Shamima Begum

[jaffa1 10]

2 hours ago, Halibut said:

I think it's extraordinarily lame of you to try and play a game of 'they did it too, so that makes it Ok', or 'two wrongs make a right'.

If we followed that line of thought, we'd be chopping of heads and burning people alive before we know where we are.

Isn't  that just what Begum said  that the West bombed IS in Syria so what happened in Manchester was justified?  Tit for tat.

[danot 10]

1 hour ago, Lockdoctor said:

That's hilarious, if you don't think these people have committed any crimes, then why are you so obsessed about Sharmeena Begum not returning to the UK?

It's not an obsession, It's more of a deep concern for public safety. 

You see. I can't ignore how, for whatever reason, these women went to great lengths to betray our/their counties, to be colonised by isis, aligning with, marrying and having children with brutally savage enemies of the western world, only for the western world to hit back, hard, really hard, scuppering their their efforts, killing, jailing and chasing -out their terrorist husbands, destroying their vision of what should have been, the life they were promised, the life that drew them to Syria initially.  Now, we are told that they've decided they must return to the land they turned against just a few years ago in order to raise thier children claiming we should have sympathy for them for what they've been throug, especially thier children, and we're supposed to just take them at their word and welcome them home. 

 

Of course I recognise and appreciate the responsibilities of our country. I just feel it'd be very naive of us to treat these young women as lowly, misguided housewives or broken victims of Isis propaganda. 

[tinfoilhat 11]

10 minutes ago, danot said:

It's not an obsession, It's more of a deep concern for public safety. 

You see. I can't ignore how, for whatever reason, these women went to great lengths to betray our/their counties, to be colonised by isis, aligning with, marrying and having children with brutally savage enemies of the western world, only for the western world to hit back, hard, really hard, scuppering their their efforts, killing, jailing and chasing -out their terrorist husbands, destroying their vision of what should have been, the life they were promised, the life that drew them to Syria initially.  Now, we are told that they've decided they must return to the land they turned against just a few years ago in order to raise thier children claiming we should have sympathy for them for what they've been throug, especially thier children, and we're supposed to just take them at their word and welcome them home. 

 

Of course I recognise and appreciate the responsibilities of our country. I just feel it'd be very naive of us to treat these young women as lowly, misguided housewives or broken victims of Isis propaganda. 

We dont have to. Put her kid in care and either rehabilitate her or put her in clink if we can prove she's committed criminal acts - you know like the civilised society we're supposed to be. Keep her under surveillance as well if you want. She hardly seems like a criminal mastermind so it shouldn't be hard.

[danot 10]

14 minutes ago, tinfoilhat said:

We dont have to. Put her kid in care and either rehabilitate her or put her in clink if we can prove she's committed criminal acts - you know like the civilised society we're supposed to be. Keep her under surveillance as well if you want. She hardly seems like a criminal mastermind so it shouldn't be hard.

No point taking her kid away. What's to stop her having more kids?  Im not convinced.  Begum seems far too relaxed for my liking, but time will tell.

Edited February 22, 2019 by danot

[Halibut 12]

3 hours ago, danot said:

Serious question. How would refusing their return to Britain increase the level of risk they pose?  Read post 513. If they were here they be in jail or under close supervision.

Read post 513. Better here in jail or under close supervision than at large to recruit, re-arm and plot.

Edited February 22, 2019 by Halibut

[Top Cats Hat 10]

1 hour ago, danot said:

It's more of a deep concern for public safety. 

I'm not sure you have any concern for public safety at all.

 

If you did, you'd consider the possibility that her deradicalisation could ultimately increase public safety. If she returned she'd pose no threat to public safety whatsoever.

[Halibut 12]

2 hours ago, WiseOwl182 said:

you're actually comparing an army who helped defend Europe from Nazis with a terrorist organisation who deliberately kill anyone who doesn't share the same beliefs? Including bombing children, beheadings etc .

 

You're an absolute disgrace.

