L
L
lazerblue
Guest
with the thick end of a ragmans trumpet
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
Shamima Begum
- Thread starter SuperstarNeilC
- Start date
BobKowalski
Well-Known Member
- Joined
- 17 May 2007
- Messages
- 21,511
This is all much too nuanced and thoughtful for the knee jerkers on this thread
Oh, I don’t know *reads last few posts*, yeah, okay, fair point.
Johnny Mars Bar
Well-Known Member
Staggering how she sticks on a baseball cap and all of a sudden a big swathe of society forgets she is a terrorist.
Bigga
Well-Known Member
I don't know whether this has been posted, but I think she was a child, a stupid one at that, but I note that she's completely willing to come back to the UK and do time in jail if found guilty.
If she's willing to do such a thing, why not bring her to the UK and put her on trial?
I note there are 'forgiving' factors for people who were KKK/ NF believers who have 'changed their ways', (funnily enough that will be a fair few members of the forum that may have held similar views and become better characters) and they are seen as 'reformed'.
She's a political 'weapon', nothing else. I don't think there's been any definitive proof she's had any hand in any atrocities besides the rumours she's been accused of. Where's the hard evidence of this besides shadowy figures whispering into eager ears?
If Johnson and co can work with openly murderous regimes, why is a then stupid 15 year old girl who is now 22, such a threat is my question?
If she's willing to do such a thing, why not bring her to the UK and put her on trial?
I note there are 'forgiving' factors for people who were KKK/ NF believers who have 'changed their ways', (funnily enough that will be a fair few members of the forum that may have held similar views and become better characters) and they are seen as 'reformed'.
She's a political 'weapon', nothing else. I don't think there's been any definitive proof she's had any hand in any atrocities besides the rumours she's been accused of. Where's the hard evidence of this besides shadowy figures whispering into eager ears?
If Johnson and co can work with openly murderous regimes, why is a then stupid 15 year old girl who is now 22, such a threat is my question?
journolud
Well-Known Member
I don't know whether this has been posted, but I think she was a child, a stupid one at that, but I note that she's completely willing to come back to the UK and do time in jail if found guilty.
If she's willing to do such a thing, why not bring her to the UK and put her on trial?
I note there are 'forgiving' factors for people who were KKK/ NF believers who have 'changed their ways', (funnily enough that will be a fair few members of the forum that may have held similar views and become better characters) and they are seen as 'reformed'.
She's a political 'weapon', nothing else. I don't think there's been any definitive proof she's had any hand in any atrocities besides the rumours she's been accused of. Where's the hard evidence of this besides shadowy figures whispering into eager ears?
If Johnson and co can work with openly murderous regimes, why is a then stupid 15 year old girl who is now 22, such a threat is my question?
You won’t get much sympathy for that on this thread, it’s lowest common denominator stuff but you are absolutely right
I’ve some sympathy for this viewpoint but the simple fact is that there can’t ever be any trial in the UK. The UK legal authorities have no means to gather evidence about what she did from a chaotic near-war zone controlled by a hostile regime. Crimes under the latest legislation banning joining overseas militants could probably be proven, but only came in after she left to join Islamic State so can’t be applied.I don't know whether this has been posted, but I think she was a child, a stupid one at that, but I note that she's completely willing to come back to the UK and do time in jail if found guilty.
If she's willing to do such a thing, why not bring her to the UK and put her on trial?
If she comes here as a UK citizen she will be as free as anyone else and there’ll never be any legal consequences for her time with IS. I wouldn’t want her living freely in my neighbourhood, so it would be hypocritical of me to say she should be allowed back.
Bigga
Well-Known Member
I’ve some sympathy for this viewpoint but the simple fact is that there can’t ever be any trial in the UK. The UK legal authorities have no means to gather evidence about what she did from a chaotic near-war zone controlled by a hostile regime. Crimes under the latest legislation banning joining overseas militants could probably be proven, but only came in after she left to join Islamic State so can’t be applied.
If she comes here as a UK citizen she will be as free as anyone else and there’ll never be any legal consequences for her time with IS. I wouldn’t want her living freely in my neighbourhood, so it would be hypocritical of me to say she should be allowed back.
Perhaps I'm confused by this thought process.
I would guarantee this country (we know the US have done this) have accepted Nazi scientists/ officers who have actual blood on their hands into this country under whatever reasoning was given at the time.
This country, as I said before, openly works with murderous regimes.
Even, besides that, if the UK gov have stripped her of citizenship they must have evidence of what she's done... Which means they can put her on trial... Unless she's been tried in the court of public opinion and the Cons have seen this move as a vote winner?
