ISI Fighter Shamima Begum Not allowed to return to the UK

end of the road

theguzman wrote: »

As a British Citizen she has the right to live and reside in Ireland, I wonder if she has tried our own shower of muppets, I'm sure they would send the Govt jet for her, mutter something about inclusivity and the Good Friday Agreement etc.

it's only british citizens from northern ireland entitled to irish citizenship from what i understand.
she is not entitled to irish citizenship as she is not from northern ireland.
thankfully.

CtevenSrowder wrote: »

She was 15 when she traveled halfway across the World to join an international terrorist organization, that was well documented as to being committing atrocities at the time. This wasn't some silly teenage mistake.

You make it sound like she drank a naggin to quick and got sick on her parents carpet.

correct, it wasn't some silly teenage mistake, it was as serious as it gets.
but the fact she was a child when she went to join isis still remains fact, and while she would be responsible once she reaches adult hood for anything she did after that, before hand there are different rules.
syria is not interested in trying foreign fighters so their law isn't going to apply because they want nothing to do with them as they are not from there.

Rodney Bathgate wrote: »

She belongs to ISIS now. Not Britain.

isis no longer really exists thankfully, and when it did it was quite rightly not recognised as anything other then a bunch of violent head choppers.
she does not and never did belong to them given they aren't a state or an anything.

irishproduce

alchemist33 wrote: »

Still no answer as to why Bangladesh should take her? I'm really curious

I'd assume because she is just one step removed from a long lineage of Bangladeshi heritage. She was born in UK but her family are Bangladesh citizens. They could apply for citizenship for her from their homeland.

Rodney Bathgate

end of the road wrote: »

it's only british citizens from northern ireland entitled to irish citizenship from what i understand.
she is not entitled to irish citizenship as she is not from northern ireland.
thankfully.




correct, it wasn't some silly teenage mistake, it was as serious as it gets.
but the fact she was a child when she went to join isis still remains fact, and while she would be responsible once she reaches adult hood for anything she did after that, before hand there are different rules.
syria is not interested in trying foreign fighters so their law isn't going to apply because they want nothing to do with them as they are not from there.




isis no longer really exists thankfully, and when it did it was quite rightly not recognised as anything other then a bunch of violent head choppers.
she does not and never did belong to them given they aren't a state or an anything.

She swore allegiance to them. She ‘belongs’ to them (to use your strange parlance.)

I wonder what her feelings would be if Islamic State didn't have their asses handed to them?

end of the road

end of the road wrote: »

isis no longer really exists thankfully.

Don't be so sure. Not being snarky but look beyond rte.ie/ news. and look on middle east new sites.

E mac

washman3 wrote: »

Worth remembering that this line/excuse was totally disregarded at the Nuremberg trials, and rightly so.
Each and every one of them knew exactly what they were doing.:mad:

Of course they knew what was going on! The excuse though is one used by the few still living who were brought to trial in the last few years.

Gatling

Send in a taskforce are you British anyone that says yes shoot them there and then the rest will be quick enough to deny they are British ,
Someone mentioned the Nuremberg trials , the majority of those who were given Life sentences were all released from prison in under 10 years and they went back to a normal life ,
And we now have a rising far right and push for European States to return to put their states first , allowing of theses scumbags to return to their countries they volenteered to leave to join a death cult like isis will lead for further problems and risks to state securities .

Remove the risk and make it known this is how you will be dealt with if you run off to join a terror group

kildare lad

SouthWesterly wrote: »

I'm of the opinion that at 15 she can't be held responsible for her actions. Show me a 15 year old that's not impressionable.

I was a teenager once and agree about your impressionable point , but you'd have to be a special type of idiot to see what ISIS were doing and decide to leave your home and join them

Danzy

Deleted User wrote: »

I wonder what her feelings would be if Islamic State didn't have their asses handed to them?

She stands by them still.

For many on the modern left her "nuanced" views on Jews are appealing and she is solidly anti Western, which they see as anti Capitalist.

Danzy

SouthWesterly wrote: »

I'm of the opinion that at 15 she can't be held responsible for her actions. Show me a 15 year old that's not impressionable.

