Wife of ISIS fighter wants to return to the UK

rjsterry

The other state - Bangladesh - says not.

kingstongraham

rjsterry wrote:

The other state - Bangladesh - says not.

Plus it's pretty snide to palm this problem off onto Bangladesh.

john80

KingstonGraham wrote:

rjsterry wrote:

The other state - Bangladesh - says not.

Plus it's pretty snide to palm this problem off onto Bangladesh.

Bangladesh did palm off a pretty average mum onto the UK following this logic. Maybe it is Karma. Give us a non westernised national and we will give you back a jihadi bride. Alternatively she can live under Assad. He seems a nice guy compared to ISIS.

kingstongraham

john80 wrote:

KingstonGraham wrote:

rjsterry wrote:

The other state - Bangladesh - says not.

Plus it's pretty snide to palm this problem off onto Bangladesh.

Bangladesh did palm off a pretty average mum onto the UK following this logic. Maybe it is Karma. Give us a non westernised national and we will give you back a jihadi bride. Alternatively she can live under Assad. He seems a nice guy compared to ISIS.

She was born in the UK, has never been to Bangladesh, and has never had Bangladeshi citizenship.

shirley_basso

I wonder what the responses would be if her skin colour was white?

slowbike

john80 wrote:

For 15 years she lived in the UK where a feminist agenda of equality is all around but yet chose to essentially marry someone she barely knew and live in a presumably sharia inspired way with essentially no equal rights. I think we have to look at the parents and others around her influencing her for some responsibility here. Maybe the parents should have a think about their world views and how this has assisted their daughters thinking. Maybe people should start to have some reflection on why these three girls came from the same school in the area of Bethnal Green where some well known extremists were allowed to spout hate and bigotry in an alternative language with little UK authority resistance.

And maybe people should think about consequences of their actions when they shout racial abuse at others.

You have to think about why she chose to go to the extreme - what was the appeal? Perhaps she believed that an all Muslim world would have less racial abuse and she'd be allowed to go about her daily life without wondering where the next insult was coming from?

Or perhaps you have to look more at why children from a seemingly stable home (teachers, vicars/rectors etc) "fall off the rails" - children don't always follow the way of their parents - so I don't think there's a simple way to point the finger ...

Just trying to balance out your seemingly onesided post placing the blame of the actions of this girl on the family...

rjsterry

john80 wrote:

For 15 years she lived in the UK where a feminist agenda of equality is all around...

This will be news to feminists in the UK.

Ben6899

john80 wrote:

KingstonGraham wrote:

rjsterry wrote:

The other state - Bangladesh - says not.

Plus it's pretty snide to palm this problem off onto Bangladesh.

Bangladesh did palm off a pretty average mum onto the UK following this logic. Maybe it is Karma. Give us a non westernised national and we will give you back a jihadi bride. Alternatively she can live under Assad. He seems a nice guy compared to ISIS.

Shamima Begum's mother?

I'm not sure I like what you're implying, John.

Matthewfalle

Ben6899 wrote:

john80 wrote:

KingstonGraham wrote:

rjsterry wrote:

The other state - Bangladesh - says not.

Plus it's pretty snide to palm this problem off onto Bangladesh.

Bangladesh did palm off a pretty average mum onto the UK following this logic. Maybe it is Karma. Give us a non westernised national and we will give you back a jihadi bride. Alternatively she can live under Assad. He seems a nice guy compared to ISIS.

Shamima Begum's mother?

I'm not sure I like what you're implying, John.

the MFs think that john may be a fan of yaxley - lennon.

rolf_f

john80 wrote:

The government has chosen a hard line approach to whether she is stateless or not as she technically has two nationalities that could be used. This is a perfectly valid use of the law from a government to suit the interests of the majority of the UK's population.

It's not a hard line approach - it's an illegal (and weak) approach.

And it doesn't "suit the interests of the majority of the UK's population" - it panders to the radicalised (by the Daily Mail) majorities tastes (ironic that the Daily Mail reader rants about Begum being easily radicalised whilst being entirely unaware of how they themselves have been radicalised by a newspaper - which is sort of the point) but in what way does the majority of the UK's population have any practical interest (as opposed to just being opinionated) in this issue?

FocusZing

One of the York sisters who lost her parents in the Manchester Arena attack has spoken of that terrible night in a moving television interview.