Or am I being too cynical...?
kaz7
Well-Known Member
Didnt we know isis brides sewed suicide vests? I seem to recall that from when we were fighting them, i very much doubt she doesnt have blood on her hands, heads in buckets didnt bother her or killing innocents at a concert in her home country, fuck her
You’re probably not being cynical enough. The country has a right to act in its own interest. Taking in Nazi scientists after the war was a benefit to the country, buying oil from Saudi Arabia and selling them weapons benefits this country, but this woman can offer nothing but trouble.Perhaps I'm confused by this thought process.
I would guarantee this country (we know the US have done this) have accepted Nazi scientists/ officers who have actual blood on their hands into this country under whatever reasoning was given at the time.
This country, as I said before, openly works with murderous regimes.
Even, besides that, if the UK gov have stripped her of citizenship they must have evidence of what she's done... Which means they can put her on trial... Unless she's been tried in the court of public opinion and the Cons have seen this move as a vote winner?
Or am I being too cynical...?
The government probably has intelligence reports but that’s not the same as the CPS having evidence it can bring before a court.
Bigga
Well-Known Member
Didnt we know isis brides sewed suicide vests? I seem to recall that from when we were fighting them, i very much doubt she doesnt have blood on her hands, heads in buckets didnt bother her or killing innocents at a concert in her home country, fuck her
Where's this proof of her sowing anything? And seeing heads in buckets? the words of a kid showing hard faced bravado at what age?
As a kid/ teen, I said loads of things didn't bother me, but in private that couldn't be further from the truth. Didn't she say she hardly slept with regret in that vid?
She's, supposedly, been marching around with guns according to that vid, which she debunked citing Isis would never have allowed it... Unless they're more progressive than the Taliban with female inclusion...
You're speculating with no evidence of anything.
She was a kid, a stupid kid, ffs.
kaz7
Well-Known Member
Stop reading quickly, she showed zero emotion in her interviews, she even said heads in buckets didnt bother her and the arena bombin was justified, you defend her all you like, nutterWhere's this proof of her sowing anything? And seeing heads in buckets? the words of a kid showing hard faced bravado at what age?
As a kid/ teen, I said loads of things didn't bother me, but in private that couldn't be further from the truth. Didn't she say she hardly slept with regret in that vid?
She's, supposedly, been marching around with guns according to that vid, which she debunked citing Isis would never have allowed it... Unless they're more progressive than the Taliban with female inclusion...
You're speculating with no evidence of anything.
She was a kid, a stupid kid, ffs.
Bigga
Well-Known Member
You’re probably not being cynical enough. The country has a right to act in its own interest. Taking in Nazi scientists after the war was a benefit to the country, buying oil from Saudi Arabia and selling them weapons benefits this country, but this woman can offer nothing but trouble.
The government probably has intelligence reports but that’s not the same as the CPS having evidence it can bring before a court.
???
So, let me get this straight...
Murdering citizens and being involved in genocide is of less consequence of a mouthy, bolshie kid who had lost 3 children through illness and is regretful of her actions as a 15 year old?
Fucking hell, what has this world come to...?
Bigga
Well-Known Member
Stop reading quickly, she showed zero emotion in her interviews, she even said heads in buckets didnt bother her and the arena bombin was justified, you defend her all you like, nutter
Nobody said she'd not been a dick, so stop pearl clutching!
Angel Kaz, who has never said anything she's ever regretted.
And I'm the nutter...?
LOL!
journolud
Well-Known Member
You’re massively over simplifying what will be very complex psychological processes. Imagine we were having these conversations about 15 year old girls groomed in Rochdale and making apparent choicesStop reading quickly, she showed zero emotion in her interviews, she even said heads in buckets didnt bother her and the arena bombin was justified, you defend her all you like, nutter
For a start, she has likely been involved in genocide of ethnic groups slaughtered by IS,at least indirectly, so there’s not much of a moral gap between her a those who worked in the Nazi regime. I give no weight to her expressions of regret which are transparently self serving.???
So, let me get this straight...
Murdering citizens and being involved in genocide is of less consequence of a mouthy, bolshie kid who had lost 3 children through illness and is regretful of her actions as a 15 year old?
Fucking hell, what has this world come to...?
More to the point, it’s not a moral question but a practical one. Governments should make decisions that are in the interests of their people.
The other examples you gave were of cases which provide a clear benefit to the country (scientific advances, oil, money).
This woman would bring no benefit, and at best would cost a fortune to keep an eye on with round the clock surveillance. At worst she would manage to evade the security services and bring death and suffering, like her fellow members of IS did in Syria.
