Shamima Begum

[sheffbag 227]

1 hour ago, Halibut said:

How is this question in any way relevant to the discussion?

It isn't in the slightest but there does appear to be someone out spamming FB accounts with a friend request from an account in her name.

But then again, how relevant is this discussion in the grand scheme of things? its less than 50 people all making the same point again and again and again, or in your case normally just calling people idiots or throwing in comments instead of points.  

 

But if you are wanting a relevant point to the "discussion" (aka people strengthening their own view with no change in opinion after 39 pages) here is my view on the matter

 

She was convinced to leave the country by whoever and according to reports she persuaded the other two to join her. She didnt "flee", if she did then what from and why would she want to come back to it? she went voluntarily

She left the country illegally using a passport which wasn't hers

She has shown no repentance for what she has done. 

She describes life in the camp as "normal life" (source, the initial recorded interview) while ISIS had a stronghold

Now her husband has gone and ISIS presence is going she "wants to return home". Strange how she didn't want to "come home" when she had her other kids but the husband was still around

She believes that the Manchester bombings were "justified retaliation" 

She is obviously desensitzed to violence, be that through her own beliefs that what ISIS carried out was justified and/or it happened so often you eventually accept it. It will be a combination of both considering she has refused to condemn any of the actions that ISIS has taken.

She believes that the UK should be sympathetic to her needs because she has suddenly changed her mind on life over there but shows no sympathy to the people who live here and that she wishes to rejoin

 

I can understand the people saying "leave her there to rot", "she is a threat to the country"  and "she made her bed, lie in it" and also the others who say "she is a British citizen, she should come home" or "we can learn from her" (not sure what though considering she was the wife of a captured fighter) and "bring her home to de-radicalise her and re-integrate her" but my own person opinion would be.

 

 

If the UK wishes to revoke her citizenship and she is legally entitled to Bangledeshi citizenship through their bloodline law then the UK govt should use legal process to support her in claiming this. For those who say that the Bangledesh govt have said she doesn't have a passport and they dont want her, well, neither does the British govt and if the Begum supporters want to use law to challenge the UK decision then it can also use law to support a Bangledesh application. This is all dependent on the current position of the Bloodline law. This would be one for the lawyers to investigate, not us on here.

 

If she can claim Danish citizenship through her spouse then let her apply there and let the Danish authorities decide if her claim is valid. She stated in an interview if she was successful in applying and her husband was put in jail she would wait for him over there to be released. This begs another question, if she does return to the UK and he is released will she be wanting to go back to him or will the former ISIS soldier be wishing to relocate here with her?

 

Regardless of either of the above she has to retain her UK national status so she is not classed as stateless until this is cleared.

 

If she really wishes to return "home" then considering how radicalised / desentised  she appears to be then she should make her own way to the nearest state with a consulate/embassy (I'm making the presumption that given she is in a refugee camp she is free to leave) and begin the de-redicalistion process there and not be allowed back into the UK until she can prove that she is de-radicalised. At that point, return her to the UK, let the authorities decide if she should face any investigation or any criminal charges (up to the authorities to decide this, not for SF warriors to start shouting "which charges")

 

Is that relevant enough for you? I don't expect you to reply to most of this to be honest Halibut, you may pick the odd sentence out to comment against but this is my opinion of the situation and also my ideas for resolving it. You have yours, i have mine. Both are as valid as the other, the same as everyone else on here, none are "idiotic" . they may appear that way to you, but to others they opinions posted here may have  validity. Same as your points may have validity to people with the same opinion. that's what a forum is for . 

 

i'm leaving this thread until the circumstances around it change as, until then, it will be the same argument from the same people,going round and round.

 

 

Edited February 22, 2019 by sheffbag

[JFKvsNixon 11]

4 hours ago, Albert smith said:

Stop sticking up for enemies of this Country , you along with a couple of others on these threads would have been locked up when this Country was facing the threat from Nazi Germany , we cannot risk having these people in our Country let them live  in a place where they will be among others who think and act as they do. Not in England .

Stop sticking up for these people.

I keep asking this question but nobody ever answers. The girl entered Syria illegally, Syria won't want to keep when ISIS is finally defeated. So where should she go?

 

She was born in this country, so it's our responsibility to sort the mess out.

 

[Halibut 12]

2 hours ago, danot said:

But c'mon Halibut. You can't seriously believe that innocent victims of war are the equivalent of innocent victims of Isis?  You can't.

Why not? They're equally innocent and equally dead.

Edited February 22, 2019 by Halibut

[Top Cats Hat 10]

4 hours ago, Albert smith said:

Stop sticking up for enemies of this Country , you along with a couple of others on these threads would have been locked up when this Country was facing the threat from Nazi Germany 

Really?