Alex, 21 and her sister Patrycia, 14, were due to be picked up by parents Angelika, 39, and Marcin, 42, after watching watching Ariana Grande in concert in 2017.

But their parents were two of the 22 people killed after a suicide bomber committed the atrocity.

Alex said Shamima and others like her shouldn’t be allowed back into Britain:

https://www.yorkmix.com/news/i-had-to-g ... interview/

Brave woman. I respect and agree with her view.

john80

Slowbike wrote:

john80 wrote:

For 15 years she lived in the UK where a feminist agenda of equality is all around but yet chose to essentially marry someone she barely knew and live in a presumably sharia inspired way with essentially no equal rights. I think we have to look at the parents and others around her influencing her for some responsibility here. Maybe the parents should have a think about their world views and how this has assisted their daughters thinking. Maybe people should start to have some reflection on why these three girls came from the same school in the area of Bethnal Green where some well known extremists were allowed to spout hate and bigotry in an alternative language with little UK authority resistance.

And maybe people should think about consequences of their actions when they shout racial abuse at others.

You have to think about why she chose to go to the extreme - what was the appeal? Perhaps she believed that an all Muslim world would have less racial abuse and she'd be allowed to go about her daily life without wondering where the next insult was coming from?

Or perhaps you have to look more at why children from a seemingly stable home (teachers, vicars/rectors etc) "fall off the rails" - children don't always follow the way of their parents - so I don't think there's a simple way to point the finger ...

Just trying to balance out your seemingly onesided post placing the blame of the actions of this girl on the family...

Not sure many children of teachers or vicars who go off the rails are joining terrorist groups whose ideology is inherently racist and then assisting with ethnic cleansing. They are mainly smoking weed and dossing with the occasional foray into hard drugs and the associated consequences of that choice. In all my time in Glasgow as a student I have never seen a drunk or someone high on drugs picking on an ethnic minority for their next fix. They were just interested in some cash and the white looking student or young professional is as good any anyone else. This girl had multiple points of social contact with Britain and its culture. Are you sure that it was people shouting racist abuse at her in the street that made her make this leap of faith to the Islamic state. You guys in London must be surrounded be a sea of racism.

imposter2.0

FocusZing wrote:

Alex said Shamima and others like her shouldn’t be allowed back into Britain:

Just read the article, and I don't see her suggesting an alternative...

Ben6899

john80 wrote:

You guys in London must be surrounded be a sea of racism.

Only when we go on forums.

john80

Rolf F wrote:

john80 wrote:

The government has chosen a hard line approach to whether she is stateless or not as she technically has two nationalities that could be used. This is a perfectly valid use of the law from a government to suit the interests of the majority of the UK's population.

It's not a hard line approach - it's an illegal (and weak) approach.

And it doesn't "suit the interests of the majority of the UK's population" - it panders to the radicalised (by the Daily Mail) majorities tastes (ironic that the Daily Mail reader rants about Begum being easily radicalised whilst being entirely unaware of how they themselves have been radicalised by a newspaper - which is sort of the point) but in what way does the majority of the UK's population have any practical interest (as opposed to just being opinionated) in this issue?

If the majority of the UK's populations interests are served by welcoming those home from Syria that will have killed or assisted the dying of people following a different ideology then make the case. I don't read the papers that you think radicalise people which is a pretty bold claim but believe in the UK's current law regarding equality and a base level of human rights. I would question whether any of these returning fighters or Jihadi brides share those views and therefore should be welcome in the UK. Having travelled the world I either complied with local societal norms, cultures and laws or I did not seek to enter the country. The women has no empathy to the 15000 bodies in mass graves attributed to ISIS. I personally would not like to live in a community with these people freely holding these views anymore than I would wish to live in a neighbourhood housing EDL supporters and there is your practical interest. You are either make it difficult for racists or you don't and this girl is fundamentally a racist as demonstrated through her actions and ideology.

shirley_basso

She didn't travel here. She was born, raised, educated and radicalised here.

slowbike

john80 wrote:

Slowbike wrote:

john80 wrote:

For 15 years she lived in the UK where a feminist agenda of equality is all around but yet chose to essentially marry someone she barely knew and live in a presumably sharia inspired way with essentially no equal rights. I think we have to look at the parents and others around her influencing her for some responsibility here. Maybe the parents should have a think about their world views and how this has assisted their daughters thinking. Maybe people should start to have some reflection on why these three girls came from the same school in the area of Bethnal Green where some well known extremists were allowed to spout hate and bigotry in an alternative language with little UK authority resistance.

