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

Your original quote on this subject:

Mozza said:
Non of the other nations who had an Arab spring ended up with ISIS
Click to expand...

You should have just stuck with “I stand corrected.”

Mozza said:
After their Arab Springs, inspired by the growth of ISIS in Iraq, not as a result of their revolutions.

Another failure by Carolina Red
Click to expand...

Mozza said:
Arab spring begins 2010. Isis only grow prominent in 2014. Carolina Red fails again
Click to expand...

Yemen, Libya and the Sinai were all home to Al Qaeda linked jihadi groups prior to the Arab Spring, with AQAP (Yemen) being easily the most powerful of them, and probably the most powerful Al Qaeda franchise in the world at that time. The instability caused by the collapse of the state in each of these areas during the Arab Spring gave these groups the space they needed to expand their operations and networks. As the Al Qaeda/ISIS schism developed over 2013 and 2014, many of these groups also splintered along the same lines with the result that each had a significant ISIS presence by the end of 2014.

So yes, the Arab Spring was absolutely pivotal in this process, just as it was in Syria for the exact same reasons. And given that such groups also existed and operated in late Ba’thist Iraq (e.g. Ansar al-Islam) and that Saddam himself had spent a decade promoting a Salafi purification campaign across the country, complete with beheadings, amputations, throwing people off buildings, etc., it is quite reasonable to speculate that in the event that a hypothetical Ba’thist Iraq went the way of Syria, Yemen, Libya and the Sinai during the Arab Spring, the result might have been the emergence of an ISIS-type group.

None of this speculation is designed to minimize the impact of the Iraq War, which was not only pivotal in providing the space for ISIS to emerge, but was a criminal act which destroyed a country and helped sour Western-Muslim relations for a generation. It does however suggest that the violence and ideology of ISIS, exemplified by their campaign to exterminate the Yazidis, cannot be explained solely or even primarily by reference to that war.
 
Last edited:
Zarlak said:
No I'm comparing them with a woman who was brainwashed and went over to be the bridge/cleaner who went over to support them. You're the one comparing them incorrectly. You have to call the spade the spade, even if it makes you uncomfortable because you want to hold her responsible via guilt by association for larger things she wasn't responsible for. Even if she did support them.

That isn't saying what she did is okay, or that she did nothing wrong. She is a part of it for sure, and she deserves to be prosecuted for what she did do - but that's it, the legal system should be holding her accountable to what she actually did.

But this should be dealt with via the legal system, and not via the hotheaded nature of the British public quick to anger for anything foreign in the Brexit climate. She's our citizen, who commited a crime and should be dealt with accordingly. Washing our hands of it in an illegal manner because we don't want to open the inevitable can of worms that's coming for others who are also going to be returning home from Syria is lazy at best.
Click to expand...
How do you stop her from becoming a recruiter once brought back though?

Does the whole “deradicalization” bit actually work? And how can you tell that they’re not just saying what the therapists want to hear?
 
2cents said:
Your original quote on this subject:



You should have just stuck with “I stand corrected.”





Yemen, Libya and the Sinai were all home to Al Qaeda linked jihadi groups prior to the Arab Spring, with AQAP (Yemen) being easily the most powerful of them, and probably the most powerful Al Qaeda franchise in the world at that time. The instability caused by the collapse of the state in each of these areas during the Arab Spring gave these groups the space they needed to expand their operations and networks. As the Al Qaeda/ISIS schism developed over 2013 and 2014, many of these groups also splintered along the same lines with the result that each had a significant ISIS presence by the end of 2014.

So yes, the Arab Spring was absolutely pivotal in this process, just as it was in Syria for the exact same reasons. And given that such groups also existed and operated in late Ba’thist Iraq (e.g. Ansar al-Islam) and that Saddam himself had spent a decade promoting a Salafi purification campaign across the country, complete with beheadings, amputations, throwing people off buildings, etc., it is quite reasonable to speculate that in the event that a hypothetical Ba’thist Iraq went the way of Syria, Yemen, Libya and the Sinai during the Arab Spring, the result might have been the emergence of an ISIS-type group.

None of this speculation is designed to minimize the impact of the Iraq War, which was not only pivotal in providing the space for ISIS to emerge, but was a criminal act which destroyed a country and helped sour Western-Muslim relations for a generation. It does however suggest that the violence and ideology of ISIS, exemplified by their campaign to exterminate the Yazidis, cannot be explained solely or even primarily by reference to that war.
Click to expand...

Long post to say nothing happened until 2014, long after the Arab spring happened and not before ISIS grew to prominence.
 
Penna said:
They were building a state by means of death and destruction. Eliminate anyone who you feel may stand in your way, terrorise the powerless to break their spirit, enslave and abuse people, declare some people less than human based on their religion - it doesn't get much worse. They are exactly like the SS in the concentration camps, in my view. They murdered indiscriminately and in the cruellest possible ways, all for a crazy vision of some future world where they'd be calling all the shots.