 

If Germany had invaded and occupied Britain in WW2  it would have been people like me and Halibut who would be fighting in the resistance and the hang 'em and flog 'em reactionaries on here who would have been quite comfortable colluding with the enemy.

 

Don't believe me? Who made up the bulk of the French resistance? It certainly wasn't the Conservatives and right-wingers who were the middle management of the Vichy regime.

[lil-minx92 10]

17 minutes ago, Halibut said:

Why not? They're equally innocent and equally dead.

You're changing the focus from a persons actions to the result of their actions. 

 

Its one think to indirectly kill somebody (collateral damage/manslaughter) and another to purposefully set out to kill somebody (murder). ISIS didnt bomb Manchester Arena to take out the acoustic systems.

[danot 10]

29 minutes ago, Halibut said:

Why not? They're equally innocent and equally dead.

Why not? I'd have thought that was blindingly obvious Halibut.  Because that would make Isis fighters and WWII veterans equally at fault for their deaths? 

 

Careful Halibut. 

[danot 10]

1 hour ago, Top Cats Hat said:

Really?

 

If Germany had invaded and occupied Britain in WW2  it would have been people like me and Halibut who would be fighting in the resistance and the hang 'em and flog 'em reactionaries on here who would have been quite comfortable colluding with the enemy.

 

Don't believe me? Who made up the bulk of the French resistance? It certainly wasn't the Conservatives and right-wingers who were the middle management of the Vichy regime.

I wouldn't have been colluding with the enemy. I'd have been sat on a hill peering through my fingers watching in disbelief as one of you two accepts 'a third light' from a Nazi whose confided in you because he doesn't want to be a Nazi anymore.

Edited February 22, 2019 by danot

[Halibut 12]

1 hour ago, danot said:

Why not? I'd have thought that was blindingly obvious Halibut.  Because that would make Isis fighters and WWII veterans equally at fault for their deaths? 

 

Careful Halibut. 

All that differs is the motivation.

1 hour ago, lil-minx92 said:

You're changing the focus from a persons actions to the result of their actions. 

 

Its one think to indirectly kill somebody (collateral damage/manslaughter) and another to purposefully set out to kill somebody (murder). ISIS didnt bomb Manchester Arena to take out the acoustic systems.

The people who sent our bomber crews over to Hamburg knew exactly what the result of their actions would be.

[despritdan 241]

Nobody in their right mind would want this poisonous, brainwashed moron back in the country but given that she's a British citizen and doesn't have dual nationality, it's inevitable that we'll be lumbered with her eventually. Javid can stick to his guns and trigger off a 2 year legal battle which will probably cost the taxpayer millions to delay her return or let her back in now because it's only a matter of time before a group of Muslims or naïve, white middle class snowflakes go over to help her get to a country where there's a British consulate. She won't be prosecuted because there's no evidence she carried out acts or terrorism and hundreds of others who were involved in the fighting have been allowed back without facing prosecution. The only way to deal with her and others like her is to change the laws on treason which Javid is considering but I don't know if it could be applied retrospectively.

 

https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-6719039/Home-Secretary-looking-carefully-call-rewrite-treason-law.html

 

Focussing on this case misses the bigger picture which is the result of decades of immigration policies which have tried to mix oil and water in the form of British and Islamic values and has failed spectacularly. A Tory MP was sacked by Cameron years ago for claiming that moderate Islam is a Trojan Horse for the extremists but he was right. 'Islamophobia' is a word aimed by the left wingers at people who recognise the problems of trying to mix cultures which are incompatible but if we'd had Islamophobic immigration policies since the end of the last war, this wouldn't even be an issue.

[Halibut 12]

1 minute ago, despritdan said:

A Tory MP was sacked by Cameron years ago for claiming that moderate Islam is a Trojan Horse for the extremists but he was right. 'Islamophobia' is a word aimed by the left wingers at people who recognise the problems of trying to mix cultures which are incompatible but if we'd had Islamophobic immigration policies since the end of the last war, this wouldn't even be an issue.

He was wrong, and I find that comment highly insulting to my Muslim friends and colleagues who are no more likely to commit acts of terror than you or I.

[Top Cats Hat 10]

1 hour ago, danot said:

I wouldn't have been colluding with the enemy. I'd have been sat on a hill peering through my fingers watching in disbelief as one of you two accepts 'a third light' from a Nazi whose confided in you because he doesn't want to be a Nazi anymore.

It's funny how EVERYONE would have been in the resistance if we had been occupied in WW2 but the reality is that in most Western European countries it was mainly anti-fascists, communists and other leftists who played the greatest part in the resistance to Nazi occupation.

 

[lil-minx92 10]

29 minutes ago, Halibut said:

All that differs is the motivation.

The people who sent our bomber crews over to Hamburg knew exactly what the result of their actions would be.

And what about the bomber crews?