She joined ISIS and wants to come back because it sucks being in a refugee camp
29 replies, posted
An Alabama woman who joined the Islamic State group in Syria won't be allowed to return to the United States with her toddler son because she is not an American citizen, the U.S. said Wednesday. Her lawyer is challenging that claim.
US: Alabama woman who joined Islamic State is not a citizen
Looks like the pussy pass got denied
Didn't Trump demand that European countries bring back terrorists that emerged from respective countries? Bit of hypocrisy there but republicans I guess.
seems like a few of these cases are popping up recently...
Glad to see this tbh, I don't like bringing sexism into things but if it were a guy heading off to join ISIS there'd be no sympathy from any corner. When it comes to values like beheading it's kind of an all or nothing deal, if you think any of the shit ISIS did was good you need to reapply for admission back to the human race first.
That's because the strategic power of ISIS is pretty much gone, and they are just scattered terrorists. So now the women and foreign men who went there now saw that its in ruins, and want to come back.
I really think the key question here is whether she's legally a citizen after burning her passport.
I believe in birthright citizenship. I'm not a big fan of the state disregarding someone's citizenship status especially when said citizen is seeking to return to subject themselves to the criminal justice system.
Why not bring her back to hold her accountable? Saying that her burning her passport is the equivalent to a revocation of citizenship (and the rights it confers) basically means that those individuals who subjectively believe they are not under to the US's jurisdiction because they are "sovereign citizens" would also similarly be deprived of the rights conferred by citizenship.
Don't think it's healthy to leave US citizens abroad like that, or to allow the state to revoke citizenship.
I think the most pragmatic thing is to accept such people back.
Its the same reason why you want to make POW camps as hospitable as possible - you want to encourage the enemy to stop fighting and surrender. Every enemy fighter who lays down their arms and gives up the fight, is one more fighter you don't have to kill. In purely pragmatic terms, that's fuel and munitions you don't have to buy, soldiers you don't have to feed or risk in battle.
Then there's the propaganda win. When someone leaves America to fight for ISIS, they become a propaganda tool for ISIS - "see, even the Americans hate America!". When they then come back, they're a potential tool for us - "see, the people who've experienced both sides first-hand know that America is better". It's a way to demoralize the remaining enemy fighters - knowing that the man beside them could be thinking of surrendering, knowing that people are flocking away from your side rather than towards it.
The safety risks are entirely manageable. There's few enough such people that we could have all of them under active FBI surveillance, and they're clearly identified. If they turn out to still be loyal to ISIS, and entered the country with nefarious intent, they'll be unable to because they're so easy to watch, and so obvious a target for scrutiny. Honestly, you might want a law enforcement escort just to protect them from all the normal citizens who want to take out some rage at ISIS - and such an escort would, of course, also notice if they're up to something and put an immediate stop to it.
The one remaining issue is justice. We do, of course, want the people who committed the atrocities ISIS is infamous for to stand trial and face justice - even in purely pragmatic terms, that serves as a deterrent against people doing the same in the future. But, on the other hand, destroying ISIS quicker would prevent future atrocities; anything that helps defeat them will be saving lives. I think it is a clear net positive for us to accept back people who may have fought for ISIS, but did not themselves participate in the mass executions or other heinous shit. I think an argument could be made either way for the higher-up members - and of course, we have options beyond just "shoot on sight" and "grant full clemency". A sort of plea bargain - "I'll give up fighting, do some propaganda work for the US, in exchange for limiting punishment to ten years in prison" might still be pretty attractive if the alternative is dying in a drone strike.
I think the state department and trump are wrong that she is a US citizen but I think she should face at least some charges, if only to make sure she's actually capable of being integrated into society
Many men who are known to have actively fought for ISIS have been allowed to return to their respective countries, its only recently that everyone has decided to specifically deny this for Jihadi brides.
The only good terrorist is a dead terrorist.
I don't support it now or ever, I hadn't heard much about that happening to be honest.
Allowing the state to declare people unpersons and revoke their citizenship is deeply authoritarian and something that shouldn’t be supported. Bring her back so she can face justice.
She probably wouldn't be so eager to come crawling back if ISIS had succeeded in conquering Syria.
Its questionable if she were a US citizen in the first place despite having a passport because her father was a Yemeni diplomat.
Children of diplomats in the US cannot legally have birthright citizenship.
That's the argument being used specifically against her, at least.
They aren't stripping some young white woman with American heritage going back to the Mayflower of citizenship.
Play stupid games. Win stupid prizes.
Why don't people listen to the interview for context beyond just reading the headlines lol
https://www.nytimes.com/2019/02/22/podcasts/the-daily/isis-american-women.html
You can probably get a better picture of the context of why they went and what they expected.
I don't know what the answer is, but I don't think lacking compassion is going to do anything. I think being cruel will only foster the rise of another caliphate, but what do I know.
