When I was 16, I volunteered to join the armed forces because I wanted to do it. I wasn't groomed by the MoD. The argument that Shamima Begum was 'groomed' to join ISIS is, in my own opinion, rubbish. She knew what she was getting into. Just like, at 16, I knew what I was getting into when I signed up to join HM Forces (which was one of the best decisions of my life). Glad to see that common sense has prevailed today.
Out of curiosity, what would your opinion be if she was a white girl called Sarah?
Common sense is to bring her back, try get to the root of the situation and put her on trial if deemed necessary.
When I was 16, I volunteered to join the armed forces because I wanted to do it. I wasn't groomed by the MoD. The argument that Shamima Begum was 'groomed' to join ISIS is, in my own opinion, rubbish. She knew what she was getting into. Just like, at 16, I knew what I was getting into when I signed up to join HM Forces (which was one of the best decisions of my life). Glad to see that common sense has prevailed today.
Out of curiosity, what would your opinion be if she was a white girl called Sarah?
Common sense is to bring her back, try get to the root of the situation and put her on trial if deemed necessary.
They make their own beds they can die in them.
How do you feel about a British citizen having their citizenship revoked before they have even gone to trial? Or likely being denied a trial?
Our belief that everyone is innocent until proven guilty is surely one of the big differences between us and them. We must apply this across the board, and not just when it suits us.
When I was 16, I volunteered to join the armed forces because I wanted to do it. I wasn't groomed by the MoD.
you were indeed groomed to think the way you do
The argument that Shamima Begum was 'groomed' to join ISIS is, in my own opinion, rubbish.
really? as others have said she was young a very impressionable, she believed what she was being told as did you, surely that is the definition of grooming She knew what she was getting into.
Phil summed it up perfectly...
Just like, at 16, I knew what I was getting into when I signed up to join HM Forces (which was one of the best decisions of my life).
Glad it worked out for you, it didn't for her.
Glad to see that common sense has prevailed today.
'It turns out people who have spent years banging on about the grooming of young girls dont really care at all about the grooming of young girls. Funny old world.'
When I was 16, I volunteered to join the armed forces because I wanted to do it. I wasn't groomed by the MoD.
you were indeed groomed to think the way you do
The argument that Shamima Begum was 'groomed' to join ISIS is, in my own opinion, rubbish.
really? as others have said she was young a very impressionable, she believed what she was being told as did you, surely that is the definition of grooming She knew what she was getting into.
Phil summed it up perfectly...
Just like, at 16, I knew what I was getting into when I signed up to join HM Forces (which was one of the best decisions of my life).
Glad it worked out for you, it didn't for her.
Glad to see that common sense has prevailed today.
Again Phil said it perfectly
As he was a solicitor, you have to respect his knowledge of the law, and he always comes across as fair minded.
Under international law a state cannot renounce a person's citizenship if in doing so the act of removing their nationality would render that person stateless. This woman, (she is no longer a child) is eligable to claim Bangladeshi citizenship and therefore the UK government can lawfully strip her of her UK citizenship.
She joined a terrorist organisation and fully supported their ideolgy. From a legal standpoint even if she only carried out activities such as cooking or cleaning she actively aided in giving assistance and she knew prior to joining ISIS it was unlawful to do so.
Someone mentioned grooming. I feel that in this case that statement muddies the waters a little. I say that because from a young age she was the subject of religious indoctrination. I would say the exact thing of any child raised by the followers of any religion whether it be Christianity, Judaism, Islam or any other major religion. They all have devout believers who practice extreme versions of their faith.
As an aside to the above point I've always felt that it should be an offence to religiously indoctrinate any child as in extreme cases it can culminate in the situation this woman now finds herself in.
The final point I would like to make is that at NO point has she shown any remorse or contrition for her actions or those of IS.
For that reason alone I agree completely to strip her of UK citenship. It is quite clear she would pose a real and significant threat to our national security.
Under international law a state cannot renounce a person's citizenship if in doing so the act of removing their nationality would render that person stateless. This woman, (she is no longer a child) is eligable to claim Bangladeshi citizenship and therefore the UK government can lawfully strip her of her UK citizenship.
