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

Classical Mechanic said:
Isn't he a figure from the early Islamic expansionist movement that ISIS base a part of their aims and ideology on?

@2cents
Click to expand...
Some of the most common Muslim names are after figures such as Umar/Omar, Usman, Khalid, Ali etc who were what you described as 'expansionists' , as 2cents said there's no real significance to it.
 
2cents said:
There’s no obvious special significance to it, it’s a common enough name. The claim doesn’t even make sense, the figure being referred to is Ibn al-Jarrah, which literally means “son of al-Jarrah”. In any case you’ll find it hard to think of a common Arab boys’ name not in some way associated with the expansion of the early Islamic state.
Click to expand...

2mufc0 said:
Some of the most common Muslim names are after figures such as Umar/Omar, Usman, Khalid, Ali etc who were what you described as 'expansionists' , as 2cents said there's no real significance to it.
Click to expand...

OK thanks.
 
Classical Mechanic said:
Isn't he a figure from the early Islamic expansionist movement that ISIS base a part of their aims and ideology on?

@2cents
Click to expand...

Nah, the ISIS of the first century of Islam were the Khawarij. They went on to assassinate one of (final) our ‘Four Rightly Guided Caliphs’.

If I remember correctly, that caused (or at least triggered the chain of events that led to) Islam’s first civil war subsequently creating the Sunni - Shia divide.
 
Last edited:
Sky1981 said:
Knee jerk ? Isis has bombed my country. My church. My countrymen. But yeah. Knee jerk.
Click to expand...

As a fellow Indonesian I largely agree with your views on this matter and it's unfortunate that we've learned it the hard way, but at the same time I think you're being a bit obtuse by saying that extremists can't be rehabilitated whatsoever. There are levels to extremism and I wouldn't consider a Hizbut Tahrir sympathiser to be one and the same with an ex-Isis fighter, with the former naturally being more receptive to deradicalisation efforts.

These folks are few and far between but that doesn't mean they don't exist. But yes, in the context of Indonesia former Isis fighters and brides are a whole different ball game and 99 percent of the time it's a waste of time to try to humanise them. They seem to have taken their extremism and insanity to a whole new level as exemplified by the Mako Brimob standoff and the Surabaya bombings last year.
 
Kopral Jono said:
As a fellow Indonesian I largely agree with your views on this matter and it's unfortunate that we've learned it the hard way, but at the same time I think you're being a bit obtuse by saying that extremists can't be rehabilitated whatsoever. There are levels to extremism and I wouldn't consider a Hizbut Tahrir sympathiser to be one and the same with an ex-Isis fighter, with the former naturally being more receptive to deradicalisation efforts.

These folks are few and far between but that doesn't mean they don't exist. But yes, in the context of Indonesia former Isis fighters and brides are a whole different ball game and 99 percent of the time it's a waste of time to try to humanise them. They seem to have taken their extremism and insanity to a whole new level as exemplified by the Mako Brimob standoff and the Surabaya bombings last year.
Click to expand...

If we're talking ideology then yes, anyone can change. But can we afford to de-radicalise everyone on the same boat as her?

Practically speaking there's hundreds, thousands, and maybe more extremist/separatist/radicals/terrorist out there. We must remember that this goes beyond one Shamima Begum, and if we give here one treatment we're bound to give the same treatment to the next Shamima. What about the other ISIS fighter? ISIS Bride? Should we leave them to rot because they don't post in the social media? What about Captured ISIS member?

If in some alternate universe this is "ONE" individual then my answer would be different
 
This is interesting, it was the SDF who handed them over:

Iraq will prosecute 13 French ISIS fighters captured in Syria, president says

“...Iraqi courts have tried hundreds of foreign ISIS fighters, including some caught in Syria and transferred across the border.

In August, a judge sentenced a French man and German woman to life in prison. The courts have also handed down death sentences to around 100 foreigners convicted of ISIS membership.

Last year Iraq sentenced more than 600 foreigners for ties to the group, including dozens of women and minors...

