Shamima Begum

This is a very good point.

I'm not saying she is innocent as there is no excuse for what she has done, but whoever is responsible for her being brainwashed is equally culpable.

British society in general would have played a big part.

It doesn't matter how big a percentage of people believe she shouldn't be allowed back, or how many think she should be publicly flogged.

She's was born and raised in Britain, she should be brought home and tried as such. Doesn't matter about people's feelings on what is an emotive topic.

It also sets a precedent about citizenship rights, and the possibility of stripping citizenship from anyone they can. Leaving the ECHR would embolden this policy and that should concern everyone.
 
I find this pathetic and disturbing that a young girl who was radicalised has been hung out to dry like this. She was born and raised in this country and should be treated the same as any other citizen. The fact that she is none white plays a huge part in all this, especially when you compare her with toe rags like Tommy 10 names who are seen by a hero by the same racist who hate on this girl.
 
British society in general would have played a big part.

It doesn't matter how big a percentage of people believe she shouldn't be allowed back, or how many think she should be publicly flogged.

She's was born and raised in Britain, she should be brought home and tried as such. Doesn't matter about people's feelings on what is an emotive topic.

It also sets a precedent about citizenship rights, and the possibility of stripping citizenship from anyone they can. Leaving the ECHR would embolden this policy and that should concern everyone.
I think most would be concerned that she may return to the U.K. and carry out a terrorist act.
Why should we take the risk.
What about the human rights of the poor innocents who have been slaughtered by the Group she was happy to align herself with when she was sewing suicide belts.
 
I find this pathetic and disturbing that a young girl who was radicalised has been hung out to dry like this. She was born and raised in this country and should be treated the same as any other citizen. The fact that she is none white plays a huge part in all this, especially when you compare her with toe rags like Tommy 10 names who are seen by a hero by the same racist who hate on this girl.
I was wondering when the easy cop out , the race card was going to be used.
I am afraid the colour of her skin has got absolutely nothing to do with it.
If she was old enough to understand radicalisation, she knew exactly what she was doing.
All the cunningness and deceit she used to get to a war zone.
She knew exactly what she was doing
 
The latest poll I could find says only 16% are in favour of her returning to the U.K.
Just shows how many on here have lost touch with the real world.
Just because a majority of people believe something does not necessarily make it correct, nor does it entail that they live in some kind of putative ‘real world’ that others who do not share their opinions are excluded from.

Additionally, a lot of assumptions that are made about terrorists and terrorism can be somewhat counter-intuitive. I have posted examples on here in the past taken from the specialist literature and quoted one or two authors at length.

What you can also almost certainly guarantee is that a substantial number of that 84% will never have looked at it and formed their views out of the ether.

This is understandable, though. We all do it, me especially, because our ethical judgements have been shown to get formed pretty much instantaneously and on the basis of emotion or ‘gut feelings’. The rationalisations and justifications are secondary. See Jonathan Haidt’s The Righteous Mind for more on this.

Anyway, as I have stated up thread, the ICSR are generally a good source for balanced, informed and empirically well grounded assessments of radicalism in its various manifestations. Their website is easy to locate and there are a wealth of studies to read.

Shiraz Maher (a prominent member) has previously written about the complexities of the Begum case. This is what an informed view looks like:

 
I was wondering when the easy cop out , the race card was going to be used.
I am afraid the colour of her skin has got absolutely nothing to do with it.
If she was old enough to understand radicalisation, she knew exactly what she was doing.
All the cunningness and deceit she used to get to a war zone.
She knew exactly what she was doing

You seem to have first hand knowledge of this case as you seem to have a level of certainty that someone who has only read newspaper articles shouldn't possess.

What does this even mean...?

If she understood it maybe she wouldn't have been taken in by the propaganda of a utopian society.

Did it ever cross your mind that some of the resourcefulness you think she possessed was due to being coached by the ISIS recruiters?
 
You seem to have first hand knowledge of this case as you seem to have a level of certainty that someone who has only read newspaper articles shouldn't possess.

What does this even mean...?

If she understood it maybe she wouldn't have been taken in by the propaganda of a utopian society.

Did it ever cross your mind that some of the resourcefulness you think she possessed was due to being coached by the ISIS recruiters?
I am sorry, but you sound like you have been on one of those courses yourself.
What do you mean "taken in by the propaganda of a utopian society"
It just sounds like meaningless gobbledygook
Do you honestly speak like that in every day life whilst your in company.
If she was coached by the ISIS recruiters that makes it even worse because it was not a spur of the moment thing.
 