Call me a disgrace by all means, but I stand behind everything I said and I'll restate it.

 

'The army who helped defend Europe' used 'area bombing' against German cities, knowingly killing hundreds of thousands of civilians. Many were burnt alive, including children.

This was not a good thing. 

 

IS also use bombs to kill people, including children. They behead people and burn people alive.(They've killed a much smaller number, but that really is beside the point.)

This is also not a good thing.

 

That the motives are different in these two cases, is undoubtedly true. The morality though is no different - intentionally killing civilians is bang out of order.  They're doing it now, we did it then. It goes against my grain when I see people mouthing off as if our country were somehow morally unimpeachable - it isn't.  I think people have a very mixed up attitude to violence. In my view it's a bad thing, full stop. There might be times when it becomes necessary, but there's no such thing as good violence (when we do it) and bad violence (when they do it).

[Halibut 12]

1 hour ago, danot said:

I just feel it'd be very naive of us to treat these young women as lowly, misguided housewives or broken victims of Isis propaganda. 

Great piece of really narrow reductive thinking there. How about we investigate them thoroughly and decide what steps need to be taken to keep the public safe and treat them appropriately. What would you suggest we do if they come back? Stone them? Make them eat dirt?

2 hours ago, jaffa1 said:

Isn't  that just what Begum said  that the West bombed IS in Syria so what happened in Manchester was justified?  Tit for tat.

You've my point by a country mile - and then some. Try re-reading the last few pages. If you still don't get it, get back to me.

[Guest makapaka]

33 minutes ago, Halibut said:

Call me a disgrace by all means, but I stand behind everything I said and I'll restate it.

 

'The army who helped defend Europe' used 'area bombing' against German cities, knowingly killing hundreds of thousands of civilians. Many were burnt alive, including children.

This was not a good thing. 

 

IS also use bombs to kill people, including children. They behead people and burn people alive.(They've killed a much smaller number, but that really is beside the point.)

This is also not a good thing.

 

That the motives are different in these two cases, is undoubtedly true. The morality though is no different - intentionally killing civilians is bang out of order.  They're doing it now, we did it then. It goes against my grain when I see people mouthing off as if our country were somehow morally unimpeachable - it isn't.  I think people have a very mixed up attitude to violence. In my view it's a bad thing, full stop. There might be times when it becomes necessary, but there's no such thing as good violence (when we do it) and bad violence (when they do it).

You’re absolutely right.

[danot 10]

54 minutes ago, Top Cats Hat said:

I'm not sure you have any concern for public safety at all.

 

If you did, you'd consider the possibility that her deradicalisation could ultimately increase public safety. If she returned she'd pose no threat to public safety whatsoever.

There's no way you could be sure whether my concerns for public safety are genuine. But I'm curious as to why you'd doubt me yet give Begum the benefit of the doubt?  Interesting.

[Dales 10]

On 19/02/2019 at 22:24, Top Cats Hat said:

How on earth was that a good answer?

 

 It was pointed out that her child is an innocent victim in all this and he made a glib comment about the kids at the Ariane Grande concert in Manchester. If the baby is only a couple of days old, how  on earth is it responsible for something which happened nearly two years before it was born?

 

Have you been smoking drugs? 😱

He?? I most certainly am not.  I also knew one of the young females who died at the concert.  Calling my comment 'Glib' is totally disrespectful to the families who lost loves ones.

[danot 10]

6 hours ago, Halibut said:

Great piece of really narrow reductive thinking there. How about we investigate them thoroughly and decide what steps need to be taken to keep the public safe and treat them appropriately. What would you suggest we do if they come back? Stone them? Make them eat dirt?

You've my point by a country mile - and then some. Try re-reading the last few pages. If you still don't get it, get back to me.

And I suppose the opposite of narrow, reductive thinking is the style of thinking that you're using here?  - Applying your own sentiment to someone else's post before attaching then attacking unsubstantiated points that you try to pass off as theirs. 

 

 

Edited February 23, 2019 by danot