Shamima Begum

[hammocity]

 

[Rascal]

You, unsurprisingly don't think she's a vicious woman.
This topic is in the politics thread, so it's telling who the ones are cheering on a jihadi, do you ever sit and wonder why you get rejected?

Who is cheering on Jihadi's?

 

[ZenHalfTimeCrock]

You know pal, you are far too brilliant for this forum. That is one of the best and most informative posts i have ever read on here. It is thought provoking, it is challenging, it is educating and its eloquent.

That's because you haven't seen me sitting in stained underpants watching Dinner Date on itvBe whilst eating a cream cake.

Thanks, though.

As far as Begum is concerned, I just wish I had the confidence that others have exhibited in this thread to act as judge and jury.

I am actually disinclined to be sympathetic and there's no evidence that anything approximating to brainwashing forms part of any radicalization process. But there are so many different aspects to her case that I am going to sit on the fence for now and and allow myself be guided by those who know a lot more about salafi-jihadism, radicalization and moral agency than I do.

 

[Rascal]

Such as?

Has she been shown to have been a member of the al-Khansaa brigade, for example?

I am unaware of any specific actions that have been attributed to her, beyond a lack of remorse and ideological support for ISIS.

Of course, even as a non-combatant, this might not exclude her from moral culpability.

In his older article on the Begum case that I linked to earlier, Shiraz Maher discusses this very issue (among other things) in the context of the wider problem of what to do about returning Salafi-jihadists. Here's the main section of it:

'The SDF [Syrian Democratic Forces] are technically a militia, operating as non-state actors without any legal or diplomatic standing. Western governments are reluctant to engage with them directly because of the difficulties in securing convictions against many of those who have been detained.

For all kinds of legal reasons, much of what is called “battlefield evidence” in this case would not be admissible in court, either falling short on evidential grounds or because of the manner in which it was obtained. We do not, for example, use intercept evidence in UK courts.

The result is that some repatriated British fighters could simply walk free once they return. Clearly, that is a situation no one wants. Another option is that they could be convicted of lesser crimes – but this poses problems of its own.

Convicted IS fighters will occupy a laudatory position within the prison estate, particularly among those convicted for domestic terrorism offences. They will also have an opportunity to use their experiences to radicalise those from the general inmate population and to educate them in any firearms or explosives proficiencies they may have acquired.

Beyond the fighters are those who travelled to Isis territory in non-combat roles. Although this applies mostly to women, there were also some men with disabilities from Western countries who made the journey but did not fight. This poses another dilemma. Is it merely a crime to have travelled to IS territory without actually engaging in combat?

Of course, those who voluntarily chose to travel did so out of ideological commitment and support for the group’s overarching worldview – that of the Caliphate it sought to construct. Throughout history, political scientists and historians have pointed towards what is now called “propaganda of the deed”, where an act is invested with a higher purpose than itself. It is, instead, an exemplar for others, where the conduct of one serves to inspire, motivate or, indeed, warn onlookers.

This is how the actions of non-combatant Isis migrants should be seen. Their decision to migrate served a distinct ideological purpose for both themselves and the group they elected to join. The unspoken corollary of their actions was to normalise something grotesquely abnormal – that of Isis’s state-building project.

Away from the images of ultra-violence, much of the group’s propaganda focused on the apparent banality of their enterprise: what made them extraordinary was just how ordinary they could be. Indeed, Begum references this very issue in her Times interview, remarking that life inside the de facto Isis capital, Raqqah, was “a very ordinary life.”

Begum is unusual in also stating that she does not regret joining Isis. Many of those now detained by the SDF are keen to profess their remorse and highlight the group’s shortcomings. Yet no such contrition was forthcoming when Isis enjoyed better times.

Research centres such as the one I lead at King’s College London (the International Centre for the Study of Radicalisation) archived millions of pieces of output from foreign fighters who cheered attacks in the West. When one occurred, they agitated for more. They celebrated the beheadings of Western hostages such as the American journalist James Foley. His death followed months of agonising torture, which included beatings and waterboarding. Foreign fighters mocked and belittled the sexual slavery of Yazidi women, the detention of their children, and murder of their menfolk.

In its reticence to repatriate these detainees, the British government is broadly reflecting public opinion in regard to both fighters and non-combatants. It is content to leave them in Syria for now and to allow the current limbo to persist. There is, quite understandably, little sympathy for those who freely elected to join Isis.

This does, however, lead to a much thornier issue – that of minors who were either taken to Syria by their parents or who were born there to British migrants. What becomes of them? Begum is currently nine months pregnant and is due to give birth at any moment, having already lost two children while in Syria.

There is a moral case to repatriate these children and to, perhaps, settle them with extended family members residing in the West. That is an option few would likely object to, but the challenges for the government remain nonetheless. If it is shown to be negotiating with the SDF to repatriate children, then pressure will grow to repatriate others too.

