region; climate change; demographic explosion...and so on.)

 

[Raees]

• 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.

Some very good points here and I’ll just tag in @MadMike and @oneniltothearsenal as the gist of your points were similar.

First point - pretty sure there’s plenty of ISIS fighters who have slipped the net and made it back here and generally speaking even guys who went Guantanamo weren’t stripped of citizenship. I’m not saying they’re not dangerous - just saying be consistent in terms of how you deal with them - not just treat her exceptionally as that isn’t going to pass in a court of law and this whole excercise smacks of political posturing.

Now my wife’s views are polar opposite and very different to my own.

My own views are that people such as ISIL fighters and those women who willingly went abroad to support them - IMO should face death penalty (I’ve long supported capital punishment for the most abhorrent crimes and for me genocide and supporting it via physical means when you had a choice to partake in it constitutes aiding and abetting genocide IMO and that would remove the issue of whether or not she needs to find a state to live in).

Wife’s argument was well what about all these women who were married to Nazis etc and married to German soldiers in WW2 - my argument was that those women were born into nation and it wasn’t the same degree as moral culpability as flying over to a foreign country and supporting the rape and murder of hundreds of Yazidi women albeit it was still horrific that they supported issues such as extermination of Jews but in times of war realistically are women going to have the strength to overrule war mongering men? Whereas likes of Shamima had the blessing of being born in a democratic country and choose to partake in atrocities of their own accord.

As to the dual nationality point - I do think it comes across as a little racist (we both agreed on this point) - at what stage does a Muslim or a individual descended from immigrants stop being seen as a dual national? If she’s a third generation immigrant why on earth is she being seen as a Bangladeshi? She is clearly British whether we like or her not.

If she was white and had say a grandmother who was Portuguese would we be saying she needs to be repatriated back to Portugal?

For me that is irrational and either we come up with severe punishments which sort out the issue once and for all or we come up with an international prison where these individuals can be held indeterminately.

Agreed on all the she is not a candidate for de radicilisation - she seems beyond that point and IMO that is why she needs to face life sentence as she is a threat to both her own child and United Kingdom as a whole - but she remains our problem and we should solve it ourselves.

Final point I will make is that this government has aided and abetted the Saudis in Yemen, it welcomes racists like Trump with open arms, it desires to do business with the likes of China who are carrying out a genocide of sorts on their Muslim population in certain areas - so its a bit rich to strip her off her citizenship when these politicians have just as much blood on their hands and arguably even more culpable.

 

[Tibs]

I predict she will be in jail in the UK (pre-trial) by end of Feb

 

[Cloud7]

I agree in part and disagree in part. As I understand @Mozza and @2cents about Mozza. For me is a matter of greys.

Points and questions( If any ones to answer). I warn that i usually play devils advocate and I am not happy of many of the western policies, basically because I tend to improve where I am from, local, and global

- So is worse when ISIS kills innocent people because of his archaical a abhorrent believes from the medieval age or is better to kill (soldiers and civilians) because of the greed of the west because the Carter doctrine? and adding that we are more advanced and shoould have more advanced values and set an example?


- Till which extend the west is responsible on your opinion of the perpetual clusterfeck in the middle east? 0%, 100%, 50% 21.69%?

-Why is the west has to interviene to stop ISIS killing, enslaving, raping and the EU allows the same in refugee "prisions" in Lybia? not only allowing but financing groups to control that the refugees don't leave north africa and this groups put them on these prisons were there are actual slaves auctions, they put men and women like cattle and being the latest being rape without control, day and night in a mix shithole prison?

Many grey areas, I agree. I didn’t even want to wade in on this discussion again, I just had to take the chance to make a joke when I saw it

The perpetual clusterfeck in the Middle East is pretty much entirely down to the intervention of the western powers, both in recent history and historically. The retaliation that followed was down to the groups in the Middle East themselves.

Regarding your first point, I guess it just depends on if you believe that it’s all based on greed, or if to some extent there really are certain groups in that part of the world that pose a threat to the rest of the world.

As for your third point, you got me there What Libya has become is truly terrifying. Why the powers that be don’t intervene, I can’t say, particularly since the mess that country is in now is literally a result of the actions of said powers that be.

None of that takes away from my point though, if you want to retaliate then retaliate against the people that have wronged you, not the innocent people that, in all likelihood may not have even been in favor of what was done to your people.

 

[Mihai]

To summarise some random elements if you're tired like I am now: in terms of an ad hoc or hybrid tribunal there's the problem that you need a resolution in the UN security council, which can be quite hard to get. Then in practical terms there's the potential problems with logistics, and money of course because setting up something like that ain't exactly cheap.

The ICC in The Hague tends to be quite slow and rigid, focusing on the most 'major players' so to speak. I think it took 10 years to finish their first trial? Its aims are very noble, but presumably you will hardly get loads of convictions.

