Wife of ISIS fighter wants to return to the UK

slowmart

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-47237051

mmm, is there even a decision to be made?

Nope, not shared of repentance, we think you are best suited living within the caliphate of extremism.

cooldad

This whole subject, whilst interesting, is moot. The girl is in Syria where we have no consular cover, and to get to a country where she could ask for help in being repatriated she would have to find her way across hostile territory and then across one of the most heavily policed borders in the world, without any paperwork. She might wish for all this to happen, and those who say she was a victim of online grooming whilst a 15 year old child may also wish this to happen, but the actuality is that there isn't any mechanism that could realistically bring these wishes to fruition. This discussion is hypothetical only.

robert88

Don't know a great deal about this but it seems that she is or was a supporter of extremism. I'd rather see a genuine asylum-seeker allowed to come in her place. I've a feeling she is a hard case.

Stevo_666

I'd rather not have to foot the jail bill for her.

Wayne Plunger

Stevo 666 wrote:

I'd rather not have to foot the jail bill for her.

Or the benefits which she would no doubt "be entitled" to for herself and her what will be three kids.

I expect some "human rights lawyer" will take the case to make a name for themselves.

Pross

Wayne Plunger wrote:

Stevo 666 wrote:

I'd rather not have to foot the jail bill for her.

Or the benefits which she would no doubt "be entitled" to for herself and her what will be three kids.

I expect some "human rights lawyer" will take the case to make a name for themselves.

I thought her first two children died due to malnutrition which is why she wants to come back to have this one?

For me the biggest issue is that in her own words she has no regrets. You would have thought she'd at least feign some remorse in an attempt to gain sympathy but she's basically saying she still supports ISIS and still expects to be allowed back.

Wayne Plunger

Pross wrote:

Wayne Plunger wrote:

Stevo 666 wrote:

I'd rather not have to foot the jail bill for her.

Or the benefits which she would no doubt "be entitled" to for herself and her what will be three kids.

I expect some "human rights lawyer" will take the case to make a name for themselves.

I thought her first two children died due to malnutrition which is why she wants to come back to have this one?

For me the biggest issue is that in her own words she has no regrets. You would have thought she'd at least feign some remorse in an attempt to gain sympathy but she's basically saying she still supports ISIS and still expects to be allowed back.

Apologies Pross, I did not know that about her first two kids, just saw the headline "third child".

bonzo_banana

I've got no sympathy for her. I dread to think what the so called wrong muslims have endured due to these sadists. I have empathy for everyone except those who have no empathy for others.

Matthewfalle

Wayne Plunger wrote:

Stevo 666 wrote:

I'd rather not have to foot the jail bill for her.

Or the benefits which she would no doubt "be entitled" to for herself and her what will be three kids.

I expect some "human rights lawyer" will take the case to make a name for themselves.

no. it would be one child. two died. no matter what you think of her, or this who situation, the fact that children are embroiled in all this and are dying due to it all is, in my eyes, kinda shyyt.

Matthewfalle

overall though - not a chance. she's a - as we say in the trade - jihadi lunatic.

#lunatic

Wayne Plunger

Matthewfalle wrote:

Wayne Plunger wrote:

Stevo 666 wrote:

I'd rather not have to foot the jail bill for her.

Or the benefits which she would no doubt "be entitled" to for herself and her what will be three kids.

I expect some "human rights lawyer" will take the case to make a name for themselves.

no. it would be one kid. two are dead.

Yes, have previously corrected that if you read the whole thread.

mr_goo

As has already been pointed out, she'll be back on these shores very soon courtesy of a human rights lawyer. Many others to follow.
The UK has proven a soft touch for returning IS fighters and others that have joined terrorist organisations. The government citing that it is more beneficial to have them enter closely monitored rehab programmes.
I'm not sure what's best but am extremely uncomfortable with those that express no remorse being allowed back.

Ben6899

We shouldn't be even entertaining facilitating her removal from the camp. Far too risky.

Jez mon

I would think that any outright criticism of ISIS whilst she was still in Syria would result in a quick disappearence? Definitely more worthy cases for our sympathy though

ayjaycee

I really don't know how true it is but I heard on the radio that if she wants to return to the UK, and does not hold dual nationality, there is little that we can do to stop her as it is a matter of international law. However, HMG does not have to do anything to facilitate that return and that is how it should be. Given what seems to be her total lack of regret (other than for her personal loss), if she does get back to the UK, she will only be a larger problem down stream, particularly if she goes to prison and is further radicalised. Again, I don't know what the law says about separating a birth mother from her child but if they stay together or have any future contact, the child will doubtless grow up being told that his/her father was a martyr etc. etc.