She joined a terrorist organisation and fully supported their ideolgy. From a legal standpoint even if she only carried out activities such as cooking or cleaning she actively aided in giving assistance and she knew prior to joining ISIS it was unlawful to do so.
Someone mentioned grooming. I feel that in this case that statement muddies the waters a little. I say that because from a young age she was the subject of religious indoctrination. I would say the exact thing of any child raised by the followers of any religion whether it be Christianity, Judaism, Islam or any other major religion. They all have devout believers who practice extreme versions of their faith.
As an aside to the above point I've always felt that it should be an offence to religiously indoctrinate any child as in extreme cases it can culminate in the situation this woman now finds herself in.
The final point I would like to make is that at NO point has she shown any remorse or contrition for her actions or those of IS.
For that reason alone I agree completely to strip her of UK citenship. It is quite clear she would pose a real and significant threat to our national security.
This is just plain wrong.
1. She would be stateless. She was born here, and is not a dual national. Under Bangladeshi immigration law, because 1 or both of her parents were born there, she would be entitled to apply for Bangladeshi citizenship. The key word there is "apply". It is entirely up to Bangladesh whether to say yes or no. She has never visited Bangladesh in her life. Bangladesh has publicly said they would refuse any application.
2. At 1 stage, while a child, she supported terrorism. By not just cooking, but also 10 days after arrival as a 15-yr-old, being compelled to marry a man she had never met prior to leaving the country.
3. Grooming "muddies the waters a little"? Really? You think that? I pity you. There are extremist indoctrinators in every religion. A tiny minority. How many UK Christians have had their UK citizenship removed? That would be 0.
4. She has shown considerable remorse. No great surprise there-she's watched her 3 kids die, her childish romantic illusions shattered. If you'd bothered to read what she has actually said, rather than the headlines of our press, you'd know that. She has been highly critical of both ISIS and ISIL.
5. A "real and significant threat to our national security"? How? Do you think she might sleep with more terrorists? Must be so much of a bigger threat to our security than than the 2-300 former ISIS fighters who have been allowed back.
The only reason she poses a threat to our national security is because our Government has decided to make an example of her. That may cause genuine problems. But not of her making. How many names of UK citizens have been bandied about who actually committed atrocities?
Which do you think poses a bigger risk?
1. A child being persuaded to cook for terrorists? Or 2. Someone who has murdered British troops or civilians?
Under international law a state cannot renounce a person's citizenship if in doing so the act of removing their nationality would render that person stateless. This woman, (she is no longer a child) is eligable to claim Bangladeshi citizenship and therefore the UK government can lawfully strip her of her UK citizenship.
She joined a terrorist organisation and fully supported their ideolgy. From a legal standpoint even if she only carried out activities such as cooking or cleaning she actively aided in giving assistance and she knew prior to joining ISIS it was unlawful to do so.
Someone mentioned grooming. I feel that in this case that statement muddies the waters a little. I say that because from a young age she was the subject of religious indoctrination. I would say the exact thing of any child raised by the followers of any religion whether it be Christianity, Judaism, Islam or any other major religion. They all have devout believers who practice extreme versions of their faith.
As an aside to the above point I've always felt that it should be an offence to religiously indoctrinate any child as in extreme cases it can culminate in the situation this woman now finds herself in.
The final point I would like to make is that at NO point has she shown any remorse or contrition for her actions or those of IS.
For that reason alone I agree completely to strip her of UK citenship. It is quite clear she would pose a real and significant threat to our national security.
Phil covered it way better than I ever could but this whole post is garbage.
We all know the real reason why the likes of you, Vespa and that ilk don't want her back here.
Under international law a state cannot renounce a person's citizenship if in doing so the act of removing their nationality would render that person stateless. This woman, (she is no longer a child) is eligable to claim Bangladeshi citizenship and therefore the UK government can lawfully strip her of her UK citizenship.
She joined a terrorist organisation and fully supported their ideolgy. From a legal standpoint even if she only carried out activities such as cooking or cleaning she actively aided in giving assistance and she knew prior to joining ISIS it was unlawful to do so.