Did you participate in a genocidal movement which also specialized in mass murder of gays etc etc.

end of the road

Rodney Bathgate wrote: »

She swore allegiance to them. She ‘belongs’ to them (to use your strange parlance.)

isis is not a state or a legitimate army or country, it is quite rightly not recognised as anything other then a terrorist group.
so the fact she swore allegiance to them while meaningful to isis, means nothing in the real world as you can't sware anything to something unrecognised apart from in the head of the person doing the swaring and the group they are swaring to.

Rodney Bathgate

I hear the UK Labour Party are lining her up to be the next MP for Bethnal Green and Bow.

Danzy

Odhinn wrote: »

A rather harsh view, given that she was but 15 years when she went off.

Given your uncomfortable history here of posting on Jews, is it not possible that you are favouring her for her militant commitment to fight them.

It wasn't a run away summer with the circus, she joined a movement that recruited by showing genocidal acts.

Rodney Bathgate

end of the road wrote: »

isis is not a state or a legitimate army or country, it is quite rightly not recognised as anything other then a terrorist group.
so the fact she swore allegiance to them while meaningful to isis, means nothing in the real world as you can't sware anything to something unrecognised apart from in the head of the person doing the swaring and the group they are swaring to.

So swearing allegiance to a terrorist organisation ‘means nothing in the real the world’?

Are you being serious or are you trolling?

end of the road

Gatling wrote: »

Send in a taskforce are you British anyone that says yes shoot them there and then the rest will be quick enough to deny they are British ,
Someone mentioned the Nuremberg trials , the majority of those who were given Life sentences were all released from prison in under 10 years and they went back to a normal life ,
And we now have a rising far right and push for European States to return to put their states first , allowing of theses scumbags to return to their countries they volenteered to leave to join a death cult like isis will lead for further problems and risks to state securities .

Remove the risk and make it known this is how you will be dealt with if you run off to join a terror group

all of that can be dealt with by simply changing the laws to implement actual life sentences with a very high minimum term for anyone part of a terrorist group.
that's the only way to remove the risk, they are an even greater risk where they are then locked up back in their home countries.

kildare lad wrote: »

I was a teenager once and agree about your impressionable point , but you'd have to be a special type of idiot to see what ISIS were doing and decide to leave your home and join them

certainly, dum as fcuk would be a more appropriate description.
still though the grooming of children to join organisations like this is a serious matter and i think every country needs to get to grips with it.

Danzy wrote: »

She stands by them still.

For many on the modern left her "nuanced" views on Jews are appealing and she is solidly anti Western, which they see as anti Capitalist.

really?
perhapse there are small pockets of very hard left who would agree with such views but they certainly aren't main stream thankfully.

Gatling

end of the road wrote: »

so the fact she swore allegiance to them while meaningful to isis, means nothing in the real world

She's a terrorist and an enemy of the state thats what it means in the real world ,she's s threat and always will be a threat ,

Stop with the excuses

end of the road

Danzy wrote: »

Did you participate in a genocidal movement which also specialized in mass murder of gays etc etc.

Maybe don't answer, even if you just fantasized about it.

to be fair that doesn't make any difference to their point.
in other conflicts the use of children as soldiers/fighters would be recognised exactly for what it is and dealt with appropriately.
however because it's an islamic terror group then the norms go out the window dispite the fact there is no difference in their behaviour apart from the motivation for that behaviour.

Danzy wrote: »

Given your uncomfortable history here of posting on Jews, is it not possible that you are favouring her for her militant commitment to fight them.

It wasn't a run away summer with the circus, she joined a movement that recruited by showing genocidal acts.

you mean his history of posting calling out israel for it's behaviour?
that's not posting on jews, as israel doesn't represent jewdaeism or jews as a whole, jews not being a hive mind that all think and feel the same, have the same exact political beliefs etc.

Rodney Bathgate wrote: »

So swearing allegiance to a terrorist organisation ‘means nothing in the real the world’?