So what's the solution, yes if they return and are imprisoned they might radicalize others but they'd still be within the reach of our security services, surely that's better than leaving them out to let do whatever they want.
It's better to be proactive and prevent radicalization in the first place than reactive and just hope your police arrive in time to prevent further damage after an attack has already begun.
Either throw her in a prison or execute her. She should lose her rights, she joined a terrorists group...and brought her son...
This isn't a campfire get together and kumbaya and forgive eachother type of thing.
One thing that I noticed in my passport is that it said that if you join a foreign military, you are no longer a US citizen. I'm assuming that this counts are joining a foreign military, so they took away her citizenship.
They went to join a very "us vs them" situation. To the point of being with the end goal of mutilating, torturing and violently murdering us if they could and while on the surface I'd agree you should take them back "home" and throw the book at them. This reservation about further spread of radicalisation in the prison system isn't such an insane idea either. Then on the other hand, they actively chose the ultimate "you or me" statement to make and unfortunately, it turned out the be them.
I honestly don't care what happens to these people either way. they can get fucked for all I care. but I understand people who argue for either outcome, but respect the idea of bringing them back slightly more.
No western country ever recognised ISIS as a country. We never gave them that legitimacy.
You have to understand that half of ISIS's or any islamist rhetoric is that the west is infirm and weak, and therefore deserves destruction for being degenerate. Sorta like how actual psychopaths jusitfy their actions to themselves as "well if they allow me to take advantage of them, then they deserve it happening to them". ISIS devotees wouldn't see that as extending an olive branch and have a hollywood come to jesus moment, they'd see showing mercy to our enemy as defacto proof of their beliefs.
It's not hard to find ISIS or other islamic propoganda, go dig some up and i think youll see what i mean. I'm kinda fascinated by radicalism of all stripes, so i've read a lot of islamic junk. That value system is almost perfectly inverse to our own. Showing mercy like that wouldn't convince anyone posessed enough to go to syria to establish the caliphate by force that they were wrong, it'd do nothing but re-enforce their convictions. That sort of thing only works on people who can see a common ground, and a common good, and they absolutely refuse our conceptions of good at the most fundimental levels
While such propaganda would be pretty useless against the (literally) die-hard ISIS fighters... not everyone in an army is a True Believer. It's true of our own army, it's true of Russia's and China's, it was true of the Taliban and the Nazis and every army throughout history. Those are the people you target with propaganda, because they're the ones it can work on. Lots of people joined ISIS for reasons other than jihad against the decadent crusaders. Some joined because it was effective against Assad's regime. Some for the community prestige - religious communities always approve of their holy warriors. Some just because it was the only "job" available in the region, and steady food sounded like a good idea.
Now, those are the first people to flee a failing flag, and ISIS has been pretty well beaten down at this point. There are perhaps not many left in their ranks that aren't in too deep to ever surrender. But it's such a cheap tactic for us to employ that we may as well. And, it can serve its purpose in the next war - any of our future enemies, who are having second thoughts, may remember us treating ex-ISIS fighters reasonably well, and decide it's safer in a POW camp than a battlefield. "Surrendering to Americans is a safe option" is a very good reputation to build.
As for the rest, well, we've still got lots of tanks and bombs and guns; if they really want to die for their cause, I'm sure we can accommodate them.
Perhaps mercy would be proof of "west's weakness" in the light of their radicalised values
But to whatever humanity left in them, someone showing you mercy and compassion begs you to return it in kind. Quite natural that the radical mindset is at odds with this, as it's a system that aims to keep up the conflict.
I don't think though that everyone who has chosen to believe such rhetoric is into it without any doubt or possibility of recourse.
Like those neonazis who started questioning their destructive values after meeting the minorities they hated in a positive context. They weren't fully evil, rather they chose to see the world that way because it was simpler and they felt threatened.
From what I gathered after having this discussion in other threads here, many people believe that any answer that isn't "kill them all" is seen as sympathizing with the terrorists. Just keep killing people until they stop hating the West, hasn't worked over the last 18 years but maybe if we keep it up for another 19 it might work. Wouldn't want to appear weak now would we.
How do we know these morons aren't just gonna come back and commit a terror attack? Execute them or life inprisonment, but do not take them back into society
Literally nobody is saying "let them roam free once they've back laffo". What is up with this fucking ludicrous strawman? Argue the people that are actually here not the ones in your heads.
Almost every single person who isn't a bloodthirsty psychotic is proposing keeping them in prison for as long as the justice system deems appropriate (so probably forever).
I may have committed some “light treason”
Really? maybe not on this forum but i had classmates who said they should be allowed back for the simple reason that "everyone deserves a second chance". which I definitely disagree with
Sorry, you need to Log In to post a reply to this thread.