Someone mentioned grooming. I feel that in this case that statement muddies the waters a little. I say that because from a young age she was the subject of religious indoctrination. I would say the exact thing of any child raised by the followers of any religion whether it be Christianity, Judaism, Islam or any other major religion. They all have devout believers who practice extreme versions of their faith.
As an aside to the above point I've always felt that it should be an offence to religiously indoctrinate any child as in extreme cases it can culminate in the situation this woman now finds herself in.
The final point I would like to make is that at NO point has she shown any remorse or contrition for her actions or those of IS.
For that reason alone I agree completely to strip her of UK citenship. It is quite clear she would pose a real and significant threat to our national security.
Phil covered it way better than I ever could but this whole post is garbage.
We all know the real reason why the likes of you, Vespa and that ilk don't want her back here.
Do the "ilk" include parents and next of kin of innocent people murdered by the cult she supported?
Under international law a state cannot renounce a person's citizenship if in doing so the act of removing their nationality would render that person stateless. This woman, (she is no longer a child) is eligable to claim Bangladeshi citizenship and therefore the UK government can lawfully strip her of her UK citizenship.
She joined a terrorist organisation and fully supported their ideolgy. From a legal standpoint even if she only carried out activities such as cooking or cleaning she actively aided in giving assistance and she knew prior to joining ISIS it was unlawful to do so.
Someone mentioned grooming. I feel that in this case that statement muddies the waters a little. I say that because from a young age she was the subject of religious indoctrination. I would say the exact thing of any child raised by the followers of any religion whether it be Christianity, Judaism, Islam or any other major religion. They all have devout believers who practice extreme versions of their faith.
As an aside to the above point I've always felt that it should be an offence to religiously indoctrinate any child as in extreme cases it can culminate in the situation this woman now finds herself in.
The final point I would like to make is that at NO point has she shown any remorse or contrition for her actions or those of IS.
For that reason alone I agree completely to strip her of UK citenship. It is quite clear she would pose a real and significant threat to our national security.
Phil covered it way better than I ever could but this whole post is garbage.
We all know the real reason why the likes of you, Vespa and that ilk don't want her back here.
Do the "ilk" include parents and next of kin of innocent people murdered by the cult she supported?
Most probably, but despite the trauma they will have gone through, it doesn't make Begum any less British.
Which, taking the emotion away from it, is the crux of the issue.
Whether you like it or not (she's brown and sounds foreign so we already know you don't) she's a British citizen and cannot be made stateless.
@Essexphil how many UK christians have joined overtly religious terrorist organisations?
Answer 0 which might explain why none have had their citizenship revoked.
As for your counterpoints; 1) I was merely pointing out that under international law the UK is acting lawfully. 2) You freely recognise that just a few years ago she supported terrorism. 3) Sexual, political and religious grooming of a minor is abhorent. We can both agrre on that. 4) Please provide links of her denouncing IS. I have yet to see any. 5) If her punishment serves to deter any other impressionable teenagers then it is a price worth paying.
As for your final comment. As far as I'm concerned anyone who joins an organization that stands contrary to the freedoms and liberties our nation stands for should be barred from entry.
@hhyftrftdr I resent your insinuations. I was born and raised in England but am of Irish catholic descent so am only far too aware of bigotry, hatred and sectarianism from a first hand perspective. Try living 10 miles from Birmingham with an Irish surname in the years after those sickening pub bombings!
I have absolutely zero tolerence for any form of hatred or oppression. I also believe that everyone is entitled to hold an opinion no matter how distatseful I may find it. If you want a grown up debate then good, let's debate the merits or lack therof of each side of the case. Simply saying <\b>We all know the real reason why the likes of you, Vespa and that ilk don't want her back here.<\b> adds nothing to the conversation.
"Days later, she spoke to Sky News from the camp and hours after giving birth. During the interview she said she was aware of ISIS beheadings and other brutality before she left to join the group, and was "OK" with it"
Under international law a state cannot renounce a person's citizenship if in doing so the act of removing their nationality would render that person stateless. This woman, (she is no longer a child) is eligable to claim Bangladeshi citizenship and therefore the UK government can lawfully strip her of her UK citizenship.