Similarly, some of the minors who were taken to Isis territory were taken as young adolescents at the start of their teens. They have now lived in Isis territory for a significant portion of their formative years. They will have invariably suffered combat stresses, seen horrific things, and been exposed to Isis’s ideology. A complex package of psychological and mental health support would be needed in these cases.

All this demonstrates just how complex and intractable the issue of detained fighters and non-combatant migrants within Syria has become. Here, as with so much else relating to the bitter Syrian conflict, there are neither easy nor quick solutions.'

Out of interest mate, have you had any contact with people who fought with the Kurds in Rojava?. Because i am sure a number of ex UK military went to fight alongside them.

It would be fascinating to know their perspective.

 

[lust overlord]

Who is cheering on Jihadi's?

No one.

Its just the physical embodiment of the daily mail having an imaginary war against the left.

 

[ZenHalfTimeCrock]

Who is cheering on Jihadi's?

Out of interest mate, have you had any contact with people who fought with the Kurds in Rojava?. Because i am sure a number of ex UK military went to fight alongside them.

It would be fascinating to know their perspective.

None whatsoever. The PKK and the Kurdish dimension to this is something that I know nothing about.

Just as an aside, when it comes to politics and political philosophy, the thinker who has most influenced the way in which I tend to look at things is the ancient Taoist anarchist Chuang Tzu a.k.a. ZhuangZi.

I am often reminded of this quotation from him when I unwisely venture into the Politics subforum on here:

'Great understanding is broad and unhurried; little understanding is cramped and busy. Great words are clear and limpid; little words are shrill and quarrelsome. In sleep, men's spirits go visiting; in waking hours, their bodies hustle. With everything they meet they become entangled. Day after day they use their minds in strife, sometimes grandiose, sometimes sly, sometimes petty. Their little fears are mean and trembly; their great fears are stunned and overwhelming. They bound off like an arrow or a crossbow pellet, certain that they are the arbiters of right and wrong. They cling to their position as though they had sworn before the gods, sure that they are holding on to victory. They fade like fall and winter - such is the way they dwindle day by day. They drown in what they do - you cannot make them turn back. They grow dark, as though sealed with seals - such are the excesses of their old age. And when their minds draw near to death, nothing can restore them to the light.'

 

[denislawsbackheel]

Bullshit.
Why oh why do the left consistently go against the overwhelming majority of the populace? This woman has been involved, with her thankfully, now dead siblings, with the most brutal, medieval practices known, yet the first thing you do is leap to her defence, with mealy mouthed excuses about future possible radicalisation. What on earth do you mean by 'If there is evidence? She IS radicalised, nobody has the faintest clue if she came back, if she wouldn't immediately join with others of her ilk and start the same evil practices all over again. We also have neither the time, money or desire to be spending millions 'De Radicalising' her or any other Jihadi nutters or putting god knows how many coppers on her case to watch her for evermore.
As usual, you're wrong, the supreme court says your wrong, and anyone lobbying for this kind of filth to return and us to be accepting of it is to be ignored.

I have no sympathy for Begum but What a nasty **** you are!

 

[Ifwecouldjust.......]

Remember that we banned Dan Roan after he misrepresented an interview with Vieira? And Sky's disgusting reporting of Sterling's gun tattoo, where they put a word he hadn't said into their story?

I'm not defending her or her views. But taking away her citizenship, as a person born and brought up here, can't be done if that would render her stateless. This hearing was about her right to appeal in person about that decision, not upholding the loss of citizenship.

I'm not a lawyer but I'd be surprised if, when she does finally appeal the loss of her status, albeit remotely, that the court doesn't find in her favour. Then those pesky 'do-gooder lawyers' will get the blame again, for the heinous act of upholding the law of the land.

Not just the law of the land ... but International Law.

 

[west didsblue]

I have no sympathy for Begum but What a nasty **** you are!

I don’t think he can understand the fact that irrespective of anyone’s views on Begum, there is an international law aspect to this that is being deliberately conflated by some with sympathy for her. Actually he probably does understand and is one of those doing exactly that.

 

[domalino]

Above everything else, I keep coming back to the fact she's 21 years old.

The things she's seen in those 21 years. Conned into joining a terrorist state at 15, married 10 days later, achieved worldwide infamy and become a public enemy, seen and lived through the worst atrocities of ISIS and the war in Syria - maybe been involved in some of them. Lost both her friends, been married again and passed around when her husband died, seen other women beaten to death for trying to leave, had 3 children and seen them all die, now she's spent years in a refugee/internment camp.

21 years old. And what next? A massive international legal battle because the government has just decided to flout international law. When she does eventually come back she'll be one of ISIS's most wanted, probably live under some sort of protective custody when she gets out of prison. I can't see how she'll ever have any kind of life.