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

which she doesn't have. bangladesh have no record of her and she is not a citizen.

Actually no, britain is doing something potentially illegal, but the UN statelessness convention has an exemption for disloyal individuals so it may in fact be well within their rights. If the UN convention is still applicable for her she has plenty of potential options for gaining citizenship.

She isn't stateless, she is apart of Islamic state. I heard they got great benefits and a one hell of a healthcare system. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sgKVZrk3X_Q

ISIS was never acknowledged by the West as a sovereign country. This was specifically to deny them legitimacy. The UK has acted unlawfully and tred something similar last year with a couple of actual fighters and was found to be acting unlawfully by revoking citizenship. This will also go to court and most likely end in a defeat for the government.

But she didn't renounce her citizenship by joining another state/nation. It was revoked only a day ago when this debate first arose. She can't have renounced it by joining another state because ISIS is not considered, by any other nation, to be a state. The only reason her citizenship was revoked, and the only legal reason it could be, is because she's a dual citizen with Bangladesh. Were that not the case, the government could not legally have revoked her citizenship. So yes, the country is shutting its eyes and closing the door. The article that we're debating over states: But the government does not have consular staff in Syria, and says it will not risk any lives to help Britons who have joined a banned terrorist group. If Ms Begum is able to reach a British consulate in a recognised country, it is thought security chiefs could "manage" her return. Up until two days ago it was agreed upon that if she could make it to a British consulate, she could return. She didn't lose her citizenship because she ran off and joined ISIS, she lost it because the state chose to revoke it to bar her from returning now that she has requested to do so. If this were a case of her losing her citizenship because she joined ISIS, she would have lost it years ago when she left in the first place. And its great that you mention "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," because that is exactly what is NOT being done in this case. Begum broke the law in a foreign nation as a citizen of the United Kingdom, and now, rather than be extradited and put on trial, the British government is washing its hands of the matter and leaving Syria to deal with it. You can harp all you want on and on about how "we're reserving the right to not allow somebody into our country!" but don't pretend that this is some noble act that the state is taking here. It's an attempt to duck the issue. I'm glad you understand what I'm saying about how she should be afforded the rights of a citizen, because she absolutely should and its only because of a dual citizenship technicality that she doesn't get those rights. As for, "how do we know she didn't personally fight?" I don't know. And now that she will never have to account for her actions, we'll never find out. Because the choice has been made to do nothing rather than to do anything even remotely productive about the situation. Given that the debate is over whether or not her citizenship should afford her a right to extradition and a potential trial, I'd argue that recognition is very important here. If ISIS isn't a state, then revoking her citizenship over an allegiance to the group would leave her stateless which opens up a whole bucketful of legal issues to deal with.

Damn, no wonder my card wasn't working! https://files.facepunch.com/forum/upload/230446/8d976198-39b9-4055-9c5a-2a22cbd5d7a0/image.png I was being sarcastic with my previous post. Though on a serious note, other articles I've been reading are they are questioning if she actually does have a claim to bangladesh citizenship because of her mother. Obviously we don't know if that is true or not, but it will likely be a deciding factor in the case.

Had to look up wet cupping. She explains that the remedy works by releasing old red blood cells and toxic materials in the blood – remains of medication, nicotine, tar, and lactic and uric acid – from the body. “These toxins and red blood cells that are not functioning anymore should be removed by the lymphatic system through sweat, urine and stools,” says Dr Alhammoury. “But with wet cupping, we remove it directly. The cup sucks all the blood out that’s not functioning, that’s retired.” So it's basically medieval tier bloodletting quackery. How does she propose the suction distinguishes between 'good' and 'bad' materials in the blood?

Never claimed we should support radicals who want to destroy the state. But nice try. Throwing somebody in jail to atone for their crimes is forgiving somebody now? Or are you just making up strawmen right now, because literally nobody is claiming she should be walking the streets as if nothing ever happened. Letting somebody back into a country doesn't mean letting them walk free. Ding ding ding! I honestly have no idea how somebody could miss this point so hard well I have a few. If we just keep ignoring this problem of radicalisation by washing our hands of the victims of it and abandoning then, it gives the radicalisers more fuel. Distrust of the state is one component of radicalisation that can be easily exploited when the state is making zero effort to hide the fact they're cunts. Just look at some of the paranoid bullshit "report everybody who's remotely suspicious" things that our government has started. Almost all of them implicitly focused on groups that are targeted by radicals for grooming. Yeah, that'll sow trust.

Are you referring to the radicals who perpetrate terror attacks as victims

Good lord why are you always like this geel. No, nobody would. Stop being a clown. Me, and everybody else who refers to victims here, are talking about those who are groomed into joining ISIS. If you've since gone off and committed acts of terror you're pretty much fucked. But the girls we tend to see running off over there aren't that. They're over there to act as "wives" and in the worst scenarios forced into suicide bombings. Even if someone has committed an act of terror, if they aren't dead then they can be imprisoned. It's not up to us to play executioner. Were meant to be better people after all. You are aware that it's common to consider the targets of grooming of any kind victims, right?

Groomed by seeing exactly what ISIS was about and the things they did to people and thinking it looked good? That's not really groomed, at least not in a way they should make anyone sympathetic to her. Yeah they probably made it sound like she'd get to go to a lovely Islamic paradise, but she still seemed pretty happy to join a group she fully well knew was involved in genocide and murder. You keep intentionally ommitting this part.