She joined a terrorist organisation and fully supported their ideolgy. From a legal standpoint even if she only carried out activities such as cooking or cleaning she actively aided in giving assistance and she knew prior to joining ISIS it was unlawful to do so.
Someone mentioned grooming. I feel that in this case that statement muddies the waters a little. I say that because from a young age she was the subject of religious indoctrination. I would say the exact thing of any child raised by the followers of any religion whether it be Christianity, Judaism, Islam or any other major religion. They all have devout believers who practice extreme versions of their faith.
As an aside to the above point I've always felt that it should be an offence to religiously indoctrinate any child as in extreme cases it can culminate in the situation this woman now finds herself in.
The final point I would like to make is that at NO point has she shown any remorse or contrition for her actions or those of IS.
For that reason alone I agree completely to strip her of UK citenship. It is quite clear she would pose a real and significant threat to our national security.
Phil covered it way better than I ever could but this whole post is garbage.
We all know the real reason why the likes of you, Vespa and that ilk don't want her back here.
Do the "ilk" include parents and next of kin of innocent people murdered by the cult she supported?
Most probably, but despite the trauma they will have gone through, it doesn't make Begum any less British.
Which, taking the emotion away from it, is the crux of the issue.
Whether you like it or not (she's brown and sounds foreign so we already know you don't) she's a British citizen and cannot be made stateless.
Under international law a state cannot renounce a person's citizenship if in doing so the act of removing their nationality would render that person stateless. This woman, (she is no longer a child) is eligable to claim Bangladeshi citizenship and therefore the UK government can lawfully strip her of her UK citizenship.
She joined a terrorist organisation and fully supported their ideolgy. From a legal standpoint even if she only carried out activities such as cooking or cleaning she actively aided in giving assistance and she knew prior to joining ISIS it was unlawful to do so.
Someone mentioned grooming. I feel that in this case that statement muddies the waters a little. I say that because from a young age she was the subject of religious indoctrination. I would say the exact thing of any child raised by the followers of any religion whether it be Christianity, Judaism, Islam or any other major religion. They all have devout believers who practice extreme versions of their faith.
As an aside to the above point I've always felt that it should be an offence to religiously indoctrinate any child as in extreme cases it can culminate in the situation this woman now finds herself in.
The final point I would like to make is that at NO point has she shown any remorse or contrition for her actions or those of IS.
For that reason alone I agree completely to strip her of UK citenship. It is quite clear she would pose a real and significant threat to our national security.
Phil covered it way better than I ever could but this whole post is garbage.
We all know the real reason why the likes of you, Vespa and that ilk don't want her back here.
Do the "ilk" include parents and next of kin of innocent people murdered by the cult she supported?
Most probably, but despite the trauma they will have gone through, it doesn't make Begum any less British.
Which, taking the emotion away from it, is the crux of the issue.
Whether you like it or not (she's brown and sounds foreign so we already know you don't) she's a British citizen and cannot be made stateless.
I cannot comment on law as I am not a qualified lawyer. What I will say is this appears to be a situation that evokes vigorous debate. On the one hand we have someone who appears to have betrayed our country and joined with an enemy that is calling for the death/enslavement of us all. On the other hand we have someone who made a mistake at 15 and yeah at 15 I was stupid and capable of making some silly mistakes.
The thing is rather then getting emotive and worrying about sympathy and forgiveness or anger and hate we should try to look at the actuality of the situation.
We have someone who is sympathetic to views that justify mass terrorism who even when she was apart from them and meant to have changed was advocating for their side.
If she came back here how sure can we be that she would not be behind a mass terrorist attack? to those that think we absolutely should let her back in how would you feel if your son or daughter was killed in a terrorist attack that she was later involved in?
a good illustration is pedophiles I know its off topic but as an analogy its known that those who were abused as children are more likely to become child abusers themselves. Now that is not me saying we should lock up or restrict the rights of those abused by pedophiles that would be insane. But if we have someone who is a pedophile or advocates for pedophilia whislt they may have been a victim before and that may invoke some sympathy would you want them living on the same street as your children? I would not.
