Shamima Begum

Mëtal Bikër said:
just maybe, she did these things willingly and that when she arrived in IS she thought she'd won life's lottery.
Click to expand...
I am sure she did think that and do whatever she supposed to have done, at that time.

What you are doing is taking an absolutist approach that people can not change as they develop.

I was very different at 15 to what i was at 21 and i am very different now to what i was at 21.

You are basing your thoughts on her at 15 and at 15 we know people are not fully developed, we know as Zen showed that emotion is a greater driver than reason.

Nobody i have seen is saying were actions are justified in anyway at all, but your absolutist approach means those actions taken whilst she was 15 are to be taken for life.

Would showing compassion and understanding towards her not show redemption is possible and in fact turn others from the path she followed, or would heavily punishing her just push more immature emotional young girls towards the path she followed.
 
Mëtal Bikër said:
I feel strongly about seeing her brought to justice for the sake of all those who suffered at the hands of those she supported and professed to 'love', by those who were directly affected by them. Begum's fate rests in the hands of the Kurds, not us.

You have expressed your deep concern about her, though.
Click to expand...
No I haven’t. You have expressed your hatred of her, I’ve taken a position that tries to understand there might be more context to her actions than her being a ****. We’re miles apart and I’ll leave it there with you
 
Mëtal Bikër said:
Why are you asking others to explain why they believe she is a security risk? Because the appropriate government and security bodies have analysed and recommended that she is. Your counter is a blogger and a BBC article. Your opposing view is flawed beyond measure.

I also don't remember Nawaz voluntarily going to join the Islamic State, being okay with seeing beheaded innocents, women raped and sold as sex slaves and then once caught showing zero remorse for her actions, being complicit even when given the opportunity to show remorse.

Why is this person so important to you that she be in the UK? Where is the justification for bringing her to the UK to face trial for a crime you and others say she didn't even commit because she was a groomed child who didn't know any better? Your logic is all over the place.
Click to expand...
Actually, the "counter" is the second highest court in the land which said she should be allowed to return to make her appeal.
 
KPXBLN said:
As you rightly say, Venables is not relevant... but it's interesting that he doesn't mention that Thompson was also 10. And he hasn't reoffended. It's almost as if people aren't defined forever by the heinous things they may do as children.
Click to expand...
It's also as if when people say "I wasn't groomed, I don't regret my actions, I did these things willingly", some people will ignore those testimonies because it goes against what they want to believe about the person.
 
Rascal said:
I am sure she did think that and do whatever she supposed to have done, at that time.

What you are doing is taking an absolutist approach that people can not change as they develop.

I was very different at 15 to what i was at 21 and i am very different now to what i was at 21.

You are basing your thoughts on her at 15 and at 15 we know people are not fully developed, we know as Zen showed that emotion is a greater driver than reason.

Nobody i have seen is saying were actions are justified in anyway at all, but your absolutist approach means those actions taken whilst she was 15 are to be taken for life.

Would showing compassion and understanding towards her not show redemption is possible and in fact turn others from the path she followed, or would heavily punishing her just push more immature emotional young girls towards the path she followed.
Click to expand...
Some people can, she has shown no willingness to do so. The Home Office and MI5 also agree this to be the case.

People are justifying her actions when they say she was 'groomed' and that she 'didn't know what she was doing'. She wasn't. She either was groomed, and therefore didn't commit a crime and has no reason to be returned because now as an adult she DID confess to committing crimes in Syria and must therefore face trial there, OR she WASN'T groomed, but hasn't committed any crimes in Syria but was complicit and has shown no remorse for her actions since, indicating she's a terror threat.

Why people keep ignoring the fact that Shamima has confessed she was complicit, rejected her UK citizenship status and wasn't groomed into doing any of it, only suggests there is another agenda at play by people on here. I seek that the Kurds and Yazidis get their justice; the issue of Begum is no longer our concern.
 
gordondaviesmoustache said:
So was Robert Thomson.

Youth is wasted on the young. A civilised society gives young people who makes mistakes another chance, even when they become adults. If they don't grasp it, like Venables, then they deserve to be further punished.
Click to expand...
Ahh, so in your view Begum is more of the Thompson mindset than the Venables one. She can be saved!
MI5 and the Home Office disagree.

But still, nobody in here is trying to justify what she did...
 
domalino said:
15 year old children can't consent to having sex and bearing children with 20+ year old men you fucking creep.
Click to expand...
Did I even say that? I said she confessed in an interview that she didn't regret having children. Give your head a serious wobble.
 
Mëtal Bikër said:
Did I even say that? I said she confessed in an interview that she didn't regret having children. Give your head a serious wobble.
Click to expand...

Yes, you did. You said she wasn't raped because she "willingly" had children with a 25 year old man when she was 15.

You said it explicitly. "Wasn't raped. Had children willingly".