Despite all that, I'd like to see Shamima be allowed back to Britain and treated fairly under the rule of law, because we're better than ISIS.
Click to expand...

UK has neither the required legislation nor enough evidence to treat her fairly under the rule of law.

Only 10% of returning UK nationals have been prosecuted so far, the majority because of evidence of direct involvement in Syria. Which I think is not the case for Shamima.
 
Why are you guys spending time and energy debating Mozza? He’s not said anything rational in ... ever.

Mihai said:
UK has neither the required legislation nor enough evidence to treat her fairly under the rule of law.

Only 10% of returning UK nationals have been prosecuted so far, the majority because of evidence of direct involvement in Syria. Which I think is not the case for Shamima.
Click to expand...

Precisely the problem and why most people want to keep her away. There’s no faith that the Justice system can handle the case... justly.
 
Mihai said:
UK has neither the required legislation nor enough evidence to treat her fairly under the rule of law.
Click to expand...
To me there seems to be a problem with this idea. The idea that to treat someone fairly a country has to introduce new law after the event which would be in itself, unfair.

If the Justice System cannot introduce evidence suitable to punish the defendant with the crimes she is supposedly to have committed under the beliefs of the mob then that would be the Justice Systems problem.

It seems to me that she is being accused of crimes without name, assumed crimes. Crimes which the mob are unhappy she will not be charged with until some supposed Acts of Parliament can introduce after the event.

Hmm. Isn't this the sort of thing that happens in a country that is not the UK.

Joining a terrorist organisation - tick. Now, whatever else you want to accuse her of then name it and supply proof. I'm all for her facing justice but it has to be...well..justice.
 
oates said:
To me there seems to be a problem with this idea. The idea that to treat someone fairly a country has to introduce new law after the event which would be in itself, unfair.

If the Justice System cannot introduce evidence suitable to punish the defendant with the crimes she is supposedly to have committed under the beliefs of the mob then that would be the Justice Systems problem.

It seems to me that she is being accused of crimes without name, assumed crimes. Crimes which the mob are unhappy she will not be charged with until some supposed Acts of Parliament can introduce after the event.

Hmm. Isn't this the sort of thing that happens in a country that is not the UK.

Joining a terrorist organisation - tick. Now, whatever else you want to accuse her of then name it and supply proof. I'm all for her facing justice but it has to be...well..justice.
Click to expand...

Although I mostly agree, isn't that how laws are formed? To tackle new issues?

That doesn't impact the need for evidence that she's guilty of these new laws of course.
 
Redlambs said:
Although I mostly agree, isn't that how laws are formed? To tackle new issues?

That doesn't impact the need for evidence that she's guilty of these new laws of course.
Click to expand...
Yes, I agree, new issues. I'm not sure that we backdate them. If we did then we would be clawing back billions in tax from avoiders.
 
oates said:
Yes, I agree, new issues. I'm not sure that we backdate them. If we did then we would be clawing back billions in tax from avoiders.
Click to expand...

But it's a current situation, so if there's a law that needs to be added then it should apply. Otherwise, what do you do, wait to add it?

I think sometimes the whole mob thing throws off critical thinking because we often straight away go against their thinking, but this isn't about that. I don't care what the hate mob and usual suspects say, I'm all for giving her a fair trial, but it should run to all the crimes she's suspected of and if we need new laws to speak to what she's accused of, then make them and trial her fair. If it gets the the point of making anything up to jail her, then that's obviously wrong, but I suspect it's not that easy to create a law just to do that.
 
Redlambs said:
But it's a current situation, so if there's a law that needs to be added then it should apply. Otherwise, what do you do, wait to add it?

I think sometimes the whole mob thing throws off critical thinking because we often straight away go against their thinking, but this isn't about that. I don't care what the hate mob and usual suspects say, I'm all for giving her a fair trial, but it should run to all the crimes she's suspected of and if we need new laws to speak to what she's accused of, then make them and trial her fair. If it gets the the point of making anything up to jail her, then that's obviously wrong, but I suspect it's not that easy to create a law just to do that.
Click to expand...
No problem with adding a new law on to the books, I'm not quite sure what they could be, possibly we already have something suitable but if these are newly discovered crimes that more will commit in future then the future needs to be prepared. Will they apply to past crimes? I'm not convinced. In any case along with covering that off the other potential problem as we agree would be proof. Substance not smoke. Copper bottomed facts not inaccurate pitchforks.

I think we're on the same page.
 
Red Defence said:
We can’t give her a fair trial, fair to all concerned I mean, because we have no way to investigate any crimes that she may or may not have been involved in, other than being a member of a terrorist organisation.
Click to expand...
We can. She's our problem and if we can only try her with crimes on the books and evidence then that is what is 'fair'. Unfair justice would be something we're not known for as a nation in the 21st Century.
 
oates said:
We can. She's our problem and if we can only try her with crimes on the books and evidence then that is what is 'fair'. Unfair justice would be something we're not known for as a nation in the 21st Century.
Click to expand...
What I am saying is that she may have been involved in things that we have no way of knowing about because they happened in another country. I appreciate that she can’t be tried in Syria. That’s why it may not be fair or just to all, especially any victims.
 
