richmtb

Subscriber

😆

Yes a public vote………what could go wrong with that!

Javid knows that a child bride groomed at 15 & her 2 day old baby aren’t a threat to national security

I’d agree about the kid, but I’m not sure you can say that about a radicalized 19 year old. Just because she isn’t blowing herself up doesn’t mean she isn’t a potential risk

https://www.gq-magazine.co.uk/article/shamima-begum-isis-bride

The above is an interesting article from the journalist who originally found her.

Looks like Anthony Loyd really did her a disservice in his original article, he really stitched her up. Doesn’t change my opinion. (Isis are bad & she’s an Isis volunteer, but we have a legal and moral obligation to take ‘our’ ones back if Syria doesn’t want to put them on trial, which they don’t.)

…anyone know what the Husband did to end up in an Isis prison and what evidence there is that that is true?

Just because she isn’t blowing herself up doesn’t mean she isn’t a potential risk

Agree, I suspect she’s little risk in terms of directly gonna commit a terrorist act. Isis’s atrocities were to lure the west into a massive battle at Dabiq. Not much point in that now the Caliphate has ended so why would she want to?

But just because she’s not an immediate threat doesn’t mean she’s a nice person or someone who’s son you’d want in primary school with your kids. We’re not talking slight casual homophobia here, we’re talking about actually wanting gay people dead. (If you don’t like that example pick Jews/Christian/Atheists or anything else from the Isis philosophy of murder and hate.)

So yeah, legally and morally we have to take UK Isis members if Syria/Iraq don’t want to put them on trial, but let’s no pretend our country will be better for it.

If this specific family choose to go to Holland/Bangladesh/Timbuktu in preference to the UK, Britain will be slightly better for it and Holland/Bangladesh/Timbuktu will be slightly worse.

But just because she’s not an immediate threat doesn’t mean she’s a nice person or someone who’s son you’d want in primary school with your kids. We’re not talking slight casual homophobia here, we’re talking about actually wanting gay people dead. (If you don’t like that example pick Jews/Christian/Atheists or anything else from the Isis philosophy of murder and hate.)

im not sure I want my kids in school with the kids of people who want people executed without trial because they read something in the Sun, tbh

im not sure I want my kids in school with the kids of people who want people executed without trial because they read something in the Sun, tbh

To me that’s the same thing. So why do you think your kids *will* benefit from going to school with the kids of people who want people executed without trial because they’re gay? Or are you arguing that Isis give gay people fair trials before lobbing them of buildings so it’s ok. (I doubt they do). Or is it that Sun readers are just mouthing off and rarely do actually kill people without trial and you feel Sun reader aren’t really committed to murder and Isis are?

If you accept some murders without trial are bad, why not all of them? Including Isis?

actually thats not true

Id like to think that my kids could help their kids not become as biggoted as their parents, Id hope the school instills those values too.

education is the best way to tackle it

That GQ article is really good. Puts a few things into perspective. Thanks for the link.

After you get past all the hysterical internet grandstanding there are only a couple of questions that need answering if we think this girl is a threat

1. Is it better to have a known threat under your control or free somewhere else?

2. What happens if other countries remove citizenship from any terrorists we have in this country?

Id like to think that my kids could help their kids not become as biggoted as their parents, Id hope the school instills those values too.

They’ll meet somewhere in the middle. Your kids will take on *some* of the Isis Homophobia/Attitude to women etc in response to their kids bad example, and the Isis kids will tone down their’s a bit in response to your kids good example.

Unless you’re unlucky and one of your kids really buys into the whole Isis thing like the two kids the other Shamima Begum won over who are now dead.

But yean, on average things will be slightly less tolerant.

The Secret Barrister has got this spot on in my opinion on Twitter…

If you are thinking about replying to this with “But what about the horrific things she’s done/said/supported?”, I can save you some time:

That is the whole point. For the rule of law to mean anything, it has to apply to all of us. Including those who would do us the most harm. https://t.co/JYDaqmOEIQ

— The Secret Barrister (@BarristerSecret) February 20, 2019

A system of laws which only applies to those who “deserve” the protection of the law is not a system of laws at all. It’s a system of whim and caprice that endangers us all.

— The Secret Barrister (@BarristerSecret) February 20, 2019

That GQ article is really good. Puts a few things into perspective. Thanks for the link.

Your welcome. With anything that is massively emotive like this I think you’ve got to remove as much emotion as possible, rather than jumping on popular opinion bandwagons.
If she can get home she should, then she should be fully investigated, if she has committed crimes she should stand trial & be punished accordingly. Hopefully she can also be normalized & re-integrated into society.

They’ll meet somewhere in the middle. Your kids will take on *some* of the Isis Homophobia/Attitude to women etc in response to their kids bad example, and the Isis kids will tone down their’s a bit in response to your kids good example.

Unless you’re unlucky and one of your kids really buys into the whole Isis thing like the two kids the other Shamima Begum won over who are now dead.

But yean, on average things will be slightly less tolerant.

yreah its absolutely likely that my kids would become members of ISIS ?!?, do you realise how silly you sound?

Was about to post that. I absolutely agree with her (The Secret Barrister), that take is spot on.

All these white knights absolutely dying for a ride on her. Shes spoken for you ballbags, and hes a genocidal psychopathic butcher.

Slow your roll homies.. you dont want none of that!

All these white knights absolutely dying for a ride on her. Shes spoken for you ballbags, and hes a genocidal psychopathic butcher.