I was wondering when the easy cop out , the race card was going to be used.
I am afraid the colour of her skin has got absolutely nothing to do with it.
If she was old enough to understand radicalisation, she knew exactly what she was doing.
All the cunningness and deceit she used to get to a war zone.
She knew exactly what she was doing

I have a 12 and 15 year daughters and to suggest that a 15 year old understands and know what radicalisation is pure and utter bollocks.

Unless you have some inside information on Ms Begum then you are talking out of your arse and its you who has been radicalised by the Fail and The Basket cased into believing this shite.

These terrorists groups are highly skilled in what they do the methods they use are proven and have radicalised older people than a 15 year old school girl. You only have to look across the pond and putting aside Putin the most dangerous man on the planet is about to be tried on the millions that he has radicalised to keep him in power.
 
British society in general would have played a big part.

It doesn't matter how big a percentage of people believe she shouldn't be allowed back, or how many think she should be publicly flogged.

She's was born and raised in Britain, she should be brought home and tried as such. Doesn't matter about people's feelings on what is an emotive topic.

It also sets a precedent about citizenship rights, and the possibility of stripping citizenship from anyone they can. Leaving the ECHR would embolden this policy and that should concern everyone.

If the Kurds want to put her on trial they should be putting her on trial, she allegedly committed the crimes there not here.
 
I was wondering when the easy cop out , the race card was going to be used.
I am afraid the colour of her skin has got absolutely nothing to do with it.
If she was old enough to understand radicalisation, she knew exactly what she was doing.
All the cunningness and deceit she used to get to a war zone.
She knew exactly what she was doing

The problem with this view (even though you could be right) is that what you are stating is unfalsifiable. Nothing - no words and acts of contrition, for example - could ever count against it, and may indeed be interpreted as further indications of someone's deviousness.

On the other hand, if we were to take those selfsame words and acts at face value, we might be incorrect to do so.

A good example is the famous case of Leopold and Loeb, who were both guilty of the horrendous and premeditated murder of a teenage boy for the most heinous of motives.


The section on Leopold's post-prison years is instructive. Perhaps it demonstrates that people who do the very worst things can lift themselves out of a moral sewer by their subsequent actions.

However, it may also be possible to summon up arguments in support of the view that what Leopold did was so beyond the pale that he should have received the death penalty. Clarence Darrow, the famous defence attorney - successfully and famously argued against that position, though.

Another factor to consider is that there is a world of difference between the brain of a 15 year old adolescent and that of a fully developed adult:

"It doesn’t matter how smart teens are or how well they scored on the SAT or ACT. Good judgment isn’t something they can excel in, at least not yet.

The rational part of a teen’s brain isn’t fully developed and won’t be until age 25 or so.

In fact, recent research has found that adult and teen brains work differently. Adults think with the prefrontal cortex, the brain’s rational part. This is the part of the brain that responds to situations with good judgment and an awareness of long-term consequences. Teens process information with the amygdala. This is the emotional part.

In teens' brains, the connections between the emotional part of the brain and the decision-making center are still developing—and not always at the same rate. That’s why when teens have overwhelming emotional input, they can’t explain later what they were thinking. They weren’t thinking as much as they were feeling."


Here is a link to the full article that I have just quoted from:

www.urmc.rochester.edu/encyclopedia/content.aspx?ContentTypeID=1&ContentID=3051#:~:text=The%20rational%20part%20of%20a,cortex%2C%20the%20brain's%20rational%20part.

One last thing that I worry about when I read your posts is a lack of epistemic humility that I detect in them.

The only way to know for sure whether Begum knew what she was doing would be if we had knowledge of other minds.

But none of us possess this ability.
 
Just because a majority of people believe something does not necessarily make it correct, nor does it entail that they live in some kind of putative ‘real world’ that others who do not share their opinions are excluded from.

Additionally, a lot of assumptions that are made about terrorists and terrorism can be somewhat counter-intuitive. I have posted examples on here in the past taken from the specialist literature and quoted one or two authors at length.

What you can also almost certainly guarantee is that a substantial number of that 84% will never have looked at it and formed their views out of the ether.

This is understandable, though. We all do it, me especially, because our ethical judgements have been shown to get formed pretty much instantaneously and on the basis of emotion or ‘gut feelings’. The rationalisations and justifications are secondary. See Jonathan Haidt’s The Righteous Mind for more on this.

Anyway, as I have stated up thread, the ICSR are generally a good source for balanced, informed and empirically well grounded assessments of radicalism in its various manifestations. Their website is easy to locate and there are a wealth of studies to read.