Are you being serious or are you trolling?

i'm deadly serious.
the terrorist group is just a terrorist group and has laws and all else to deal with it.
so someone swearing allegiance to it is just them swaring allegiance to it, but realistically they are swaring allegiance to an illegal organisation that is not recognised as anything other then that.
she is essentially swaring allegiance to a cult all be it one that has violence at the heart and centre of it's existence.

end of the road

Gatling wrote: »

She's a terrorist and an enemy of the state thats what it means in the real world ,she's s threat and always will be a threat ,

Stop with the excuses

which excuses would these be?
she is a threat yes but her home nation seems to want her to be effectively free to do what she likes for some strange reason.
normally someone who is a threat to the public would be locked up where they belong, this one is and should be no different.

jam_mac_jam

While yes she was probably groomed and probably very stupid to go over at 15. She is now 21 and has no regrets about what she did.

How much excuses can you make for youth. The women of ISIS were involved in the morality police of ISIS which she is also alleged to have been involved with.

Two of her kids died. I can only imagine what she witnessed and she still doesn't regret joining.

I'm sorry that sounds like a monster to me. If she acknowledged her crimes, or showed remorse then maybe you could say oh she was fooled, she was only 15. She isn't. She doesn't regret it.

These are stupid western women who don't know how good they have it dictating to Iraqi and Syrian women how to be muslims and how to act and helping their disgusting husbands with their sex slavery.

I might have a tiny bit of sympathy if she regretted what she did. Went over not knowing.

Gatling

end of the road wrote: »

to be fair that doesn't make any difference to their point.

Aren't you a Ra supporter .

Might explain the situation for supporting her being sent back then using the law to say lock her up and likely you will be calling for her to be released as well

Rodney Bathgate

end of the road wrote: »

to be fair that doesn't make any difference to their point.
in other conflicts the use of children as soldiers/fighters would be recognised exactly for what it is and dealt with appropriately.
however because it's an islamic terror group then the norms go out the window dispite the fact there is no difference in their behaviour apart from the motivation for that behaviour.







you mean his history of posting calling out israel for it's behaviour?
that's not posting on jews, as israel doesn't represent jewdaeism or jews as a whole, jews not being a hive mind that all think and feel the same, have the same exact political beliefs etc.







i'm deadly serious.
the terrorist group is just a terrorist group and has laws and all else to deal with it.
so someone swearing allegiance to it is just them swaring allegiance to it, but realistically they are swaring allegiance to an illegal organisation that is not recognised as anything other then that.
she is essentially swaring allegiance to a cult all be it one that has violence at the heart and centre of it's existence.

So swearing allegiance to a terrorist organisation ‘means nothing in the real the world’?

Is that a yes or a no?

end of the road

jam_mac_jam wrote: »

While yes she was probably groomed and probably very stupid to go over at 15. She is now 21 and has no regrets about what she did.

How much excuses can you make for youth. The women of ISIS were involved in the morality police of ISIS which she is also alleged to have been involved with.

Two of her kids died. I can only imagine what she witnessed and she still doesn't regret joining.

I'm sorry that sounds like a monster to me. If she acknowledged her crimes, or showed remorse then maybe you could say oh she was fooled, she was only 15. She isn't. She doesn't regret it.

These are stupid western women who don't know how good they have it dictating to Iraqi and Syrian women how to be muslims and how to act and helping their disgusting husbands with their sex slavery.

I might have a tiny bit of sympathy if she regretted what she did. Went over not knowing.

what she does now or did once she became an adult is a different issue, she is responsible ultimately for that and it needs to be dealt with appropriately.
the fact she was a child when she went out doesn't ultimately change regardless of what she thinks and feels now as it is an issue of itself that children were being groomed to join the murderous death cult.

Gatling wrote: »

Aren't you a Ra supporter .

Might explain the situation for supporting her being sent back then using the law to say lock her up and likely you will be calling for her to be released as well

yes i believe the IRA was a necessary response to the plight of the nationalist community in northern ireland and was the only way for them to gain their entitlements.
the IRA is a completely different situation to isis, for who there is no justification for their existence.
i would not be calling for any isis member's release under any circumstances.
i support her being sent back to where she belongs so as to uphold international law.
i support her being sent back so as to not allow bigger countries to start dumping problem citizens on smaller random countries, i support a country's ability to deport foreign terrorists back to their country of origin which the syrians should grow a back bone and do.