If you think that being willing means a child under the age of consent can't be raped then you shouldn't be giving out lectures on the morality of Shamima Begum.
 
gordondaviesmoustache said:
I don't honestly know, and neither do you, but I believe she deserves a chance to repent and redeem herself after a suitable period of punishment.
Click to expand...
Nope, which is the point. So i'm taking the advice from those who do. My own personal judgement of the character of Begum is based on her comments she has given in recent interviews. I saw no remorse, she was only upset that IS ended and that she had been caught.

My only wish is that justice prevails.
 
Mëtal Bikër said:
Some people can, she has shown no willingness to do so. The Home Office and MI5 also agree this to be the case.

People are justifying her actions when they say she was 'groomed' and that she 'didn't know what she was doing'. She wasn't. She either was groomed, and therefore didn't commit a crime and has no reason to be returned because now as an adult she DID confess to committing crimes in Syria and must therefore face trial there, OR she WASN'T groomed, but hasn't committed any crimes in Syria but was complicit and has shown no remorse for her actions since, indicating she's a terror threat.

Why people keep ignoring the fact that Shamima has confessed she was complicit, rejected her UK citizenship status and wasn't groomed into doing any of it, only suggests there is another agenda at play by people on here. I seek that the Kurds and Yazidis get their justice; the issue of Begum is no longer our concern.
Click to expand...
This is all missing the point. It's not up to bluemoon to judge her complicity or state of mind based on media reporting or even on security service assessments.

It's that those issues are part of the case for her appeal against the SIAC decisions. And she is unable to make an effective appeal. The only issue is whether it's reasonable to deny her her legal right to an effective appeal.

As the appeal court judge put it,

"The circumstances in which Ms Begum left the UK and remained in Syria and whether she did so of her own free will should be irrelevant to the question of the legal and procedural consequences of SIAC’s conclusion that she cannot have a fair and effective appeal. Furthermore, I would be uneasy taking a course which, in effect, involved deciding that Ms Begum had left the UK as a 15 year old schoolgirl of her own free will in circumstances where one of the principal reasons why she cannot have a fair and effective appeal is her inability to give proper instructions or provide evidence. One of the topics that could be explored on her appeal before SIAC is precisely what were the circumstances in which she left the UK in 2015, but that could only properly be determined after a fair and effective appeal."

The thread has divided between those who don't want to prejudge that aspect of her case and those who have prejudged it.
 
domalino said:
Yes, you did. You said she wasn't raped because she "willingly" had children with a 25 year old man when she was 15.

You said it explicitly. "Wasn't raped. Had children willingly".

If you think that being willing means a child under the age of consent can't be raped then you shouldn't be giving out lectures on the morality of Shamima Begum.
Click to expand...
Ahh so that's what you're doing now. You're losing your shit and inventing things I didn't even say.

Funny though, that you accept that fact but ignore the fact she says she wasn't groomed, did things willingly, does not regret her actions, yet you don't believe you're inventing something about her to justify her as a victim. Wasn't raped, got married willingly, wanted to have children.
Click to expand...
That's the quote. I'm quoting her own statements.
 
Mëtal Bikër said:
Ahh so that's what you're doing now. You're losing your shit and inventing things I didn't even say.


That's the quote.
Click to expand...

Yes. The first bit is stupid beyond belief, as if a victim of grooming can never be in denial of what's happened or defend their abuser, and the second bit you've bolded is you justifying statutory rape.

Wasn't raped, got married willingly, wanted to have children.
Click to expand...

This is something you said. No one is inventing anything by pointing out how disgusting it is.
 
domalino said:
Yes. The first bit is stupid beyond belief, as if a victim of grooming can never be in denial of what's happened or defend their abuser, and the second bit you've bolded is you justifying statutory rape.
Click to expand...
You know that for certain, do you?

I'm judging her on her comments and character, now as a 21 year old woman who shows no remorse or regrets for her actions and comfortably states she did so on her own judgement and accord. MI5 believes she would be a security risk. The second bolded bit was a summary of her statements, not my own opinions, but I suppose when you're blinded with rage you tend not to think rationally.
 
domalino said:
The age of consent under ISIS is 9. Are we going to judge them by their standards or ours?
Click to expand...
I’m not judging anybody. Just pointing out that ages of consent vary by country. ISIS are a criminal cult so their age of consent is irrelevant. It’s the age of consent of the sovereign state where they occupy that should be the governing factor. I’m more bothered about upholding the law in whatever jurisdiction rather than making emotive judgments based on fuck all. That is why pretending we have the right to stop her coming here is wrong as is applying the U.K. age of consent to another country.
 
Mëtal Bikër said:
The second bolded bit was a summary of her statements, not my own opinions, but I suppose when you're blinded with rage you tend not to think rationally.
Click to expand...


This is very simple. Do you think a 15 year old child can consent to sex and marriage and having children with a 24 year old. Yes or No?

No fake quotes, no "summarising her statements", yes or no?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Unread Posts

Don't have an account? Register now and see fewer ads!

SIGN UP
Back
Top