And maybe people should think about consequences of their actions when they shout racial abuse at others.

You have to think about why she chose to go to the extreme - what was the appeal? Perhaps she believed that an all Muslim world would have less racial abuse and she'd be allowed to go about her daily life without wondering where the next insult was coming from?

Or perhaps you have to look more at why children from a seemingly stable home (teachers, vicars/rectors etc) "fall off the rails" - children don't always follow the way of their parents - so I don't think there's a simple way to point the finger ...

Just trying to balance out your seemingly onesided post placing the blame of the actions of this girl on the family...

Not sure many children of teachers or vicars who go off the rails are joining terrorist groups whose ideology is inherently racist and then assisting with ethnic cleansing. They are mainly smoking weed and dossing with the occasional foray into hard drugs and the associated consequences of that choice. In all my time in Glasgow as a student I have never seen a drunk or someone high on drugs picking on an ethnic minority for their next fix. They were just interested in some cash and the white looking student or young professional is as good any anyone else. This girl had multiple points of social contact with Britain and its culture. Are you sure that it was people shouting racist abuse at her in the street that made her make this leap of faith to the Islamic state. You guys in London must be surrounded be a sea of racism.

Point 1 - I'm not in London
Point 2 - your original post was onesided - seemingly just blaming the parents and extremists for the actions of a minor. All I was doing was pointing out that it's not always a PULL that affects people - often a PUSH from the otherside works too.

Pross

john80 wrote:

Not sure many children of teachers or vicars who go off the rails are joining terrorist groups whose ideology is inherently racist and then assisting with ethnic cleansing.

I'm not sure about children of teachers but BNP leader Adam Walker was a teacher himself if that helps and Nick Griffin was a Cambridge graduate so there are examples of middle class types who go off the rails and join groups that are inherently racist and support ethnic cleansing. Possibly not the answer you wanted though?

rjsterry

john80 wrote:

Rolf F wrote:

john80 wrote:

The government has chosen a hard line approach to whether she is stateless or not as she technically has two nationalities that could be used. This is a perfectly valid use of the law from a government to suit the interests of the majority of the UK's population.

It's not a hard line approach - it's an illegal (and weak) approach.

And it doesn't "suit the interests of the majority of the UK's population" - it panders to the radicalised (by the Daily Mail) majorities tastes (ironic that the Daily Mail reader rants about Begum being easily radicalised whilst being entirely unaware of how they themselves have been radicalised by a newspaper - which is sort of the point) but in what way does the majority of the UK's population have any practical interest (as opposed to just being opinionated) in this issue?

If the majority of the UK's populations interests are served by welcoming those home from Syria that will have killed or assisted the dying of people following a different ideology then make the case. I don't read the papers that you think radicalise people which is a pretty bold claim but believe in the UK's current law regarding equality and a base level of human rights. I would question whether any of these returning fighters or Jihadi brides share those views and therefore should be welcome in the UK. Having travelled the world I either complied with local societal norms, cultures and laws or I did not seek to enter the country. The women has no empathy to the 15000 bodies in mass graves attributed to ISIS. I personally would not like to live in a community with these people freely holding these views anymore than I would wish to live in a neighbourhood housing EDL supporters and there is your practical interest. You are either make it difficult for racists or you don't and this girl is fundamentally a racist as demonstrated through her actions and ideology.

Who said anything about welcoming? I think those that believe the UK should not revoke Begum's citizenship generally agree that on return she should be investigated and if necessary charged with any appropriate offences. While expensive, this stands a chance of retrieving useful intelligence and possibly through de-radicalisation, ending up with one less supporter of IS in the world. Dumping her in Syria will almost certainly lead to her staying radicalised, and now with one extra reason to hate. As for not wanting to live in a community with "these people" what makes you think you don't already?

Pross

I think we've got a replacement for Frank Wilson.