Shiraz Maher (a prominent member) has previously written about the complexities of the Begum case. This is what an informed view looks like:

Well sometimes , instead of applying the Queensbury Rules its better to use the motto if you cant beat them join them.
As she clearly has no morals there's no complexities involved in this case.
Having seen the latest pictures where she appears to have become very westernised with sunglasses on her head and no head scarf and, she looked the picture of health
If she has truly seen the light she will do more good spending her time with the other kids in the camp explaining that terrorism/radicalisation is not the solution.
 
Which government would oversea that then? Turkey,Iraq,Iran or Syria?

Either one of those would be more suited, she didn't commit the crimes over here. Why are we interfering with due process?

She should be found innocent or guilty over there not over here.

 
Two years ago you say.
Just shows how some on here are still living in the past...
Unfortunately its no longer front page headlines so if you can find higher statistics in her favour I will eat my hat along with an earlier poster.
 
I am sorry, but you sound like you have been on one of those courses yourself.
What do you mean "taken in by the propaganda of a utopian society"
It just sounds like meaningless gobbledygook
Do you honestly speak like that in every day life whilst your in company.
If she was coached by the ISIS recruiters that makes it even worse because it was not a spur of the moment thing.

You might want to try reading a book that wasn't assigned to you on a business management course.


C minus. Poor trolling effort.
 
The problem with this view (even though you could be right) is that what you are stating is unfalsifiable. Nothing - no words and acts of contrition, for example - could ever count against it, and may indeed be interpreted as further indications of someone's deviousness.

On the other hand, if we were to take those selfsame words and acts at face value, we might be incorrect to do so.

A good example is the famous case of Leopold and Loeb, who were both guilty of the horrendous and premeditated murder of a teenage boy for the most heinous of motives.


The section on Leopold's post-prison years is instructive. Perhaps it demonstrates that people who do the very worst things can lift themselves out of a moral sewer by their subsequent actions.

However, it may also be possible to summon up arguments in support of the view that what Leopold did was so beyond the pale that he should have received the death penalty. Clarence Darrow, the famous defence attorney - successfully and famously argued against that position, though.

Another factor to consider is that there is a world of difference between the brain of a 15 year old adolescent and that of a fully developed adult:

"It doesn’t matter how smart teens are or how well they scored on the SAT or ACT. Good judgment isn’t something they can excel in, at least not yet.

The rational part of a teen’s brain isn’t fully developed and won’t be until age 25 or so.

In fact, recent research has found that adult and teen brains work differently. Adults think with the prefrontal cortex, the brain’s rational part. This is the part of the brain that responds to situations with good judgment and an awareness of long-term consequences. Teens process information with the amygdala. This is the emotional part.

In teens' brains, the connections between the emotional part of the brain and the decision-making center are still developing—and not always at the same rate. That’s why when teens have overwhelming emotional input, they can’t explain later what they were thinking. They weren’t thinking as much as they were feeling."


Here is a link to the full article that I have just quoted from:

www.urmc.rochester.edu/encyclopedia/content.aspx?ContentTypeID=1&ContentID=3051#:~:text=The%20rational%20part%20of%20a,cortex%2C%20the%20brain's%20rational%20part.

One last thing that I worry about when I read your posts is a lack of epistemic humility that I detect in them.

The only way to know for sure whether Begum knew what she was doing would be if we had knowledge of other minds.

But none of us possess this ability.
you will be asking for the level of criminal responsibility to be raised to 25 next on the basis that there brain isn't fully developed.
I am sorry but when I read that line your points lost all credibility.
If, by leaving her where she i,s acts as a deterrent to others doing similar then that's fine by me
 
Either one of those would be more suited, she didn't commit the crimes over here. Why are we interfering with due process?

She should be found innocent or guilty over there not over here.


So is joining a terror group legal in the UK would that not be classed as committing a crime over here?

Rojava isn't formally recognised so I'm not sure how the trial would work.
 
So is joining a terror group legal in the UK would that not be classed as committing a crime over here?

Rojava isn't formally recognised so I'm not sure how the trial would work.

Well they want to put her on trial by the looks of it, and that's fine by me. Either way she's not even a British citizen so she wont be tried over here.
 
You might want to try reading a book that wasn't assigned to you on a business management course.


C minus. Poor trolling effort.
You are now arguing against yourself.
You initially said she may have been recruited
Then you post an article that says it was her doing the recruiting!!!
Hardly a good point to raise that she didn't know what she was doing
 

Don't have an account? Register now and see fewer ads!

SIGN UP
Back
Top