Shamima Begum

bumbleblue said:
What happened to the other two girls she originally left with?
Click to expand...
Dead, killed by American air strike. I'm surprised the handwringers haven't
gone after the Yanks, screaming about imperialists and warmongers, and
posted more diatribes about socialist philosophy, but it's still early days.
Apparently though, one of them may be alive, she was happily wed to one of these jolly Jihadis, an Aussie, so must have been Ok with the rapey side of things. He was also sadly slotted, another dreadful murderous act that we need to be ashamed of, but she loves the life over there and decided to stay.
 
bluethrunthru said:
Given that the UK post war elected the Labour Govt, that the British people accepted not only the likes of Polish, Czech and French nationals who chose to stay here after hostilities ceased they also were sanguine about Italian and German POW's who ( unlike Begum ) had fought against us and were captured on the battlefield whilst engaged in armed opposition but wanted to stay here and were welcomed my guess is they would be bewildered why we have such a right wing government that is so anti Europe them having spent 6 years liberating it and why a British citizen - a young woman - was stripped of her citizen ship and rights to a fair trial by the Government in question.
Particularly when we tried and hanged William Joyce for treason insisting he was a British citizen when he lied to obtain a British passport.
Click to expand...
Well seeing that your views of the British public have been laced with calling
them every name under the sun for never adopting your views, I think you'd find that they'd view your view of this situation with the same disdain.
 
Vic said:
What's the evidence that they could challenge? The assessment is "She might do this." The only evidence against is "No she wouldn't". The SC said as much. The state says she is a security risk, and because the state says she is a security risk, she can't come to the UK to give evidence that might prove she isn't.

I understand the lack of sympathy, but worry that people can't see that it's an unfortunate precedent. I guess some people actually cheer the hostile environment and policies that led to the Windrush scandal, and some wouldn't want any war refugee here, let alone one with her background (whether "victim" or "perpetrator").
Click to expand...
Emotives like your last paragraph are wrong because she is not a war refugee, she is not part of the windrush generation and she is not some innocent who has been mistreated. She chose to goto Syria to marry an ISIS terrorist, ISIS were subsequently defeated and now she remains detained by Kurdish forces essentially as an enemy combatant whilst her husband is in a Kurd prison.

Had ISIS not been defeated in Syria then he and she would still be out there cutting peoples heads off and expressing an ideology that is completely inhuman. She's pretty lucky to be alive given her other mates were all killed. However, now she wants to come home to plead for her human rights, be imprisoned at the taxpayers expense and rejoin the society she rejected because it was all a big mistake? Do me a favour.

I completely understand and accept any argument that she was too young at the time etc but she has an army of lawyers at her disposal to argue that case. It's unfortunate for her but that is a consequence not of her treatment but of her really poor choices.

I don't think it sets any precedent other than to say the consequences of joining a death cult and waging war against your country should be appropriately severe.
 
Last edited:
ISIS was the working definition of "Queen's enemy without the realm". Any British citizen who adhered to them was, IMHO, guilty of high treason. Just like Lord Haw-Haw was. The age of criminal responsibility is 10 years old.

What amazes me is that many of these ISIS fans have been allowed to come home without consequences. They should all have been banged up, simply for their adherence.

Mind you, I am Left, not liberal. I don't see how it is in the interests of the people to tolerate murderous outfits like ISIS, which made Adolf or Joe Stalin seem relatively humane by comparison.
 
Fode N The Hole said:
Fair enough, that's a balanced view. Nobody would defend some of ger reported views although from what I could tell most of what she said was only after prompting from the press. From reading that article the comments about the heads in bins seems to reflect a mind radicalised by propaganda- claims that they would victimise Muslim women. But then if that is the case why was she taken captive and not subject to this?

We also can't discount that she may have been rationalising her abhorrent views about terrorist events under duress of circumstances i. e. there may be loyalist elements in the camps who would dole out punishments for things like apologising. I linked an article about beheadings in one camp, and her lawyer told the court she would be at risk of physical harm from people in the camp if she spoke by mobile phone to her British lawyers.
Click to expand...
She's been moved to a different camp because other ISIS women think she's a traitor, and she was at risk. Don't forget trying to leave ISIS was deserving of death in the caliphate, so what she says to anyone might be tailored to where she is, or where she wants to be.
 
Churchlawtonblue said:
Probably significantly less than 1% of the population think she should be allowed back in the UK. Thats all you need to know about her requests. Her case shouldnt even be promoted by the media as front page news as it isnt.
Click to expand...
Scotland Yard terrorist analysts and experts aren’t part of that >1% neither. They agree with the court ruling.
 
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.