I think anyone that joins a terrorist organisation like ISIS or AL Queeda or etc should not be allowed to come back to our country and live freely among us. I dont want to risk my loved ones or myself later on when some of these individuals commit atrocities.
@Essexphil how many UK christians have joined overtly religious terrorist organisations?
Answer 0 which might explain why none have had their citizenship revoked.
As for your counterpoints; 1) I was merely pointing out that under international law the UK is acting lawfully. 2) You freely recognise that just a few years ago she supported terrorism. 3) Sexual, political and religious grooming of a minor is abhorent. We can both agrre on that. 4) Please provide links of her denouncing IS. I have yet to see any. 5) If her punishment serves to deter any other impressionable teenagers then it is a price worth paying.
As for your final comment. As far as I'm concerned anyone who joins an organization that stands contrary to the freedoms and liberties our nation stands for should be barred from entry.
@hhyftrftdr I resent your insinuations. I was born and raised in England but am of Irish catholic descent so am only far too aware of bigotry, hatred and sectarianism from a first hand perspective. Try living 10 miles from Birmingham with an Irish surname in the years after those sickening pub bombings!
I have absolutely zero tolerence for any form of hatred or oppression. I also believe that everyone is entitled to hold an opinion no matter how distatseful I may find it. If you want a grown up debate then good, let's debate the merits or lack therof of each side of the case. Simply saying <\b>We all know the real reason why the likes of you, Vespa and that ilk don't want her back here.<\b> adds nothing to the conversation.
0? The IRA are a Catholic Christian extremist grouping. That have been on the UK's banned terrorist group list for 50 years. For organising terrible things like the Birmingham pub bombings you mention.
Not being sectarian about this. Not least because I am half Catholic, and half Protestant Exactly the same is true for certain extremist Protestant Christian groups. Like the UDA.
It could hardly be claimed that no IRA man has ever had dual citizenship. But none have ever had citizenship renounced. Not only that, but after promising to play nicely various terrorists have been released.
In answer to your numbered points:-
1. I disagree, but it is important to recognise that the international community is either agreeing with you or turning a blind eye (depending on your point of view) 2. I'm not claiming she is perfect. I'm saying that, if she is a criminal, she is a British one. And entitled to a fair trial, whether or not she is allowed into the UK to do this 3. Yes. I'm only saying we should all have more compassion and pity for a 15-yr-old who does stupid things, and still tries to argue her case when a young woman. When I was 15. I did some spectacularly stupid things. It's part of being 15. 4. I'm no good at providing links. But, as an example, she has said that ISIL was deeply flawed, and that it did not deserve to win the war. 5. I've never liked that argument. Quite apart from it involving injustice, it makes a martyr out of people. Which is not wise. And we could have picked a lot of better examples.
We are proud of saying that people are entitled to hold opinions we disagree with. And at the same time banish someone for doing exactly that.
I agree with a lot of things hhy says. On nearly everything. That doesn't mean I agree with the way he says things sometimes. I'm sure he feels the same about me.
Racist people do hold some of the opinions you espouse. But so do an awful lot of entirely sensible (and non-racist) people.
I cannot comment on law as I am not a qualified lawyer. What I will say is this appears to be a situation that evokes vigorous debate. On the one hand we have someone who appears to have betrayed our country and joined with an enemy that is calling for the death/enslavement of us all. On the other hand we have someone who made a mistake at 15 and yeah at 15 I was stupid and capable of making some silly mistakes.
The thing is rather then getting emotive and worrying about sympathy and forgiveness or anger and hate we should try to look at the actuality of the situation.
We have someone who is sympathetic to views that justify mass terrorism who even when she was apart from them and meant to have changed was advocating for their side.
If she came back here how sure can we be that she would not be behind a mass terrorist attack? to those that think we absolutely should let her back in how would you feel if your son or daughter was killed in a terrorist attack that she was later involved in?
a good illustration is pedophiles I know its off topic but as an analogy its known that those who were abused as children are more likely to become child abusers themselves. Now that is not me saying we should lock up or restrict the rights of those abused by pedophiles that would be insane. But if we have someone who is a pedophile or advocates for pedophilia whislt they may have been a victim before and that may invoke some sympathy would you want them living on the same street as your children? I would not.