Jez mon

rjsterry wrote:

john80 wrote:

Rolf F wrote:

john80 wrote:

The government has chosen a hard line approach to whether she is stateless or not as she technically has two nationalities that could be used. This is a perfectly valid use of the law from a government to suit the interests of the majority of the UK's population.

It's not a hard line approach - it's an illegal (and weak) approach.

And it doesn't "suit the interests of the majority of the UK's population" - it panders to the radicalised (by the Daily Mail) majorities tastes (ironic that the Daily Mail reader rants about Begum being easily radicalised whilst being entirely unaware of how they themselves have been radicalised by a newspaper - which is sort of the point) but in what way does the majority of the UK's population have any practical interest (as opposed to just being opinionated) in this issue?

If the majority of the UK's populations interests are served by welcoming those home from Syria that will have killed or assisted the dying of people following a different ideology then make the case. I don't read the papers that you think radicalise people which is a pretty bold claim but believe in the UK's current law regarding equality and a base level of human rights. I would question whether any of these returning fighters or Jihadi brides share those views and therefore should be welcome in the UK. Having travelled the world I either complied with local societal norms, cultures and laws or I did not seek to enter the country. The women has no empathy to the 15000 bodies in mass graves attributed to ISIS. I personally would not like to live in a community with these people freely holding these views anymore than I would wish to live in a neighbourhood housing EDL supporters and there is your practical interest. You are either make it difficult for racists or you don't and this girl is fundamentally a racist as demonstrated through her actions and ideology.

Who said anything about welcoming? I think those that believe the UK should not revoke Begum's citizenship generally agree that on return she should be investigated and if necessary charged with any appropriate offences. While expensive, this stands a chance of retrieving useful intelligence and possibly through de-radicalisation, ending up with one less supporter of IS in the world. Dumping her in Syria will almost certainly lead to her staying radicalised, and now with one extra reason to hate. As for not wanting to live in a community with "these people" what makes you think you don't already?

Nah the right have built themselves a cosy little strawman that wants to welcome her home with open arms, give her a council flat and unlimited benefits.

john80

rjsterry wrote:

john80 wrote:

Rolf F wrote:

john80 wrote:

The government has chosen a hard line approach to whether she is stateless or not as she technically has two nationalities that could be used. This is a perfectly valid use of the law from a government to suit the interests of the majority of the UK's population.

It's not a hard line approach - it's an illegal (and weak) approach.

And it doesn't "suit the interests of the majority of the UK's population" - it panders to the radicalised (by the Daily Mail) majorities tastes (ironic that the Daily Mail reader rants about Begum being easily radicalised whilst being entirely unaware of how they themselves have been radicalised by a newspaper - which is sort of the point) but in what way does the majority of the UK's population have any practical interest (as opposed to just being opinionated) in this issue?

If the majority of the UK's populations interests are served by welcoming those home from Syria that will have killed or assisted the dying of people following a different ideology then make the case. I don't read the papers that you think radicalise people which is a pretty bold claim but believe in the UK's current law regarding equality and a base level of human rights. I would question whether any of these returning fighters or Jihadi brides share those views and therefore should be welcome in the UK. Having travelled the world I either complied with local societal norms, cultures and laws or I did not seek to enter the country. The women has no empathy to the 15000 bodies in mass graves attributed to ISIS. I personally would not like to live in a community with these people freely holding these views anymore than I would wish to live in a neighbourhood housing EDL supporters and there is your practical interest. You are either make it difficult for racists or you don't and this girl is fundamentally a racist as demonstrated through her actions and ideology.

Who said anything about welcoming? I think those that believe the UK should not revoke Begum's citizenship generally agree that on return she should be investigated and if necessary charged with any appropriate offences. While expensive, this stands a chance of retrieving useful intelligence and possibly through de-radicalisation, ending up with one less supporter of IS in the world. Dumping her in Syria will almost certainly lead to her staying radicalised, and now with one extra reason to hate. As for not wanting to live in a community with "these people" what makes you think you don't already?

I am sure you can volunteer to do this thoroughly one sided investigation. Nothing like asking someone if they have broken any laws whilst being unable to speak to anyone she came across in a hectic war zone. You will get right to the bottom of the truth.

Stevo_666

rjsterry wrote:

john80 wrote:

Rolf F wrote:

john80 wrote:

The government has chosen a hard line approach to whether she is stateless or not as she technically has two nationalities that could be used. This is a perfectly valid use of the law from a government to suit the interests of the majority of the UK's population.

