Shamima Begum: 'I didn't want to be IS poster girl' - Sensationalist Headlines

You said my source was a tabloid, despite the telegraph being a perfectly respectable newspaper. It has about the same amount of bias as the guardian just from the other side, however I doubt I'll see you holding the guardian to the same standard. Most newspapers have a level of bias in them, just because it doesn't align with your personal bias doesn't make everything in it lies. The function is protecting Britain from extremists by stopping them from coming back.

Joining isis is literally pledging allegiance to a foreign antagonistic state who's prime definitive goal is the destruction, enslavement and subjugation of all other states, cultures and people. They do not believe in universal moral franchise, they do not believe in mutual good, they do not believe in mercy to those who do not convert to islam. They only believe that the world should bow to islam, and that all those who do not should be destroyed. Joining Isis is treason to your home state, and ISIS and it's sympathisers do not deserve forgiveness, and it's a mistake to grant it to them.

ok newspaper crap aside I take that back. I agree. I am also afraid of this girl coming back to do housework.

Revoking her citizenship is literally the worst possible course of action we could have taken lmao. It just presents us as hostile to anyone who was on the verge of being groomed by radicals, as unforgiving to anybody who has already been groomed by radicals, and honestly is probably mad fucking illegal as we may have just made her stateless (ISIS is not a legally recognised state, she cannot be a citizen of ISIS as a result). Oh and the last time the government used this, they used it as an excuse to bomb some cunts rather than capturing them or literally any other action. I do not trust the Tories with this power and if they continue to revoke citizenship in this manner it will get abused by them. If anything this is testing the waters for more far reaching citizenship revocation powers.

Daily Telegraph (UK) Guardian is left center with high factual reporting. The telegraph couldnt even be used as a main article for a news thread here but okay.

What so when people reach 18 they just magically become mature overnight? You're playing with legal definitions that aren't even valid for what you're talking about, people under 18 can be treated as adults in criminal cases. There's no reason why this woman can't be treated as an adult when dealing with a matter that should obviously be wrong to any person her age. If you think it's normal to look at beheadings and think that's cool at 15, as I've said before, you either think 15 year olds are on par with toddlers or just being facetious And yes I'm afraid of bringing radicalised people into the country who could potentially help to spread it.

according to the law, yes. because this is the age when you no longer are a minor. I do hope you know about this because it says you're from the UK.

You do realise that site doesn't actually use any real quantifiable methodology to make the assertions it does. Like it's alright for getting a general idea of where the a newpaper is on the political scale but it's still an amateur job and not some sort of absolute truth people make it out to be.

the only thing she'd be spreading potentially is jam on toast. unless there is evidence of her actually actively spreading propaganda and recruiting, I don't see it. Let her stand trial for her supposed atrocities then make the assumptions.

The legal debate doesn't really matter now though does it? Its been decided that she should face no criminal response for her actions and that its now somebody else's problem. Bang up job everybody.

it's bang up job tory party dude

Yeah someone who sympathises with beheadings is surely nothing more than a harmless housewife. This level of naivety is actually baffling, do you even believe what you're saying?

Why is being against radicals who seek the destruction of the state and it's people a bad thing, exactly? So long as political expression remains expression remains as expression and not action, without calls to violence, it should be unconditionally permitted. But incitement and joining isis is decidedly over the line, why is forgiving that desirable?

"sympathised with beheadings" because of grooming. and now you'll say she wasn't groomed. she literally conveys her confusion at the time with islamic teachings. dude, you've got actual criminals spreading rhetoric actively and recruiting actively. yet you spend 5 pages complaining about a mentally ill brainwashed housewife and how she could be the most dangerous person to exist. she is so dangerous that she shouldn't stand trial? what's baffling is how we're so scared to even talk about what's going on. best to keep it simple isn't it.

Can you point out anywhere in this thread where anyone arguing for her return said she should be forgiven and let on her way? We're arguing that she should be allowed to return so she can face a trial and potentially be de-radicalized and reintegrated back into western society. As opposed to the alternative being suggested; that we should do nothing about it and just pawn the problem off on somebody else while pretending that domestic radicalization is something that we can't do anything about.

The only disillusionment she expresses if with the fact that it wasn't the paradise she thought it would be, however she still sympathizes with their violent side. Literally the only thing she regrets is that she didn't get what she wanted out of it, she'd have been perfectly happy with people being beheaded and murdered if she'd gotten what she wanted. I don't particularly what is supposed to be sympathetic about that. You can throw words like "groomed" around all you like, she still knew exactly what she wanted, she sympathised with violence against the kids in manchester, she doesn't regret any of that and only regrets that she didn't get what she wanted. This is literally based on what she herself has said.