I come at this from the position of someone who has actually fought against those monsters (or, at least, monsters very like them and not in Syria) and has seen at first hand what they are capable of.

robert88

In the circumstances her child will not be born in the UK; the reporter who found her says she is nine months pregnant. The father is reportedly alive, a POW.

DeVlaeminck

As a British citizen I assume she has a right to return if she can get here. I don't think we should be assisting her return, we wouldn't do it for a male ISIS volunteer so why should a woman be different. If she does return she should be treated as any other less high profile ISIS volunteer - if that means being prosecuted then that happens.

Who knows what she thinks now. She's got to balance her safety over there with her future over here if she can get back - if saying ISIS are horrid gets her a bullet in the head the next day that may influence the words that have been reported.

I do have sympathy for anyone in a situation like her especially when they were (and still are) so young but not to the extent of being soft on her and putting us at risk by just writing off what they've done.

rjsterry

ayjaycee wrote:

I really don't know how true it is but I heard on the radio that if she wants to return to the UK, and does not hold dual nationality, there is little that we can do to stop her as it is a matter of international law. However, HMG does not have to do anything to facilitate that return and that is how it should be. Given what seems to be her total lack of regret (other than for her personal loss), if she does get back to the UK, she will only be a larger problem down stream, particularly if she goes to prison and is further radicalised. Again, I don't know what the law says about separating a birth mother from her child but if they stay together or have any future contact, the child will doubtless grow up being told that his/her father was a martyr etc. etc.

I come at this from the position of someone who has actually fought against those monsters (or, at least, monsters very like them and not in Syria) and has seen at first hand what they are capable of.

Not sure how much more radicalised she can become given that it only seems to be the lack of neo-natal facilities that are a problem for her.

As various people have stated it seems a practical impossibility to get her out of there anyway. As for her materially affecting the security situation in the UK if she were to return, I doubt it.

john80

We should welcome her back and maybe give her a job in the local nursery or school. I mean all that empathy with cut off heads in a bag not phasing her she has demonstrable skills for the caring sector. No but seriously whilst she was young when she left she was married to a ISIS fighter who held extremist views and was happy to support him with these views. What good comes from her returning.

The more worrying figure was that whilst 20% of the 700 or so that we know went are presumed dead around 300 are back and my worry is that whilst some of them will have seen ISIS for what they are and repented a good number will not. A group with a view that another group who do not share their views are inferior and therefore OK to be culled is not any different from the Nazis. If you don't believe in current UK law and common principles then maybe it is best for all concerned if you don't live here or are put up at her majesties pleasure.

Dorset_Boy

I'm sure there must be an uninhabited Outer Hebridean island she could be repatriated to, and she could be left there to fend for herself with no outside contact or assistance.
She's a terrorist and denounced all her rights to live in a western democracy when she went off to join IS.
In the words of Donald Tusk, hopefully there's a special place in hell for people like her.

However she will no doubt return to the UK at some point and receive benefits etc paid for by those who have 'bought in' to the concept of a western democracy.

capt_slog

I watched the documentary referred to in this article when it was first aired.

https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldn ... posed.html

It was both interesting and frightening. Would we get another recruiter working in the UK if she was allowed to return?

TheBigBean

Tough crowd.

If there is sufficient evidence she has broken the law then she should be prosecuted in the same way anyone else would be. If not, then she should be able to return to the UK.

imposter2.0

Dorset Boy wrote:

However she will no doubt return to the UK at some point and receive benefits etc paid for by those who have 'bought in' to the concept of a western democracy.

Sounds like you haven't "bought into the concept of a western democracy"..? If not, what exactly have you bought in to?

If she returns - which, like it or not, as a UK citizen she is entitled to do - she will likely be detained, questioned and probably charged and subsequently imprisoned, while her as yet unborn(?) child will probably be referred for adoption.

If you don't like the idea of democracy, what kind of national system of governance would you prefer?

haydenm

TheBigBean wrote:

Tough crowd.

If there is sufficient evidence she has broken the law then she should be prosecuted in the same way anyone else would be. If not, then she should be able to return to the UK.