Rodney Bathgate wrote: »

So swearing allegiance to a terrorist organisation ‘means nothing in the real the world’?

Is that a yes or a no?

yes .
refusing to recognise isis (which is absolutely the right just and correct approach) means not recognising that one has sworn allegiance to them.
instead, we just recognise them as the criminals they are.

Rodney Bathgate

end of the road wrote: »

what she does now or did once she became an adult is a different issue, she is responsible ultimately for that and it needs to be dealt with appropriately.
the fact she was a child when she went out doesn't ultimately change regardless of what she thinks and feels now as it is an issue of itself that children were being groomed to join the murderous death cult.




yes i believe the IRA was a necessary response to the plight of the nationalist community in northern ireland and was the only way for them to gain their entitlements.
the IRA is a completely different situation to isis, for who there is no justification for their existence.
i would not be calling for any isis member's release under any circumstances.
i support her being sent back to where she belongs so as to uphold international law.
i support her being sent back so as to not allow bigger countries to start dumping problem citizens on smaller random countries, i support a country's ability to deport foreign terrorists back to their country of origin which the syrians should grow a back bone and do.








yes .
refusing to recognise isis (which is absolutely the right just and correct approach) means not recognising that one has sworn allegiance to them.
instead, we just recognise them as the criminals they are.

For **** sake.

dd973

The way the world is now you can leave Bangladesh or Somalia and your kids will be born in an ersatz Bangladesh or Somalia in East London or Birmingham. She may be nominally 'British', but what 'British' is can be another conversation in itself, there's White European English, Welsh and Scots who don't self identify as British but solely as those identities.

Would have been much simpler if the U.K broke up immediately after WW2, that way Irish reunification could have been smoother and there'd have been English, Welsh or Scottish passports, 'British' has been a trojan horse identity for mass immigration and the sort of situation like this one. Most English people would see Begum as Bangladeshi not British or English.

meathstevie

theguzman wrote: »

A Brexit Bonus if you will, even if Ireland decided to do similar to Lisa Smith etc. then the EU Court of Human Rights would just overrule any similar scenario here.

It’s not the EU court of Human Rights. The court set up by the European Convention on Human Rights and currently based in Strasbourg has nothing to do with the EU. There is overlap between the member states but that’s about it.

Anyway, still doesn’t change the fact that the Brits are probably right in saying that national security takes primacy over individual rights. It’s not like the UK was or is unwilling to hear her case. They just don’t want her physically in the country. That doesn’t prevent her legal representatives from arguing her case and taking instruction in this day and age.

John Doe1

Common sense prevails.

Islam is an incredibly toxic force in the world, unlike Christanity and other major religions, the vast majority of followers believe the Quar'an to be the actual word of God and actively encourages followers to proselytise.

There is no debate with the lessons taught it in, you follow or you are a non-person.

Individuals muslims (mostly the more middle class) can be intelligent, seemingly liberal in attitude and good tax-paying citizens but taken as a group, they are illiberal in the extreme and follow values anathema to western liberal thought going back to Ancient Greece.

Make no mistake, there are many muslims who might seem moderate to their non-muslim friends and co-workers who silently supported ISIS and this woman.

Guy:Incognito

Guy:Incognito wrote: »

Do the people supporting this also believe we should have to keep foreign terrorists who end up here if their countries decide they dont want them back?

The people who support this do not operate using reason and logic.

They let hysteria propel them.

Nqp15hhu

Good. Don’t want her in my country.

riffmongous

I'm surprised the UK don't see the danger for themselves here, if some other country decided to strip the citizenship of say anyone who fled and applied for asylum in the UK, there would be no way to deport failed applications anymore. There are good reasons legal reasons why you don't revoke citizenship, take them back and lock them up.

Eric Cartman

riffmongous wrote: »

I'm surprised the UK don't see the danger for themselves here, if some other country decided to strip the citizenship of say anyone who fled and applied for asylum in the UK, there would be no way to deport failed applications anymore. There are good reasons legal reasons why you don't revoke citizenship, take them back and lock them up.

Leaving terrorists like Begum stateless is not something thats going to concern me too much,

She has to face the consequences of her actions and should apply for asylum etc in some muslim country