I think anyone that joins a terrorist organisation like ISIS or AL Queeda or etc should not be allowed to come back to our country and live freely among us. I dont want to risk my loved ones or myself later on when some of these individuals commit atrocities.
There's so much disjointed with the above it's hard to know where to begin tbh.
I have no idea where you live, but in a 10 mile radius of your home address I bet there are dozens more dangerous people living close to you.
If/when she returns, she'll be watched like a hawk by the authorities. She won't be able to even **** in peace. And that's assuming she returns to society and not a stint in jail first.
You say to look at the actuality of the situation; that actuality is that she's a British citizen and she cannot be made stateless. All other opinions, mine included, are basically irrelevant and we could debate it until the cows come home but that is the ''actuality of the situation''.
Comments
We must apply this across the board, and not just when it suits us.
'It turns out people who have spent years banging on about the grooming of young girls dont really care at all about the grooming of young girls. Funny old world.'
Under international law a state cannot renounce a person's citizenship if in doing so the act of removing their nationality would render that person stateless.
This woman, (she is no longer a child) is eligable to claim Bangladeshi citizenship and therefore the UK government can lawfully strip her of her UK citizenship.
She joined a terrorist organisation and fully supported their ideolgy. From a legal standpoint even if she only carried out activities such as cooking or cleaning she actively aided in giving assistance and she knew prior to joining ISIS it was unlawful to do so.
Someone mentioned grooming. I feel that in this case that statement muddies the waters a little. I say that because from a young age she was the subject of religious indoctrination. I would say the exact thing of any child raised by the followers of any religion whether it be Christianity, Judaism, Islam or any other major religion. They all have devout believers who practice extreme versions of their faith.
As an aside to the above point I've always felt that it should be an offence to religiously indoctrinate any child as in extreme cases it can culminate in the situation this woman now finds herself in.
The final point I would like to make is that at NO point has she shown any remorse or contrition for her actions or those of IS.
For that reason alone I agree completely to strip her of UK citenship. It is quite clear she would pose a real and significant threat to our national security.
1. She would be stateless. She was born here, and is not a dual national. Under Bangladeshi immigration law, because 1 or both of her parents were born there, she would be entitled to apply for Bangladeshi citizenship. The key word there is "apply". It is entirely up to Bangladesh whether to say yes or no. She has never visited Bangladesh in her life. Bangladesh has publicly said they would refuse any application.
2. At 1 stage, while a child, she supported terrorism. By not just cooking, but also 10 days after arrival as a 15-yr-old, being compelled to marry a man she had never met prior to leaving the country.
3. Grooming "muddies the waters a little"? Really? You think that? I pity you. There are extremist indoctrinators in every religion. A tiny minority. How many UK Christians have had their UK citizenship removed? That would be 0.
4. She has shown considerable remorse. No great surprise there-she's watched her 3 kids die, her childish romantic illusions shattered. If you'd bothered to read what she has actually said, rather than the headlines of our press, you'd know that. She has been highly critical of both ISIS and ISIL.
5. A "real and significant threat to our national security"? How? Do you think she might sleep with more terrorists? Must be so much of a bigger threat to our security than than the 2-300 former ISIS fighters who have been allowed back.
The only reason she poses a threat to our national security is because our Government has decided to make an example of her. That may cause genuine problems. But not of her making. How many names of UK citizens have been bandied about who actually committed atrocities?
Which do you think poses a bigger risk?
1. A child being persuaded to cook for terrorists? Or
2. Someone who has murdered British troops or civilians?
We all know the real reason why the likes of you, Vespa and that ilk don't want her back here.
Which, taking the emotion away from it, is the crux of the issue.
Whether you like it or not (she's brown and sounds foreign so we already know you don't) she's a British citizen and cannot be made stateless.
Answer 0 which might explain why none have had their citizenship revoked.
As for your counterpoints;
1) I was merely pointing out that under international law the UK is acting lawfully.
2) You freely recognise that just a few years ago she supported terrorism.
3) Sexual, political and religious grooming of a minor is abhorent. We can both agrre on that.