...Iraqi law allows people to be convicted of helping ISIS even if they are not directly accused of violence during the years since the militants overran Iraq.”

https://thedefensepost.com/2019/02/25/iraq-prosecute-french-isis-fighters-captured-syria-sdf/
 
2cents said:
This is interesting, it was the SDF who handed them over:

Iraq will prosecute 13 French ISIS fighters captured in Syria, president says

“...Iraqi courts have tried hundreds of foreign ISIS fighters, including some caught in Syria and transferred across the border.

In August, a judge sentenced a French man and German woman to life in prison. The courts have also handed down death sentences to around 100 foreigners convicted of ISIS membership.

Last year Iraq sentenced more than 600 foreigners for ties to the group, including dozens of women and minors...

...Iraqi law allows people to be convicted of helping ISIS even if they are not directly accused of violence during the years since the militants overran Iraq.”

https://thedefensepost.com/2019/02/25/iraq-prosecute-french-isis-fighters-captured-syria-sdf/
Click to expand...
Hmmmm.... problem solved?
 
Reddy Rederson said:
The justice system is not about revenge, ..... Even the act of revenge doesn’t lessen anger.
Click to expand...
The first part is true, but the second part is not totally true. There might be a biological urge for revenge. Anyway, it's doubtful whether revenge does never (under no circumctances) lessen anger.
 
UweBein said:
The first part is true, but the second part is not totally true. There might be a biological urge for revenge. Anyway, it's doubtful whether revenge does never (under no circumctances) lessen anger.
Click to expand...

I had a bully in school. I eventually stood up to him, and "made him pay" for the bullying. But I still get angry that it happened. Not just at him for doing it, but at myself for not standing up to it sooner. Time has dulled it, but some times I think about my childhood and Im filled with such rage. It happened, it cant be changed. And just because I eventually stood up for myself doesnt change that it happened or take away from the effects that the bullying had on me. I believe with all my heart that if someone killed my wife, or child, there is nothing on this earth that could even take away that anger. Time would dull it, but it would always come back for a visit like it does about my childhood. I would always want revenge, even after I got revenge I would want more because it would never be enough.

Theres no sure fire way to get over a lose, but revenge is never going to be it. Because revenge can never fill that hole. IMO, of course.
 
Zarlak said:
Well if she's prosecuted she'll face the legal system, which the whole focus of is rehabilitation. Maybe it'll work, maybe it won't but it's the correct thing to do. How do you stop a murderer from killing again once they're released? The long and short is that you can't, you just trust in the legal system and deal with hypotheticals as and when they occur.
Click to expand...

I doubt the usual laws cater to this situation. I'm not even sure there are laws that address this situation. Fundamentally the issue to be resolved is whether she still must be considered a British citizen or not before we get into trusting British legal system. Apparently Home Office considers her to be not, so British law may not even apply in this case.
 
Zarlak said:
That's called bias, and that's why the legal system makes decisions and not the victims families. I know people who would want life if they got struck by a car in the street. People are unreasonable, so your example isn't relevant.
Click to expand...
Yes, even if the decisions are wrong. That’s my point. We have the “justice” system that we have no choice but to trust. Well, we’ll agree to disagree then. Nothing you say will change my mind and noth8ng I say would change yours.
 
Edgar Allan Pillow said:
I doubt the usual laws cater to this situation. I'm not even sure there are laws that address this situation. Fundamentally the issue to be resolved is whether she still must be considered a British citizen or not before we get into trusting British legal system. Apparently Home Office considers her to be not, so British law may not even apply in this case.
Click to expand...

It doesn't look like there are any laws to address the situation, other than the one saying that removing citizenship and leaving somebody stateless is illegal. So it's us breaking the law there.

Also there not being any laws doesn't mean we should wash our hands of people and say it's not our problem. That's a cowardly thing to do and it doesn't help the future when this is going to become a recurring issue.

Stookie said:
Yes, even if the decisions are wrong. That’s my point. We have the “justice” system that we have no choice but to trust. Well, we’ll agree to disagree then. Nothing you say will change my mind and noth8ng I say would change yours.
Click to expand...

We trust the legal system because as society we recognise that bias has no place in decision making. It's not a system that 'we have no choice but to trust'. It's a system that we came up with, because we trust it.
 
Zarlak said:
It doesn't look like there are any laws to address the situation, other than the one saying that removing citizenship and leaving somebody stateless is illegal. So it's us breaking the law there.