It's not a hard line approach - it's an illegal (and weak) approach.

And it doesn't "suit the interests of the majority of the UK's population" - it panders to the radicalised (by the Daily Mail) majorities tastes (ironic that the Daily Mail reader rants about Begum being easily radicalised whilst being entirely unaware of how they themselves have been radicalised by a newspaper - which is sort of the point) but in what way does the majority of the UK's population have any practical interest (as opposed to just being opinionated) in this issue?

If the majority of the UK's populations interests are served by welcoming those home from Syria that will have killed or assisted the dying of people following a different ideology then make the case. I don't read the papers that you think radicalise people which is a pretty bold claim but believe in the UK's current law regarding equality and a base level of human rights. I would question whether any of these returning fighters or Jihadi brides share those views and therefore should be welcome in the UK. Having travelled the world I either complied with local societal norms, cultures and laws or I did not seek to enter the country. The women has no empathy to the 15000 bodies in mass graves attributed to ISIS. I personally would not like to live in a community with these people freely holding these views anymore than I would wish to live in a neighbourhood housing EDL supporters and there is your practical interest. You are either make it difficult for racists or you don't and this girl is fundamentally a racist as demonstrated through her actions and ideology.

Who said anything about welcoming? I think those that believe the UK should not revoke Begum's citizenship generally agree that on return she should be investigated and if necessary charged with any appropriate offences. While expensive, this stands a chance of retrieving useful intelligence and possibly through de-radicalisation, ending up with one less supporter of IS in the world. Dumping her in Syria will almost certainly lead to her staying radicalised, and now with one extra reason to hate. As for not wanting to live in a community with "these people" what makes you think you don't already?

How do you propose she is thoroughly re-radicalised? The Brexit thread shows just how bloody difficult it is to get rid of slightly less radical views

rjsterry

john80 wrote:

rjsterry wrote:

john80 wrote:

Rolf F wrote:

john80 wrote:

The government has chosen a hard line approach to whether she is stateless or not as she technically has two nationalities that could be used. This is a perfectly valid use of the law from a government to suit the interests of the majority of the UK's population.

It's not a hard line approach - it's an illegal (and weak) approach.

And it doesn't "suit the interests of the majority of the UK's population" - it panders to the radicalised (by the Daily Mail) majorities tastes (ironic that the Daily Mail reader rants about Begum being easily radicalised whilst being entirely unaware of how they themselves have been radicalised by a newspaper - which is sort of the point) but in what way does the majority of the UK's population have any practical interest (as opposed to just being opinionated) in this issue?

If the majority of the UK's populations interests are served by welcoming those home from Syria that will have killed or assisted the dying of people following a different ideology then make the case. I don't read the papers that you think radicalise people which is a pretty bold claim but believe in the UK's current law regarding equality and a base level of human rights. I would question whether any of these returning fighters or Jihadi brides share those views and therefore should be welcome in the UK. Having travelled the world I either complied with local societal norms, cultures and laws or I did not seek to enter the country. The women has no empathy to the 15000 bodies in mass graves attributed to ISIS. I personally would not like to live in a community with these people freely holding these views anymore than I would wish to live in a neighbourhood housing EDL supporters and there is your practical interest. You are either make it difficult for racists or you don't and this girl is fundamentally a racist as demonstrated through her actions and ideology.

Who said anything about welcoming? I think those that believe the UK should not revoke Begum's citizenship generally agree that on return she should be investigated and if necessary charged with any appropriate offences. While expensive, this stands a chance of retrieving useful intelligence and possibly through de-radicalisation, ending up with one less supporter of IS in the world. Dumping her in Syria will almost certainly lead to her staying radicalised, and now with one extra reason to hate. As for not wanting to live in a community with "these people" what makes you think you don't already?

I am sure you can volunteer to do this thoroughly one sided investigation. Nothing like asking someone if they have broken any laws whilst being unable to speak to anyone she came across in a hectic war zone. You will get right to the bottom of the truth.