Slow your roll homies.. you dont want none of that!

There appears to be a superfluous “r” and a missing “c” from your username.

They’ll meet somewhere in the middle. Your kids will take on *some* of the Isis Homophobia/Attitude to women etc in response to their kids bad example, and the Isis kids will tone down their’s a bit in response to your kids good example.

Unless you’re unlucky and one of your kids really buys into the whole Isis thing like the two kids the other Shamima Begum won over who are now dead.

But yean, on average things will be slightly less tolerant.

yreah its absolutely likely that my kids would become members of ISIS ?!?, do you realise how silly you sound?

So grooming doesn’t work in terms of Isis recruitment, in fact it’s silly to suggest it would. A lot of people agree with you.

All these white knights absolutely dying for a ride on her. Shes spoken for you ballbags, and hes a genocidal psychopathic butcher.

Slow your roll homies.. you dont want none of that!

Can anyone translate this to English please?

The only thing I’ve taken out of 12 pages is that I like the word deradicalised.

We have to face the fact that we are allied with America, the biggest death economy in history but

Hands up who would be happy to have their kids sitting next to her at an Ariana Grande concert..

I am not in any way agreeing with the sentiment that
“she should be **** shot” but a question for those who are saying that the full British judicial process should be followed. Should that apply to those who ordered the targeting ,bombing and execution of the “Beatles” and other Brits who joined ISIS and were dispatched without a trial? Innocent until proven guilty and all that?

Poor John.. he was groomed from a young age. He thought he was doing a good thing!

Unpalatable as it is to think of her back on uk soil it’s deeply naive to think that banishment is the solution to our terrorist risks she’d just be a danger from slightly further afield. There is no shortage of vulnerable disaffected kids waiting to be radicalized and her story simply fuels this.

And anyone who thinks their kid is at risk of radicalisation by association needs to understand that radicalisation relies on vulnerability, so the solution is to make sure your kids are resilient.

Bangladeshis to home sec, she’s your problem bro!

Poor John.. he was groomed from a young age. He thought he was doing a good thing!

No. Jihadi John was killed in a military operation in what I would say was a war time action within a war zone. I know we had not officially declared was which does bring drone strikes into a grey area, however US and UK governments made a decision based on what they deemed reliable intelligence. His death probably saved other lives. I do think that ordinary rules do not apply in the heat of battle so to speak.

If he had surrendered or was captured or discovered in a refugee camp he would have been removed from a war zone and been entitled to the same rights as Begum.

Bangladesh said no too. “But she’ll be stateless!!” The bleeding hearts scream. She can stay with Islamic state. That’s where she wanted to be. That’s where she should stay.

Bangladesh said no too. “But she’ll be stateless!!” The bleeding hearts scream. She can stay with Islamic state. That’s where she wanted to be. That’s where she should stay.

Islamic state isn’t a state. She is in Syria and I fail to see why she should be Syria’s problem. We are in contravention of the 1961 Convention to reduce statelessness.
I can imagine people rolling their eyes when basic human rights are mentioned.
I think the failure to face up and deal with a problem in the UK that festered and grew in the UK is cowardly.
The folk wishing to strip people of UK citizenship and boot them out of the country back where they came for even the most minor infringement of the law cant have it both ways.

Jihadi john its believed, was killed in an ilegal drone strike on foreign soil athy.. you cant have your cake and eat it.

Jihadi john its believed, was killed in an ilegal drone strike on foreign soil athy.. you cant have your cake and eat it.

What are you even trying to say?

Jihadi john its believed, was killed in an ilegal drone strike on foreign soil athy.

I did say that. You must have missed it.

No. You said it was a grey area and told us your opinion. I told you the facts.

You dont know what you want.. apart from a go on Begum.

I told you the facts.

I mean, I dunno, but I’m not sure you and facts are the best of bedfellows.

Too late for “John”, but Kotey and Elsheikh *could* come back to the UK to be de-radicalised and tour schools to tell kids how bad Isis is:

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-43601925

deadlydarcy

What are you even trying to say?

Not very much…

dirk_pumpa

Member
Thats enough trolling for today.. night night internet 👋

Posted 21 hours ago

Ah, sorry I’d missed that. My bad for even trying to engage.

You dont know what you want.. apart from a go on Begum.

Is that shocking and comment as good as you have got?

The illegality of operations such as drone strikes on Jihadi John on foreign soil is an issue separate from a citizens right to a fair trial and innocent until proven guilty.

The situation described above is closer but not identical to that faced by authorities when encountering the Westminster Bridge attacker. It should be possible in certain situations to shoot to kill without a need to capture and charge someone when a serious and imminent threat is being made to endanger innocent lives. This is where the scenarios are similar.

They differ with regard to the fact that UK military is over reaching its jurisdiction hence the illegality of drone strikes and a separate debate.

If Jihadi John was to be captured or the Westminster Bridge attacker captured then they should have the right to a fair trial. There is no conflict in this regard.

Good programme on R4 earlier, with actual experts, including anti-terror officer who went after the girls when they 1st left.

Funnily enough nobody suggested that the bleeding hearts wanted to ‘have a go on her’
– So debate not up to stw standards,but still worth a listen

“But she’ll be stateless!!” The bleeding hearts scream.

“But she’ll be stateless!!” International law screams.

<mod>

@dirk_pumpa you’re skating -very- close to having some time off the forum. Play nicely.
</mod>

I think if they reviewed athys case theyd probably come to the same conclusion.