Also there not being any laws doesn't mean we should wash our hands of people and say it's not our problem. That's a cowardly thing to do and it doesn't help the future when this is going to become a recurring issue.



We trust the legal system because as society we recognise that bias has no place in decision making. It's not a system that 'we have no choice but to trust'. It's a system that we came up with, because we trust it.
Click to expand...
Well, I don’t trust it. But I’m sure you’re already aware of that.
 
@2cents
Recently the German government made the same noises that others did in the sense that they don't really know how to deal with isis members coming back from syria/Iraq. It confused me a bit so I read some of the bigger legal decisions.

A very important one from 2018 specifically addressed the issue of female isis returnees. The prosecutors made the argument that just traveling to syria and living with isis should be enough to be prosecuted as member of a terrorist Organisation (§129stgb). The court refuted this. I spare you the details, but the de-facto gist is, that concrete evidence is necessary to convict anyone. Imo, the level of evidence goes far beyond what can be realistically gathered in most cases. Much of it relates to the legal definition of membership.
I am still confused why §89 ('terror-camp law') can't be used as a second best option. At least in two cases people got prosecuted for attempting to travel to syria and join isis. In both cases the perpetrators didn't even make it to syria because they were sent back from turkey/stopped at the airport. They still got jail time. I don't understand the practical roadblock of using this law as a second best option, but there has to be some kind of (obvious) legal issue, that I am missing.

Tl; dr: the German government has exactly the same problem as the British one.
 
Reddy Rederson said:
I had a bully in school. I eventually stood up to him, and "made him pay" for the bullying. But I still get angry that it happened. Not just at him for doing it, but at myself for not standing up to it sooner. Time has dulled it, but some times I think about my childhood and Im filled with such rage. It happened, it cant be changed. And just because I eventually stood up for myself doesnt change that it happened or take away from the effects that the bullying had on me. I believe with all my heart that if someone killed my wife, or child, there is nothing on this earth that could even take away that anger. Time would dull it, but it would always come back for a visit like it does about my childhood. I would always want revenge, even after I got revenge I would want more because it would never be enough.

Theres no sure fire way to get over a lose, but revenge is never going to be it. Because revenge can never fill that hole. IMO, of course.
Click to expand...
Don't be too shy. There is some very good research on revenge that supports your experience. Taking revenge causes (or rather may cause) rumination and rumination increases the stress levels and the feeling of anger. Not taking revenge leads (or rather may lead) to interpreting the actual event in a different way which might help a person to cope with it in a smoother way. That prevents rumination (you've closed the case) and that inhibits a higher level of anger. So research is very much supporting your stance.

All I am saying that it might not work in the same way for everybody across all cultures, all educational backgrounds etc. One reason for that could be that not everyone is able to use positive coping strategies like humor, reiinterpreting the actual event, seek social support, avoid thinking about it etc. Also I have to admit that I am just not comfortable with the thought that revenge is never the answer.
 
PedroMendez said:
@2cents
Recently the German government made the same noises that others did in the sense that they don't really know how to deal with isis members coming back from syria/Iraq. It confused me a bit so I read some of the bigger legal decisions.

A very important one from 2018 specifically addressed the issue of female isis returnees. The prosecutors made the argument that just traveling to syria and living with isis should be enough to be prosecuted as member of a terrorist Organisation (§129stgb). The court refuted this. I spare you the details, but the de-facto gist is, that concrete evidence is necessary to convict anyone. Imo, the level of evidence goes far beyond what can be realistically gathered in most cases. Much of it relates to the legal definition of membership.
I am still confused why §89 ('terror-camp law') can't be used as a second best option. At least in two cases people got prosecuted for attempting to travel to syria and join isis. In both cases the perpetrators didn't even make it to syria because they were sent back from turkey/stopped at the airport. They still got jail time. I don't understand the practical roadblock of using this law as a second best option, but there has to be some kind of (obvious) legal issue, that I am missing.

Tl; dr: the German government has exactly the same problem as the British one.
Click to expand...