Red Defence said:
What I am saying is that she may have been involved in things that we have no way of knowing about because they happened in another country. I appreciate that she can’t be tried in Syria. That’s why it may not be fair or just to all, especially any victims.
Click to expand...
I think I understand what you are saying but what I am saying is that you do need evidence, for and against to provide a fair trial. If you have it, all well and good. If you don't then I'm afraid you can only get a conviction on the crimes you have evidence against. That is how the Justice System works in most developed countries.
 
MadMike said:
Why are you guys spending time and energy debating Mozza?
Click to expand...

It’s certainly not for his benefit, he’s long been way past the point where critical reflection is possible. If nothing else he’s a fascinating case study of the extent of the intellectual dishonesty some people will employ in dealing with their cognitive dissonance.

Still it’s always good to clarify certain matters on a public platform, and he provides plenty of opportunities to do so. And of course apologism for the likes of ISIS should always be challenged.
 
2cents said:
It’s certainly not for his benefit, he’s long been way past the point where critical reflection is possible. If nothing else he’s a fascinating case study of the extent of the intellectual dishonesty some people will employ in dealing with their cognitive dissonance.

Still it’s always good to clarify certain matters on a public platform, and he provides plenty of opportunities to do so. And of course apologism for the likes of ISIS should always be challenged.
Click to expand...

I've never apologised for ISIS. Unlike you, I don't apologise for our crimes.
 
Carolina Red said:
That’s false.
Click to expand...

Dunno what the other poster is on about but I think you also know that that isn't false. The "ISIS Libya" etc are just branches and weren't formed from the Arab spring. ISIS was formed in the vacuum left in Iraq caused by none other than western "liberation" forces.

It's really frustrating that the average person in the west sees this simply as ISIS evil empire vs the educated civilized western nations. Take some time to read into how ISIS was formed and what weapons they used.

Before someone labels me a quack conspiracy theorist, this happens all around the world. India, Pakistan, Afghanistan, Russia, United States, Saudi Arabia and Israel ALL fund terrorists and why should one country stop when the other isn't?

Anyway my original point is don't think of these terrorist organizations as some organic growth. Yes, that does happen but only when the seeds (leaders) are planted and they are watered (funding). Then you see dumb idiots flock them too.

But yeah we must "thank you (army) for your service" for defending America from a non existent threat in Iraq that you yourself created (indirectly in the very least).
 
2cents said:
It’s certainly not for his benefit, he’s long been way past the point where critical reflection is possible. If nothing else he’s a fascinating case study of the extent of the intellectual dishonesty some people will employ in dealing with their cognitive dissonance.

Still it’s always good to clarify certain matters on a public platform, and he provides plenty of opportunities to do so. And of course apologism for the likes of ISIS should always be challenged.
Click to expand...

Like I said, he's posting some weird ass things that I don't understand but it doesn't help a lot of the replies he is getting are misinformed and pretty clueless as well.
 
It an really interesting case. If she is sent to Bangladesh, it could set quite a dangerous precedent that children of immigrants are 2nd rate British Citizens and the possibility could always be there to send them back to their country of origin.

I think she should be brought back to the UK and be sent to trial for treason.
 
Jagga7 said:
It an really interesting case. If she is sent to Bangladesh, it could set quite a dangerous precedent that children of immigrants are 2nd rate British Citizens and the possibility could always be there to send them back to their country of origin.

I think she should be brought back to the UK and be sent to trial for treason.
Click to expand...

Yeah I agree with both points. Definitely gives a foothold to the BNP and other far right organisations and their repatriation argument.
 
Is Mozza still going? How many more times does he need to be shown up by 2cents before he just gives in and gets his one way ticket to Syria?
 
Little bit of attacking posters and not the posts going on here.
 
oates said:
To me there seems to be a problem with this idea. The idea that to treat someone fairly a country has to introduce new law after the event which would be in itself, unfair.

If the Justice System cannot introduce evidence suitable to punish the defendant with the crimes she is supposedly to have committed under the beliefs of the mob then that would be the Justice Systems problem.

It seems to me that she is being accused of crimes without name, assumed crimes. Crimes which the mob are unhappy she will not be charged with until some supposed Acts of Parliament can introduce after the event.

Hmm. Isn't this the sort of thing that happens in a country that is not the UK.

Joining a terrorist organisation - tick. Now, whatever else you want to accuse her of then name it and supply proof. I'm all for her facing justice but it has to be...well..justice.
Click to expand...

This is not an idea, it's a fact.

Also, I think in an ideal scenario, she should stand trial in Syria.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.