How about the guy i was directly responding to? Revoking her citizenship is literally the worst possible course of action we could have taken lmao. It just presents us as hostile to anyone who was on the verge of being groomed by radicals, as unforgiving to anybody who has already been groomed by radicals, Letting her return is to forgive her. Isis is literally an antaonistic state. It isn't like being a member of some radical political party like theINRA. The IRA were terrorists, but they remained irish/english citizens, and were thus tried as such. She and all the other 'returning' ISIS members defected to another state, and now wants backsies because their totalitarian islamic theocracy didn't turn out so good, and now expect tolerance from those whom they specifically set out to destroy.

So, again, your solution to this complex problem is to do nothing? You'd rather wash your hands and let her go free than arrest her, put her on a trial, or anything else that might be construed as enforcing justice upon her? And for the record, as much as people might want to stamp their feet about it, ISIS is not a state. You will not find a country out there that recognizes ISIS as a state. They are a terrorist organization, and to attempt to spin the argument by claiming that she went off and joined an "antagonistic state" is absurd and only serves to grant ISIS legitimacy that it doesn't possess. Shamima Begum was a member of a terrorist organization. If you want to split hairs and argue that she doesn't get to have a trial because she was part of a terrorist group, but other people get to have trials because they were part of a different terrorist group, go right ahead, but it's hypocritical as hell.

They rennounced their citizenship, they made the choice, and shouldn't get backsies on it because things didn't go their way. That's the difference. And again, that wasn't even the fucking point i was trying to make, which you're still conveniently sidestepping. We shouldn't be nice to these people, they have crossed the line which you can not technically come back from. Treat it as such.

so what is your point?

Clearly she didn't renounce her citizenship considering she was asking to return and planned on doing so until the government stripped her of her citizenship. And how am I suggesting we should "be nice" to these people? By suggesting that, just maybe, we should bring them back and put them on trial? You just said in your last post that members of groups like the IRA deserve to remain in the country and stand trial for their actions, but somehow this woman does not. Would those members of the IRA, people who have committed assassinations and car-bombings, not qualify as antagonistic and violent radicals? Why are they allowed to retain citizenship and stand trial yet this woman is not? You people are acting like the most basic of military psyops, the stuff we've been using for nearly a century, is somehow this mythical idea and that those who have stood against the state and all it stands for can never be rehabilitated because they crossed some nebulous "line" that nobody seems to be able to succinctly define.

Reap what you sow. She wanted to join ISIS and all their glory, she can stick with them until the end. You don't get to bitch out when the going gets tough. Call me a heartless bastard, but fuck her and everything she stands for. I'm not sure if I'm fully understanding your point. If I misunderstood I apologize in advance. Joining a local gang and joining ISIS are two different things.The motivations to join a gang and ISIS are going to be much different. Everything about them is mostly different, yeah they will share some similarities, but not many. Joining a gang is much different then joining ISIS. The goal of a gang is much different than ISIS. The activities of a gang are much different than ISIS. The resources and influence of a gang are much different than ISIS. The reasons to join a gang and ISIS are going to be completely different. It isn't hypocritical to accept certain aspects of a gang and completely deny all aspects of ISIS. There are things and situations which people see as more acceptable. To even try compare gangs to ISIS is kinda stupid. Someone who joins a gang to sell drugs for economical reasons is much more acceptable then someone joining ISIS to selling people into slavery. Gang violence in terms of fighting for power or attacking out of retaliation is considered more acceptable than joining ISIS to be a hired gun to kill all non-believers. You are taking two very different extremes with different levels of organization, tools, and usage of violence. I can condem both of them all the while completely understanding why someone would join a gang. In the end it doesn't matter because a gang member is less of a threat then someone who was apart of ISIS. The gang member isn't going to get their citizenship revoked, they're going to go to trial and prison for their crimes. If you join ISIS you can expect to lose your citizenship and be left with the people you joined. I think there should be a trial, but in the end it is a pretty cut and dry way to deal with defectors.

I agree that there are differences, but why are we willing to accept that youth can be indoctrinated into joining one, but not the other. By the logic being presented in this topic, nobody should ever join a terrorist group, or a gang, or ever commit any sort of crime ever because everyone should obviously conclude that its not okay to do these things. Are we just assuming here that so many young people in Western society will happily sign up to fight a war against said society just on a whim because they're all idiots, or are we willing to consider that many youth are especially vulnerable to being groomed into accepting hateful ideologies and that we should be doing everything we can to combat that - right at the root of the problem. In any event, simply shutting the door and closing our eyes accomplishes nothing, whereas bringing them back, putting them on trial and giving them at least some chance to rehabilitate and de-radicalize creates the opportunity for others to do the same. Yet in this topic we've seen the argument that joining a domestic terrorist group affords one the right to a trial and retention of their citizenship, even if said group is fighting against the state, yet the woman in this case is not afforded the same right because she joined a foreign terrorist group, and one in which she didn't personally fight against the state. Instead of putting this woman on trial, to get a greater understanding of why and how she came to her position and to show the swiftness, effectiveness and fairness of our justice, its been decided that we should instead ignore the problem at hand and pretend that it doesn't exist. Again, I'm not whistling dixie here. In any other conflict we'd be dropping leaflets encouraging our enemies to throw down their arms and surrender. We'd be setting up courts to judge our defeated enemies. We'd be establishing departments devoted to de-radicalizing and burying the enemy ideology in the ground. I hate to go back to the tired old example, but it's not like after WWII we just packed up and left without making any effort to suppress the hateful ideology that led to the conflict in the first place.