They could also simply be brought to trial in Syria or Iraq under the national law there, at least that will be ruthless. Probably a bit too ruthless according to most European standards though.

Then there's the option of simply bringing them to trial in their own countries, which might actually be not such a bad idea, but the public opinion is obviously not in favour of that at all right now.

That would be the fairest solution in my opinion. Similar to Linda Wenzel case. They committed crimes on Iraq's and Syria's territory and should be prosecuted there.

 

[Mozza]

So hand on heart, you think ISIS is a result of Iraq invasion and nothing to do with the extremist interpretation of Islam? You honestly think ISIS is a land grab scheme of a vacuum in middle east and the foreign jihadists were just people interested in real estate? I'm sorry but that's dangerously close to making you an apologist for terrorism.

Isis was made up of Iraqi Sunni's who welded on an extremist version of Islam to attract foreign fighters to swell their ranks

 

[Mozza]

No, that’s the kind of reductionist thinking that you indulge in. I try my best to avoid it. The emergence of ISIS can’t be pinned down to one ideologically comforting factor which happens to serve any particular agenda. There were numerous forces at work* which combined to produce them, and if these forces are analyzed honestly instead of ignored, denied or twisted, they collectively challenge everyone’s preconceived bias about how the world works. Because that’s the way real history actually works. It’s complicated.

* (The policies and agendas, both short and long-term, of certain Western actors played a huge role in creating the conditions which produced ISIS. As did other factors including but not limited to the failure of the dictatorships and their brutalization of the societies they ruled over; regional interstate power politics which helped fuel Sunni-Shi’i sectarian hostility; the Islamicization of Arab society and politics since the 60s; the long tradition of Islamic reformist activism in the region; climate change; demographic explosion...and so on.)

Would there have been an ISIS without the Iraq war?

 

[2cents]

Would there have been an ISIS without the Iraq war?

Now you’re engaging in counter-factuals. We don’t know if an ISIS would have emerged without the Iraq War. It’s impossible to know. It is possible, even likely, however, that a movement analogous to ISIS would have emerged eventually. For example, if the Arab Spring had impacted upon a Ba’thist Iraq the way it did Ba’thist Syria, then there’s little reason to doubt that it would have happened, since all the necessary conditions I mentioned above still existed. And we also know that movements similar to ISIS had emerged at various times in other places unaffected by the Iraq War.

But counter-factuals ultimately just fuel meaningless speculation. We can only really deal with what actually happened, and the Iraq War was the major immediate facilitator for the emergence of ISIS, no doubt. I’ve argued that many times on this forum.

 

[Carolina Red]

Wife’s argument was well what about all these women who were married to Nazis etc and married to German soldiers in WW2

That’s a simple one to counter... “just because things were done one way in the past, doesn’t mean we should do that today”

 

[Henrik Larsson]

That would be the fairest solution in my opinion. Similar to Linda Wenzel case. They committed crimes on Iraq's and Syria's territory and should be prosecuted there.

In many ways it does make sense, but personally I think 'fair' is a really unlucky choice of words in that context. Even though they're really trying to improve, the concept of an actual fair trial often is simply still pretty much non-existent in a country like Iraq. Corruption and torture are rife according to most reasonably reliable reports. The way they implement the death penalty over there to me simply not right at all, so I don't really see how it can be called a fair solution.

 

[Carolina Red]

It's our government who we vote, the collective will of the British people is its OK to murder innocents abroad. Many of the people we deem fair targets abroad haven't even had a chance to vote for whoever we are fighting

I bet if the governments of the west had done your plan for defeating ISIS, you’d still be calling the west murderers for the civilians killed during the land campaign.

 

[Carolina Red]

In many ways it does make sense, but personally I think 'fair' is a really unlucky choice of words in that context. Even though they're really trying to improve, the concept of an actual fair trial often is simply still pretty much non-existent in a country like Iraq. Corruption and torture are rife according to most reasonably reliable reports. The way they implement the death penalty over there to me simply not right at all, so I don't really see how it can be called a fair solution.

I completely get what you’re saying, and part of me agrees with you.

At the same time, Begum’s IS cut people’s heads off on camera, booby trapped dead children in the street in front of their parents house, did mass shootings into mass graves, set people on fire, etc. as their forms of trial and execution.

 

[Henrik Larsson]

I completely get what you’re saying, and part of me agrees with you.

At the same time, Begum’s IS cut people’s heads off on camera, booby trapped dead children in the street in front of their parents house, did mass shootings into mass graves, set people on fire, etc. as their forms of trial and execution.

Yep, and that's why in many ways it's an impossible dilemma where you're not ever going to get a satisfying outcome.

