Shamima Begum

Ancient Citizen said:
Bullshit.
Why oh why do the left consistently go against the overwhelming majority of the populace?
Click to expand...

That the majority of a populace happen to share an opinion is no guide to whether it is in any way valid or not. In fact, if public opinion was invariably correct, then politicians would have no serious role to play and government could be conducted by a combination of opinion pollsters and bureaucrats.

In this instance, it is also probably safe to assume that the majority of people lack a sufficient knowledge of the relevant jurisprudence, the psychology of radicalisation, neuroscience (as it relates to the development of the teenage brain), the role that women played in ISIS controlled territory when they had a lot more of it (Patrick Cockburn wrote some very chilling articles about that), and the nature of moral agency as an aspect of the free-will versus determinism debate, in order to make a reasonably well-informed judgement call.

It might be worth pointing out with respect to that aforementioned debate that - although our justice system and daily interactions are predicated on it - the arguments for free-will are distressingly thin. See David Eagleman and Daniel Werner for the finer detail.

Additionally, as Jonathan Haidt has demonstrated, our moral and political opinions are predicated on instantaneous gut feelings more than anything else, intuitions which we then tend to bolster with post hoc rationalisations. They are also remarkably impervious to modification, as Professor Drew Westen showed in his study of supporters of John Kerry and George Bush described here:

https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/the-political-brain/

Unsurprisingly, Westen goes on to say this in his book The Political Brain : ‘The data from political science is clear, people vote for the candidate who elicits the right feelings, not the candidate who presents the best arguments.’

This last observation is one that I should bear in mind the next time I contemplate contributing to a political thread on here that is already going round in circles.
 
Last edited:
Prestwich_Blue said:
You've had a long chat with her then I assume? I'd prefer the security services and other authorities to decide that, rather than the Daily Mail. If she does represent a danger, then we should manage her accordingly. One thing is for sure is that she won't be deradicalised in a Syrian refugee camp.

When I was her age, I had this idealised view of Chairman Mao's China and the Cultural Revolution. Yes, I was astoundingly naïve but you are at that age.
Click to expand...
Never had you down for a fellow traveller ; )
 
ezVQtC2.jpg
 
Mëtal Bikër said:
Difference is that Trautmann hated the Nazi regime and rejected the doctrine of Nazism. He was a professional soldier who did his duty, but once captured made no attempt to escape.

Begum did not. She loved the regime, loved the doctrine, wished for it to spread across the world and destroy those she considered enemies of 'Islam', despite having no understanding of the religion, because she fell in love with the cult. She's shown no remorse for her actions and laments at the collapse of the Islamic State, not the victims it murdered. Used her children to escape her captors who seek justice by exploting a loophole that made a mockery of the same human rights she and her friends denied to others. That loophole is now forever closed.
Click to expand...
Trautmann was given a chance to make amends

Begum will not because she is a tool for the hatemongering right to spread their poison. She is at the end of the day just another victim of the western imperialism driven by the capitalist greed that helped create the monster they now fear.. The very same capitalists who now portray her as the enemy.
 
Rascal said:
Trautmann was given a chance to make amends

Begum will not because she is a tool for the hatemongering right to spread their poison. She is at the end of the day just another victim of the western imperialism driven by the capitalist greed that helped create the monster they now fear.. The very same capitalists who now portray her as the enemy.
Click to expand...
giphy.gif

No, just... no.

Her situation was not caused by 'western capitalism', but a fantastical view of a warped misinterpretation of an 'Islamist' society which catered to her bigoted viewpoints and disdain of western society. It was a chance to 'escape' from the virtues of human rights, individual freedoms and liberties and instead live a life ruled by the doctrine of a warped view of a religious belief no different to something that the KKK would adhere to.

It collapsed and those she wronged have her in their possession and she seeks a way out. She cares nothing for the UK, those who were murdered by the regime she supported, all she cares about is that she was caught, by those who want justice. Its not just capitalists who portray her as the enemy. Muslims do, socialists do, free loving liberals do.

Why are you siding with someone who cared nothing for the human rights of others? What is the agenda there?
 
Last edited:
Prestwich_Blue said:
You've convinced me because as we all know, everything a journalist writes is entirely without bias or an agenda in any way. And they always represent the views of their subject 100% faithfully with distortion or misrepresentation.
Click to expand...
It was Shamima who gave the interviews herself. Not a journalists interpretation of her words, they were her words. By publications that supported her return to the UK. They must have thought "fucking hell love, give us something positive to work with!"
 
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
✖
  AdBlock Detected
Bluemoon relies on advertising to pay our hosting fees. Please support the site by disabling your ad blocking software to help keep the forum sustainable. Thanks.