Me? No I design buildings; you'll be wanting someone like the Met. I think they're fairly experienced in establishing whether people have broken laws. They might start with membership or support of a proscribed organisation.

rjsterry

Stevo 666 wrote:

rjsterry wrote:

john80 wrote:

Rolf F wrote:

john80 wrote:

The government has chosen a hard line approach to whether she is stateless or not as she technically has two nationalities that could be used. This is a perfectly valid use of the law from a government to suit the interests of the majority of the UK's population.

It's not a hard line approach - it's an illegal (and weak) approach.

And it doesn't "suit the interests of the majority of the UK's population" - it panders to the radicalised (by the Daily Mail) majorities tastes (ironic that the Daily Mail reader rants about Begum being easily radicalised whilst being entirely unaware of how they themselves have been radicalised by a newspaper - which is sort of the point) but in what way does the majority of the UK's population have any practical interest (as opposed to just being opinionated) in this issue?

If the majority of the UK's populations interests are served by welcoming those home from Syria that will have killed or assisted the dying of people following a different ideology then make the case. I don't read the papers that you think radicalise people which is a pretty bold claim but believe in the UK's current law regarding equality and a base level of human rights. I would question whether any of these returning fighters or Jihadi brides share those views and therefore should be welcome in the UK. Having travelled the world I either complied with local societal norms, cultures and laws or I did not seek to enter the country. The women has no empathy to the 15000 bodies in mass graves attributed to ISIS. I personally would not like to live in a community with these people freely holding these views anymore than I would wish to live in a neighbourhood housing EDL supporters and there is your practical interest. You are either make it difficult for racists or you don't and this girl is fundamentally a racist as demonstrated through her actions and ideology.

Who said anything about welcoming? I think those that believe the UK should not revoke Begum's citizenship generally agree that on return she should be investigated and if necessary charged with any appropriate offences. While expensive, this stands a chance of retrieving useful intelligence and possibly through de-radicalisation, ending up with one less supporter of IS in the world. Dumping her in Syria will almost certainly lead to her staying radicalised, and now with one extra reason to hate. As for not wanting to live in a community with "these people" what makes you think you don't already?

How do you propose she is thoroughly re-radicalised? The Brexit thread shows just how bloody difficult it is to get rid of slightly less radical views

That'll be the punishment: imprisonment with just access to the Cakestop Brexit thread.

Alejandrosdog

Jezza wants her back, he's probably been asked to sort it by one of his hezbollah chums

Stevo_666

rjsterry wrote:

Stevo 666 wrote:

How do you propose she is thoroughly re-radicalised? The Brexit thread shows just how bloody difficult it is to get rid of slightly less radical views

That'll be the punishment: imprisonment with just access to the Cakestop Brexit thread.

That's harsh. We'll make a Tory of you yet.

john80

Who said anything about welcoming? I think those that believe the UK should not revoke Begum's citizenship generally agree that on return she should be investigated and if necessary charged with any appropriate offences. While expensive, this stands a chance of retrieving useful intelligence and possibly through de-radicalisation, ending up with one less supporter of IS in the world. Dumping her in Syria will almost certainly lead to her staying radicalised, and now with one extra reason to hate. As for not wanting to live in a community with "these people" what makes you think you don't already?[/quote]

I am sure you can volunteer to do this thoroughly one sided investigation. Nothing like asking someone if they have broken any laws whilst being unable to speak to anyone she came across in a hectic war zone. You will get right to the bottom of the truth.[/quote]

Me? No I design buildings; you'll be wanting someone like the Met. I think they're fairly experienced in establishing whether people have broken laws. They might start with membership or support of a proscribed organisation.[/quote]

So the MET are expected to perform an investigation where the only have the internet with most information in Syrian and the one sided tales of terrorists and you think they have a good chance of pinning crimes on individuals. The MET do not have psychic powers.

rjsterry

john80 wrote:

So the MET are expected to perform an investigation where the only have the internet with most information in Syrian and the one sided tales of terrorists and you think they have a good chance of pinning crimes on individuals. The MET do not have psychic powers.

It's called Arabic. It's a fairly widely understood language.

robert88

rjsterry wrote:

john80 wrote:

So the MET are expected to perform an investigation where the only have the internet with most information in Syrian and the one sided tales of terrorists and you think they have a good chance of pinning crimes on individuals. The MET do not have psychic powers.

It's called Arabic. It's a fairly widely understood language.

حتى أستطيع فهم اللغة العربية
hataa 'astatie fahum allughat alearabia