Basically this. She is entitled to return as any other British citizen would. She is also liable to face arrest and prosecution for any crimes she may have committed, as any other British citizen would. She is either naive or knows this already and is sacrificing herself for her unborn child. She was also 15 when she left which is important in deciding whether she is a criminal or not. No doubt she will be monitored heavily whether we know about it or not

bonzo_banana

Dorset Boy wrote:

I'm sure there must be an uninhabited Outer Hebridean island she could be repatriated to, and she could be left there to fend for herself with no outside contact or assistance.
She's a terrorist and denounced all her rights to live in a western democracy when she went off to join IS.
In the words of Donald Tusk, hopefully there's a special place in hell for people like her.

However she will no doubt return to the UK at some point and receive benefits etc paid for by those who have 'bought in' to the concept of a western democracy.

My suggestion would be Anthrax Island.

Dorset_Boy

Imposter wrote:

Dorset Boy wrote:

However she will no doubt return to the UK at some point and receive benefits etc paid for by those who have 'bought in' to the concept of a western democracy.

Sounds like you haven't "bought into the concept of a western democracy"..? If not, what exactly have you bought in to?

If she returns - which, like it or not, as a UK citizen she is entitled to do - she will likely be detained, questioned and probably charged and subsequently imprisoned, while her as yet unborn(?) child will probably be referred for adoption.

If you don't like the idea of democracy, what kind of national system of governance would you prefer?

Really do not understand what you are saying Imposter.
It is questionable having chosen to leave the UK to join a terror state and terrorist organisation whether she has retained UK citizenship.
If she does return, then yes it is likely she will be imprisoned for a period, then released at which point she will probably fall into the benefit system, and be under surveillance for ever, all at the expense of other UK citizens.

imposter2.0

Dorset Boy wrote:

Imposter wrote:

Dorset Boy wrote:

However she will no doubt return to the UK at some point and receive benefits etc paid for by those who have 'bought in' to the concept of a western democracy.

Sounds like you haven't "bought into the concept of a western democracy"..? If not, what exactly have you bought in to?

If she returns - which, like it or not, as a UK citizen she is entitled to do - she will likely be detained, questioned and probably charged and subsequently imprisoned, while her as yet unborn(?) child will probably be referred for adoption.

If you don't like the idea of democracy, what kind of national system of governance would you prefer?

Really do not understand what you are saying Imposter.
It is questionable having chosen to leave the UK to join a terror state and terrorist organisation whether she has retained UK citizenship.
If she does return, then yes it is likely she will be imprisoned for a period, then released at which point she will probably fall into the benefit system, and be under surveillance for ever, all at the expense of other UK citizens.

It's against international law to render an individual as 'stateless', so you have to presume she is still a UK citizen. I've highlighted in bold the bit in your original post which I was questioning. Presumably you don't buy into it - otherwise why say it - and if you don't, what alternative are you proposing?

Re the 'benefits' thing - she won't be on benefits in if she's working. And yes, our taxes pay for national security (surveillance) and also the prison system. What's the alternative?

Dorset_Boy

Imposter, she and her ilk don't buy in to the concept of western democracy and so why should she expect to benefit from the safeguards it provides is what I was saying. Isis basically wish to murder anyone who does not share their distorted view of Islam, whether infadel or Muslim. she and the other radicals wish to destroy western democracy.

We shouldn't voluntarily add to the burden on other tax payers by housing such types. Personally I would stick them on a remote unconnected inhospitable island somewhere (hence my Outer Hebridean comment) rather than in one of our prisons!

Do you really think that she would be employable when eventually released from prison? I don't and therefore under the present system she would receive state benefits.

DeVlaeminck

Exactly (Imposter), if she can get back here she's a GB citizen and we can't just wash our hands of her. She has to be treated in accordance with the law with an eye on what is the best outcome for "us" but that might also be a good outcome for her.

So if we can be satisfied she is deradicalised then keeping the baby with the mother would be a win-win.

As an aside there was a piece on the BBC website yesterday where a former radical blamed his radicalisation on The Satanic Verses and white liberal's reaction to the fatwah issued over that. I thought what bo llocks that was - no fecker read the Satanic Verses anyway - take some personal responsibility for your own choices rather than blaming in his words liberal western society.

TheBigBean

Also, I have no idea what the law says, but residence in/travel to another country shouldn't ever be grounds for criminality in my view. Especially when the UK is not even at war with the country. It should be necessary to prove that she did something there that is subject to worldwide prosecution e.g. lopping off someone's head.

haydenm

Dorset Boy wrote:

Imposter, she and her ilk don't buy in to the concept of western democracy and so why should she expect to benefit from the safeguards it provides is what I was saying.

Because we have laws and rights for a reason whether we like it or not. She is a British citizen and will face trial if we think she has committed a crime.