Basically there's a loophole in the law and those talking about us "trusting the law" to deal with her are talking rubbish?
 
pocco said:
Basically there's a loophole in the law and those talking about us "trusting the law" to deal with her are talking rubbish?
Click to expand...
I'm not entirely confident that I understand your post however in the UK joining a terrorist organisation on the Proscribed list https://assets.publishing.service.g...file/781490/20190226_Proscription_website.pdf
is illegal. I expect the UK Authorities have proof that Shamima stole and used a passport not her own, which is also illegal.

What law would you like to exist that she could have broken?
 
pocco said:
Basically there's a loophole in the law and those talking about us "trusting the law" to deal with her are talking rubbish?
Click to expand...

German and British law is quite different and I can't say much about the later. I also wouldn't call it a loophole in German law. The law is very consistent, clear and useful, but it was not passed to deal with European isis members committing crimes in syria and at least the German court wasn't willing to bend legal concepts/understandings to make it work. In some ways I actually applaud the german court for sticking to the law. Its the governments job to come up with better stuff.

Looking at the current law there seem to be two substantial problems when dealing with these cases. We believe in punishing individuals for their individually committed crimes. There are no credible law enforcement agencies, that can work in the former territory of ISIS and consequently there is very little evidence for specific individual actions. I guess there is some evidence against some people (especially some fighters), but it will almost always understate their actual actions and many people will "fall through the cracks". Its hard to prove that individuals took part in slavery, abuse, murder or torture.
The second issue is about what should be considered a criminal action. It is illegal to be part of a terrorist organisation, but is travelling to and living in ISIS territory enough to be considered to be part of a terrorist organisation? The german court said unambiguously no to that question. It borderline impossible for me to translate the exact reasoning of the court, because there are too many legal terms/concepts, that don't have an exact translation. All I can tell you is, that it makes sense and is consistent with previous decisions. The gist is, that one has to prove concrete actions, which brings us back to the initial problem: Thats very hard/impossible. This might or might not be different in the UK.
Its imo a reasonable argument to say, that "sticking to our principles" (e.g. due-process; individual responsibility => no guilt by association; not punishing non-criminal actions) is more important than violating those ideas to deal with a fairly small group of people. Yet we shouldn't pretend, that the legal system would produce justice or that its fair/just that ISIS member avoid substantial punishment. Depending on one's values, the lack of justice might be a price worth paying. Its quite easy to take the principled stance, because we (as in: westerners) are not the victims.
 
@PedroMendez

It's the same in UK. Travelling to Syria is not considered a criminal offence. This, in fact, made UK implement a new Counter-Terrorism act that makes it illegal to remain in a "designated area". However, the areas have yet to be designated and the act cannot be applied retrospectively.
 
The whole situation stinks doesn't it.

We don't want Shamima in our white liberal little island despite her citizen who was born and raised here.

Nope. We're going to look for a loophole so we can try and send her Bangladesh despite her never setting foot in Bangladesh. Because Bangladesh is full of brown people and is very very far away.
 
JMack1234 said:
The whole situation stinks doesn't it.

We don't want Shamima in our white liberal little island despite her citizen who was born and raised here.

Nope. We're going to look for a loophole so we can try and send her Bangladesh despite her never setting foot in Bangladesh. Because Bangladesh is full of brown people and is very very far away.
Click to expand...
Dont think its as simple as that tbf.
 
JMack1234 said:
The whole situation stinks doesn't it.

We don't want Shamima in our white liberal little island despite her citizen who was born and raised here.

Nope. We're going to look for a loophole so we can try and send her Bangladesh despite her never setting foot in Bangladesh. Because Bangladesh is full of brown people and is very very far away.
Click to expand...

Hate shit like this.

We just don't want her here because she is terrorist sympathizing scum, nothing at all to do with the colour of her skin.

As for the interview with her Husband, One minute he was attending a stoning next part he was participating.... They will say anything in these interviews to try and get sympathy when in reality they are and always will be terrorists.
 
JMack1234 said:
The whole situation stinks doesn't it.

We don't want Shamima in our white liberal little island despite her citizen who was born and raised here.

Nope. We're going to look for a loophole so we can try and send her Bangladesh despite her never setting foot in Bangladesh. Because Bangladesh is full of brown people and is very very far away.
Click to expand...
What a pathetic post.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.