Bigga
Well-Known Member
For a start, she has likely been involved in genocide of ethnic groups slaughtered by IS,at least indirectly, so there’s not much of a moral gap between her a those who worked in the Nazi regime. I give no weight to her expressions of regret which are transparently self serving.
More to the point, it’s not a moral question but a practical one. Governments should make decisions that are in the interests of their people.
The other examples you gave were of cases which provide a clear benefit to the country (scientific advances, oil, money).
This woman would bring no benefit, and at best would cost a fortune to keep an eye on with round the clock surveillance. At worst she would manage to evade the security services and bring death and suffering, like her fellow members of IS did in Syria.
LOL!
Oh... You were being serious with this post?
I keep reading the word "likely" by many posters. Since when was this a measure of proof of anything?? I take it you've been as unforgiving and as determined to any friends or family that have said mean things and apologised for their own "self serving" interests, mm?
So, because there's no actual evidence of her being this "terrorist" besides a few silly statements she put out and she's not bringing in any Nazi talent, blood money or oil, she can just 'rot'.
She has even offered to stand a fair trial and pay the consequences... Which is more than your useful Nazis, at the very least.
Is... Have I got that right?
Honestly...
As I’ve acknowledged there is no evidence, that’s why there will be no trial. What ever she has said on that is an empty gesture as she is smart enough to know no legal process would be possible in the UK.LOL!
Oh... You were being serious with this post?
I keep reading the word "likely" by many posters. Since when was this a measure of proof of anything?? I take it you've been as unforgiving and as determined to any friends or family that have said mean things and apologised for their own "self serving" interests, mm?
So, because there's no actual evidence of her being this "terrorist" besides a few silly statements she put out and she's not bringing in any Nazi talent, blood money or oil, she can just 'rot'.
She has even offered to stand a fair trial and pay the consequences... Which is more than your useful Nazis, at the very least.
Is... Have I got that right?
Honestly...
My use of ‘likely’ was a simple colloquialism, nothing more. It was based on the nature of IS. I find it hard to believe evil on such scale was the work of isolated individuals. However, neither of us really have a clue what she got up to, and there’ll certainly never be any legally admissible evidence available here in the UK.
None of my friends have joined murderous terrorist regimes or crowed about how murder of children is justified, I pick my friends more carefully than that... and I certainly wouldn’t forgive them if they did.
She can do what she likes, if that’s to ‘rot’, then fine. She’s not the UK’s problem any longer. The government has taken a decision in the national interest, as is their right. Why would the government decide to give her citizenship now? She hardly strikes me as a deserving case.
The worst of the Nazi’s were put on trial and executed, but the circumstances were very different. Legal processes were possible because their country had been occupied and witnesses and physical evidence was available. I don’t really see it as a particularly useful parallel.
The Future’s Blue!
Well-Known Member
- Joined
- 17 Dec 2019
- Messages
- 13,571
- Team supported
- City
Does she deserve to be allowed back?
PannickAtTheDisco
Well-Known Member
No.Does she deserve to be allowed back?
Bigga
Well-Known Member
As I’ve acknowledged there is no evidence, that’s why there will be no trial. What ever she has said on that is an empty gesture as she is smart enough to know no legal process would be possible in the UK.
My use of ‘likely’ was a simple colloquialism, nothing more. It was based on the nature of IS. I find it hard to believe evil on such scale was the work of isolated individuals. However, neither of us really have a clue what she got up to, and there’ll certainly never be any legally admissible evidence available here in the UK.
None of my friends have joined murderous terrorist regimes or crowed about how murder of children is justified, I pick my friends more carefully than that... and I certainly wouldn’t forgive them if they did.
She can do what she likes, if that’s to ‘rot’, then fine. She’s not the UK’s problem any longer. The government has taken a decision in the national interest, as is their right. Why would the government decide to give her citizenship now? She hardly strikes me as a deserving case.
The worst of the Nazi’s were put on trial and executed, but the circumstances were very different. Legal processes were possible because their country had been occupied and witnesses and physical evidence was available. I don’t really see it as a particularly useful parallel.
There's a lots of words there that have already been answered previously but, as for confirmation, I believe the Gov are in the wrong. Why? Because they are well aware of, at least, SOME legitimately questionable citizens that plot atrocities on this land (as we often hear how certain people were "on their radar" before tragedy strikes) that remain 'citizens' because they've not used silly words as a mouthy teen.
But, let me just finish with, I didn't know there were bad Nazis that deserved death and good Nazis that deserved life.
Oh and the "parallel" would be that the Gov decides who is a political asset and who is not.
You learn something new every day on BM...