Shamima Begum

You know, you're right.

I shouldn't have said she was conned, because actually she was groomed and sex trafficked as a child.

Thats the actual, factual definition of what happened. She was contacted by an older woman online who's job it was to groom new children to join ISIS and after being convinced that what she was doing was right because she was a stupid, gullible child, she was trafficked and raped and married to an adult when she was a 15 year old child.

Thats the factual definition of what happened.
FFS, no she wasn't. Her and her friends saw this shit online, thought it was cool and made their own arrangements with someone who knew how about how they could be smuggled into Syria where she could live the perfect life she'd already formed in her own head.

She was not groomed, she was not sex trafficked and to suggest so is a complete insult to the innocents who actually were sex trafficked as a result of the hideous regime that she supported and endorsed.
 
FFS, no she wasn't. Her and her friends saw this shit online, thought it was cool and made their own arrangements with someone who knew how about how they could be smuggled into Syria where she could live the perfect life she'd already formed in her own head.

She was not groomed, she was not sex trafficked and to suggest so is a complete insult to the innocents who actually were sex trafficked as a result of the hideous regime that she supported and endorsed.

Yes she was.

She was a child and was smuggled into another country to be raped and married off underage to ISIS soldiers as a reward.

This isn't even a debate. She was a child. She was groomed by an older woman online. She was smuggled into the country for sex.
 
Ah even better; a blogger and a BBC article are now experts of radicalisation.

If only MI5 would listen to them. I also like this snippet;

"Parsons Green bomber Ahmed Hassan had been enrolled in Prevent, but still went on to carry out his attack"

Whomp whomp.
No, offering a different view. At least you read them, what did you think of this bit from the "blog"

"Prominent voices such as Maajid Nawaz and Hanif Qadir who condemned the attacks, were themselves once involved in militant Islamist networks. Not only does this show it’s possible to walk away from extremism, it illustrates that former militants can be important in the fight against terrorism."

And why so dismissive of the sources, after all your opinion is only being expressed on a football forum.
 
Yes she was.

She was a child and was smuggled into another country to be raped and married off underage to ISIS soldiers as a reward.

This isn't even a debate. She was a child. She was groomed by an older woman online. She was smuggled into the country for sex.
I'm at a loss for words.

You honestly believe she is the victim here?
 
No, offering a different view. At least you read them, what did you think of this bit from the "blog"

"Prominent voices such as Maajid Nawaz and Hanif Qadir who condemned the attacks, were themselves once involved in militant Islamist networks. Not only does this show it’s possible to walk away from extremism, it illustrates that former militants can be important in the fight against terrorism."

And why so dismissive of the sources, after all your opinion is only being expressed on a football forum.
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.
 
I'm at a loss for words.

You honestly believe she is the victim here?

She absolutely was a victim of child sex trafficking when she was 15.

That doesn't give her a free pass to do whatever for the rest of her life or the rest of her time in ISIS, although it obviously can condition some of it.

The world is not black and white. She was a victim, she might also have committed some heinous crimes that she will have to face the consequences of when tried.
 
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.
If you say so, you feel very strongly about this but ascribe motivations and meanings to me that I haven't expressed.
 
Jon Venables was 10.

Your point?
What is your point? That because venables killed someone as a child the age of majority and consent shouldn't exist?

I dont see how Venables is relevant at all to whether a 15 year old can consent to being a sexual reward and married off to an adult.
 

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.