4) Please provide links of her denouncing IS. I have yet to see any.
5) If her punishment serves to deter any other impressionable teenagers then it is a price worth paying.
As for your final comment. As far as I'm concerned anyone who joins an organization that stands contrary to the freedoms and liberties our nation stands for should be barred from entry.
@hhyftrftdr I resent your insinuations. I was born and raised in England but am of Irish catholic descent so am only far too aware of bigotry, hatred and sectarianism from a first hand perspective. Try living 10 miles from Birmingham with an Irish surname in the years after those sickening pub bombings!
I have absolutely zero tolerence for any form of hatred or oppression. I also believe that everyone is entitled to hold an opinion no matter how distatseful I may find it. If you want a grown up debate then good, let's debate the merits or lack therof of each side of the case. Simply saying <\b>We all know the real reason why the likes of you, Vespa and that ilk don't want her back here.<\b> adds nothing to the conversation.
https://edition.cnn.com/2019/02/19/uk/shamima-begum-british-citizenship-gbr-intl/index.html
"Days later, she spoke to Sky News from the camp and hours after giving birth. During the interview she said she was aware of ISIS beheadings and other brutality before she left to join the group, and was "OK" with it"
I hear you're a racist now, Vespa.
The thing is rather then getting emotive and worrying about sympathy and forgiveness or anger and hate we should try to look at the actuality of the situation.
We have someone who is sympathetic to views that justify mass terrorism who even when she was apart from them and meant to have changed was advocating for their side.
If she came back here how sure can we be that she would not be behind a mass terrorist attack? to those that think we absolutely should let her back in how would you feel if your son or daughter was killed in a terrorist attack that she was later involved in?
a good illustration is pedophiles I know its off topic but as an analogy its known that those who were abused as children are more likely to become child abusers themselves. Now that is not me saying we should lock up or restrict the rights of those abused by pedophiles that would be insane. But if we have someone who is a pedophile or advocates for pedophilia whislt they may have been a victim before and that may invoke some sympathy would you want them living on the same street as your children? I would not.
I think anyone that joins a terrorist organisation like ISIS or AL Queeda or etc should not be allowed to come back to our country and live freely among us. I dont want to risk my loved ones or myself later on when some of these individuals commit atrocities.
Not being sectarian about this. Not least because I am half Catholic, and half Protestant
It could hardly be claimed that no IRA man has ever had dual citizenship. But none have ever had citizenship renounced. Not only that, but after promising to play nicely various terrorists have been released.
In answer to your numbered points:-
1. I disagree, but it is important to recognise that the international community is either agreeing with you or turning a blind eye (depending on your point of view)
2. I'm not claiming she is perfect. I'm saying that, if she is a criminal, she is a British one. And entitled to a fair trial, whether or not she is allowed into the UK to do this
3. Yes. I'm only saying we should all have more compassion and pity for a 15-yr-old who does stupid things, and still tries to argue her case when a young woman. When I was 15. I did some spectacularly stupid things. It's part of being 15.
4. I'm no good at providing links. But, as an example, she has said that ISIL was deeply flawed, and that it did not deserve to win the war.
5. I've never liked that argument. Quite apart from it involving injustice, it makes a martyr out of people. Which is not wise. And we could have picked a lot of better examples.
We are proud of saying that people are entitled to hold opinions we disagree with. And at the same time banish someone for doing exactly that.
I agree with a lot of things hhy says. On nearly everything. That doesn't mean I agree with the way he says things sometimes. I'm sure he feels the same about me.
Racist people do hold some of the opinions you espouse. But so do an awful lot of entirely sensible (and non-racist) people.
this
I have no idea where you live, but in a 10 mile radius of your home address I bet there are dozens more dangerous people living close to you.
If/when she returns, she'll be watched like a hawk by the authorities. She won't be able to even **** in peace.
And that's assuming she returns to society and not a stint in jail first.
You say to look at the actuality of the situation; that actuality is that she's a British citizen and she cannot be made stateless. All other opinions, mine included, are basically irrelevant and we could debate it until the cows come home but that is the ''actuality of the situation''.