IDK dude if you decide to leave your country and join a group that literally has declared war on your country that sounds like, uh, treason?

I hate more states than I like, but if you betray a state to join a radical group then you should expect absolutely no quarter from that state if you repent. The burden is on the betrayer to provide a reason to be redeemed, not for the wronged to forgive.

In many ways ISIS functioned as a state, though - is the important part pledging allegiance to a foreign recognised state, or is it pledging allegiance to the idea of a state? Imagine if ISIS had actually been successful - chances are it would never be recognised as a state, despite perhaps functioning as such for many people for many years. To me it seems more absurd to say that joining that wouldn’t be functionally the same. It’s also unlikely that she would really be sentenced for much of anything. Actual ISIS fighters are roaming around freely simply because there’s no way to prove their crimes, and they obviously did more heinuous stuff than this woman.

How the fuck do you know she was groomed? Self-radicalization is in fact a thing thats possible, and making the trip to turkey and into syria is not exactly fucking rocket science. Its entirely possible that she drank the koolaid of her own accord without any external help. Are you some sort of expert on the process of radicalization? Have you interviewed this subject yourself? Do you have access to any evidence? The answer is, of course, no to all of this. Stop trying to present your argument as some sort of objective truth. Stop trying to use your dumb speculation to grab the moral high ground. Do you know for a fact that shes mentally ill? Do you know for a fact that she was groomed? Do you know for a fact that her beliefs are the result of brainwashing?

She isn't being tried because she renounced her citizenship by joining another state/nation (in this case ISIS). If she isn't a citizen and she isn't in the country she isn't going to be afforded a trial. She gave up that right. Her being ignorant of the consequences of her actions isn't a legit excuse. Gang members are citizens and are bound the rule of law of their country. If they break the law and get caught they get tried and sentenced. Just like if someone who is visiting the country under some type of visa breaks the law their visa is revoked and they're sent back to their country of origin. The country isn't shutting their eyes and shutting the door, they're literally denying someone who isn't a citizen into the country. The country reserve the rights to deny or allow entry. Her case isn't going to be some groundbreaking case in which police can break up all these recruiters. They can do that on their own and have been. This woman is literally no value to the country and she has no one to blame but herself. They're not going to let someone in who poses more of a danger and is likely to aid ISIS members once she is in the country. The response to leaving the country to join ISIS is so heavy handed because it isn't something to take lightly. It needs to be handled this way. This is why citizenship isn't a black and white situation. If you are a not a citizen most armed forces will not let you join. If you are a non-citizen you have to renounce your current citizenship and apply to become a citizen or earn it through service. You are trying to mix up way to many different concepts with way to many variables. You cannot really apply any world conflict or conflict recognized by legitimate countries/armies with ISIS. I get what you are trying to say - She should have been given a chance for a trial, a chance to be rehabilitated, and afforded all the rights that citizens get. Here is the issue - when she joined ISIS she basically renounced her citizenship through her actions of joining ISIS. She basically surrendered her rights, so she at the mercy of the british government. The gov't made their decision regarding her case and now she has live with her choices now. How do we know she didn't personally fight? Are we going to take her word for it? How do we know she wasn't apart of any mass murders? Why are we going to take the word of someone who openly supports ISIS and only wants to come back so she can raise a child outside the battlefield? She doesn't really seem to give a shit that ISIS is a thing and doesn't feel any regret or sympathy for the people killed by ISIS. She is looking out for her own self-interests. What would be a real injustice is letting someone who was deeply involved in the country back in. Try them for lesser crimes, only for them to get released and actually do some damage to the country. Like I said, I get what you and some others are trying to say. But, she is the only one to blame here and she screwed herself.

literally nobody is saying that. you're asserting that this is all about forgiveness when it isn't. it is the right thing to do. and also she is not a dual-national so she is effectively being made stateless. That is objectively not a good thing.

shes not stateless though, it would actually be illegal for britain to render her stateless. Since when is travelling in a group proof that she was a victim of grooming? Not obly are you making baseless speculations, you're outright ignoring facts. Like her apparent Bangladeshi citizenship