And you keep intentionally failing to understand that no one is expressing sympathy for her, we're arguing that she should be returned to the UK to stand trial for her crimes. But you seem to argue that we should just dump her in another country where she will not face any trial and will not face any punishment is somehow a greater form of justice in this case. Its pretty clear that you have a very bent and warped idea of how the justice system in this country works, so you lock yourself into this endless loop of arguing that people shouldn't be punished for joining terrorist groups because you're convinced that the UK is somehow safer by omitting all responsibility for our citizens and releasing them into the world without being held accountable for their actions.

Mmm yes I'm sure a recruiter just slid into her DMS with a cheeky "eyyy girl wanna see some head loppins???". A part of radicalisation is creating a feeling of dependency between the target and the groomer. They get their targets to a point that they feel they won't balk and run off when shown terror acts over time. They need to slowly break the person down mentally to get them to accept this. It's not surprising she would have no issues seeing it as a part of the radicalising process. You just keep confirming everybody's view that you have no idea how radicalisers work. Do we know her exact story? No. But we have case studies upon case studies to have a rough idea what she went through. Which is why I think it's important we take her back and imprison her, to use her experience to further understand the processes ISIS are using. I'm just looking for a practical solution that minimises suffering here. Every instance of a groomed teenager can provide us with information we could possibly use to prevent another in the future.

Saying she was "groomed" is literally implying she wasn't responsible for what she did, that she was somehow tricked into it and wasn't aware what she was doing was wrong, despite her being fully aware of what ISIS was doing. I'm understanding just fine. These people don't want her to be held accountable for anything she did and think she's just a harmless misunderstood woman who apparently didn't know any better that genocide was bad, since 15 year olds apparently have the reasoning skills of a beagle.

Sure if you just sit there and take everything at face value and utterly refuse to consider that maybe there's more to this than watching a couple videos online but that would actually require you to think with some nuance which seems to be out of the question. For someone that you view as a terrorist mastermind you seem awfully quick to take the things she says at face value.

I've never once called her a mastermind, just that she joined a terror group that she still seems to agree with in many ways. She seems relatively up front about it

but your argument here is that 15 year olds are mature enough to be so politically maligned that they can be classed as terrorists. I remember being in year 10 and people my age had fuck all clue about the real world, they all though obama should be president because he was black. both legally and in real life it is absurd to think she was mature enough to do this alone.

A 15 year old is absolutely old enough to know violence and genocide are wrong, these are pretty basic ideas. The fact that you think saying dumb shit about Obama is on par with joining a genocidal terror group is very telling

again, with the reading. my implication is that 15 are not mature enough.

Ok, so we'll bring back and punish people who left the UK and actively fought and killed for ISIS, but this one girl who has said she watched videos online and supported the actions of ISIS, but for who there is no evidence that she herself engaged in fighting or killing herself. She is much worse and the government will make unprecedented and undeniably illegal decisions to prevent this one girls return. The concept of rehabilitation or incarceration is central to our justice system, it is the rock upon which it is built, we no longer live in a time when we can simply put our criminals on a boat and sail them off somewhere else. You can choose to die on this hill, and I'll imagine you'll be very upset when the governments decision gets overturned in court. But this is not how any country should handle the problem of radicalization.

Jesus fucking christ what's going on in this thread? tl;dr of past 7 pages?

Joining Isis is not 'falling into the wrong crowd', and yes I will say she should know better because that's fucking common sense.

so at which age should it be to be legally mature? 11?

This thread is a bit of trainwreck but I'm gonna outline my opinion. Anyone who joins a terrorist group that is known to commit atrocities on a regular basis should be held accountable for that. Even if you don't have a role as a frontline soldier you are still supporting the organisation as a whole. ISIS wives feed and clothe soldiers and have other roles in keeping the Islamic State as a whole running. You do not need to be a frontline soldier to support ISIS. It's not like ISIS doing awful shit is some hidden knowledge either; they make a pretty damn big point of showing their beheadings and executions on the internet. This girl knew exactly what ISIS did and what they stood for when she joined and she doesn't show remorse for her actions. Sure, radicalization is a very real thing and I am not going to deny that, but even at age 15 you should understand that killing people is just fuckin bad. This is something we expect literal children to understand. Your understanding of morality doesn't magically change at 18. Sure, rehabilitation is a thing but that does not mean she should go unpunished. We try and rehabilitate people in this country as a matter of course but people are still punished for their crimes. Being 15 when joining a terrorist organisation and, this bit is important, not showing any remorse at all, is not an excuse. She wants is to take advantage of UK citizenship - a nation IS is directly opposed to and has committed several attacks directly against - to raise a child while showing no remorse for the actions of IS. This is a completely disgusting attitude for her to take; if you join a group that attacks and kills UK citizens on UK soil and still support those actions then you don't get to take advantage of that rights and liberties of that nation. I'm amazed that is even a discussion people are having. However I do not think she should be stripped of citizenship. She is a UK citizen and the UK should damn well have taken her to trial. The person in this situation I feel most sorry for is the kid. He should absolutely be taken into custody.

People arguing about whether or not she was groomed, and if that makes a difference. Also the legality of making this girl apparently stateless, and whether she should be brought back to be tried in the UK. Basically one huge circular argument, with people making wild claims with little substantiation.

I think people are entitled to due process, she should be allowed back but arrested and tried fairly and sentenced accordingly. She is not entitled to forgivness and does not deserve leniency but she does deserve a fair trail.

You're not absolved of being a dumbass just because you acknowledge something went wrong.

so which nationality is the baby? isisian?

The child is entitled to UK nationality, but considering no effort is being made to return the mother, and the UK having no consular presence in Syria, it will remain with the mother for the foreseeable future.

not when the mum is stateless. TORY scum have made a poor child stateless...