 

[VeevaVee]

It's our government who we vote, the collective will of the British people is its OK to murder innocents abroad. Many of the people we deem fair targets abroad haven't even had a chance to vote for whoever we are fighting

Not me or anyone associate with of my age. I haven't had a vote go my way since I was able to do it. But there's a disconnect when it comes to the rest. They aren't voting for an organisation solely bent on death and destruction. They aren't joining one. IS does one thing and if you join it you're supporting heavily, if not doing that. There's many other reasons why someone would vote for a British government.

 

[Mozza]

Now you’re engaging in counter-factuals. We don’t know if an ISIS would have emerged without the Iraq War. It’s impossible to know. It is possible, even likely, however, that a movement analogous to ISIS would have emerged eventually. For example, if the Arab Spring had impacted upon a Ba’thist Iraq the way it did Ba’thist Syria, then there’s little reason to doubt that it would have happened, since all the necessary conditions I mentioned above still existed. And we also know that movements similar to ISIS had emerged at various times in other places unaffected by the Iraq War.

But counter-factuals ultimately just fuel meaningless speculation. We can only really deal with what actually happened, and the Iraq War was the major immediate facilitator for the emergence of ISIS, no doubt. I’ve argued that many times on this forum.

So that's a no then.

 

[Mozza]

Not me or anyone associate with of my age. I haven't had a vote go my way since I was able to do it. But there's a disconnect when it comes to the rest. They aren't voting for an organisation solely bent on death and destruction. They aren't joining one. IS does one thing and if you join it you're supporting heavily, if not doing that. There's many other reasons why someone would vote for a British government.

ISIS were not 'solely bent on death and destruction'. They were not good people, but they were building a state

 

[VeevaVee]

ISIS were not 'solely bent on death and destruction'. They were not good people, but they were building a state

Doesn't change much

 

[Mozza]

I bet if the governments of the west had done your plan for defeating ISIS, you’d still be calling the west murderers for the civilians killed during the land campaign.

Oh yes, just less murder

 

[Ødegaard]

So that's a no then.

It is a "you don't know & the question is pointless speculation".

 

[Mozza]

Non of the other nations who had an Arab spring ended up with ISIS, so the idea that an insurgency against the Baathist would have still created the same in an alternate history is shite

 

[Paxi]

@Mozza sounds about ripe for radicalization if he was the right age.

I think he's ripe for radicalisation right now.

 

[Buster15]

Yes, we the UK. I'm sure they have a rigorous set of rules, same way America has a set of rules that means any male over the age of 15 near a target is legitimate, or rules that means Israeli snipers can murder Gazans who are 200 meters away across a field in medical uniform.

The rules of engagement are written so in defence of murder, our nation can say we followed the rules

You maintain that the RAF has killed countless civilians in Syria.
For this to have any relevance you need to be more specific on what you mean by countless.

I have checked the MoD website and up to the end of 2018 the RAF had carried out less than 1200 actual strikes; all of which were using targetted smart bombing.

It is not possible to find out any precise numbers for obvious reasons (who is a civilian).
However, you can guarantee that had the RAF killed, to use your words countless civilians we would have heard about it in any of the anti UK news outlets.
I have carried out a search with zero results.

On that basis I would confidentiality say that you are incorrect unless you can substantiate your claim.

 

[Mozza]

You maintain that the RAF has killed countless civilians in Syria.
For this to have any relevance you need to be more specific on what you mean by countless.

I have checked the MoD website and up to the end of 2018 the RAF had carried out less than 1200 actual strikes; all of which were using targetted smart bombing.

It is not possible to find out any precise numbers for obvious reasons (who is a civilian).
However, you can guarantee that had the RAF killed, to use your words countless civilians we would have heard about it in any of the anti UK news outlets.
I have carried out a search with zero results.

On that basis I would confidentiality say that you are incorrect unless you can substantiate your claim.

I'd interview the people they murdered but they are dead, can't get a word out of them

 

[SwansonsTache]

ISIS were not 'solely bent on death and destruction'. They were not good people, but they were building a state

The Nazis wanted to facilitate a Third Reich. Just one problem though, if the only way to do it is through genocide you are kind of past the point of the goal sanctifying your means.

 

[Mihai]

In many ways it does make sense, but personally I think 'fair' is a really unlucky choice of words in that context. Even though they're really trying to improve, the concept of an actual fair trial often is simply still pretty much non-existent in a country like Iraq. Corruption and torture are rife according to most reasonably reliable reports. The way they implement the death penalty over there to me simply not right at all, so I don't really see how it can be called a fair solution.

Fair in the sense the fairest from the 3 possibilities you mentioned.

 

[Buster15]

I'd interview the people they murdered but they are dead, can't get a word out of them

So. You are confirming that you have no proof at all.
Exactly as I thought.