do I think she should be aloud back into the UK ... hmmm definitely NOT some may ask why so I will try and explain … regardless of her age when she left she knew she was going to support ISIS by marrying a fighter and bearing him children she knew he would be away at times working... IE... committing acts of terror .. by her own admission nothing fazed her as per her interview like the head in a bin...she justifies the acts of terrorism like Manchester arena as tit for tat her own words again (I guess that makes it okay then for those who think she should be aloud back into the UK ) wonder what the family's of all those killed would think .. it has been said that her mother has dual citizenship ive also read elsewhere that even thou she was born in the UK because the mother is a dual citizen then her children by birth right thru the mother has the right of citizenship to Bangladesh so she is not exactly stateless how true that is I do not no as I read it elsewhere … she shows no remorse and thinks she should be forgiven and no regrets if her husband was to get released or escape the prison ive no doubt she would disappear to be with him and carry on as usual until he was caught or killed then want to come back to the UK again .. please do not come back with she was groomed when they believe its okay to marry little kids that is ISIS not all Muslims .. anyway these are just my thoughts
do I think she should be aloud back into the UK ... hmmm definitely NOT some may ask why so I will try and explain … regardless of her age when she left she knew she was going to support ISIS by marrying a fighter and bearing him children she knew he would be away at times working... IE... committing acts of terror .. by her own admission nothing fazed her as per her interview like the head in a bin...she justifies the acts of terrorism like Manchester arena as tit for tat her own words again (I guess that makes it okay then for those who think she should be aloud back into the UK ) wonder what the family's of all those killed would think .. it has been said that her mother has dual citizenship ive also read elsewhere that even thou she was born in the UK because the mother is a dual citizen then her children by birth right thru the mother has the right of citizenship to Bangladesh so she is not exactly stateless how true that is I do not no as I read it elsewhere … she shows no remorse and thinks she should be forgiven and no regrets if her husband was to get released or escape the prison ive no doubt she would disappear to be with him and carry on as usual until he was caught or killed then want to come back to the UK again .. please do not come back with she was groomed when they believe its okay to marry little kids that is ISIS not all Muslims .. anyway these are just my thoughts
Lets just take 1 line from the above article and think about what you are saying , some of you
Escape was impossible, she claimed: "They'd kill you if you tried."
Lets look at another of her quotes in interview " I have no regrets about going and no remorse for the actions of IS"
You reap what you sow young lady, and whilst it may be that it is difficult for you to understand as one of the snowflake generation, you also have to take responsibility for yourself.
BBC News just referred to the Home Secretary's own strategy for counter-terrorism. In it there is a case study of a young girl travelling illegally to Syria to join ISIS (Daesh) and then attempting to leave Syria with a baby.
It seems a reasonable strategy to me, I am not sure why Mr Javid is not following it now?
"Syria returners illustrative example: In 2015, a British woman travels to join Daesh. In 2017 the individual flees Daesh-held territory with a new born baby and they make their way to Turkey. On arrival in Turkey the mother and the child are detained for entering the country illegally. Following the mother’s detention the British authorities are notified. DNA testing of the child is conducted to establish their entitlement to a British passport. Given that the mother has lived in Daesh-held territory, the Home Secretary and a judge approve the use of a Temporary Exclusion Order (TEO) to manage her return to the UK. The TEO allows us to specify the route of return to the UK and to impose obligations upon the individual once they return to help protect members of the public from a risk of terrorism. The mother and her child are subsequently deported to the UK from Turkey via the route specified by the TEO. On arrival in the UK the police launch an investigation into the woman’s activities in Syria to determine whether any crimes have been committed. If there is evidence that a crime has been committed then the mother will be charged and the Crown Prosecution Service will conduct criminal proceedings. If there is no evidence of criminality, the mother is assisted in reintegrating into society, for example, by requiring her to attend a series of sessions with a specially trained de-radicalisation mentor. In the meantime the mother is also obliged – as part of her TEO – to report regularly to a police station and to notify the Home Office of any change of address. The local authority is involved to ensure that the child is not at immediate risk and appropriate measures are put in place to help safeguard the child’s welfare."
BBC News just referred to the Home Secretary's own strategy for counter-terrorism. In it there is a case study of a young girl travelling illegally to Syria to join ISIS (Daesh) and then attempting to leave Syria with a baby.
It seems a reasonable strategy to me, I am not sure why Mr Javid is not following it now?
"Syria returners illustrative example: In 2015, a British woman travels to join Daesh. In 2017 the individual flees Daesh-held territory with a new born baby and they make their way to Turkey. On arrival in Turkey the mother and the child are detained for entering the country illegally. Following the mother’s detention the British authorities are notified. DNA testing of the child is conducted to establish their entitlement to a British passport. Given that the mother has lived in Daesh-held territory, the Home Secretary and a judge approve the use of a Temporary Exclusion Order (TEO) to manage her return to the UK. The TEO allows us to specify the route of return to the UK and to impose obligations upon the individual once they return to help protect members of the public from a risk of terrorism. The mother and her child are subsequently deported to the UK from Turkey via the route specified by the TEO. On arrival in the UK the police launch an investigation into the woman’s activities in Syria to determine whether any crimes have been committed. If there is evidence that a crime has been committed then the mother will be charged and the Crown Prosecution Service will conduct criminal proceedings. If there is no evidence of criminality, the mother is assisted in reintegrating into society, for example, by requiring her to attend a series of sessions with a specially trained de-radicalisation mentor. In the meantime the mother is also obliged – as part of her TEO – to report regularly to a police station and to notify the Home Office of any change of address. The local authority is involved to ensure that the child is not at immediate risk and appropriate measures are put in place to help safeguard the child’s welfare."
BBC News just referred to the Home Secretary's own strategy for counter-terrorism. In it there is a case study of a young girl travelling illegally to Syria to join ISIS (Daesh) and then attempting to leave Syria with a baby.
It seems a reasonable strategy to me, I am not sure why Mr Javid is not following it now?
"Syria returners illustrative example: In 2015, a British woman travels to join Daesh. In 2017 the individual flees Daesh-held territory with a new born baby and they make their way to Turkey. On arrival in Turkey the mother and the child are detained for entering the country illegally. Following the mother’s detention the British authorities are notified. DNA testing of the child is conducted to establish their entitlement to a British passport. Given that the mother has lived in Daesh-held territory, the Home Secretary and a judge approve the use of a Temporary Exclusion Order (TEO) to manage her return to the UK. The TEO allows us to specify the route of return to the UK and to impose obligations upon the individual once they return to help protect members of the public from a risk of terrorism. The mother and her child are subsequently deported to the UK from Turkey via the route specified by the TEO. On arrival in the UK the police launch an investigation into the woman’s activities in Syria to determine whether any crimes have been committed. If there is evidence that a crime has been committed then the mother will be charged and the Crown Prosecution Service will conduct criminal proceedings. If there is no evidence of criminality, the mother is assisted in reintegrating into society, for example, by requiring her to attend a series of sessions with a specially trained de-radicalisation mentor. In the meantime the mother is also obliged – as part of her TEO – to report regularly to a police station and to notify the Home Office of any change of address. The local authority is involved to ensure that the child is not at immediate risk and appropriate measures are put in place to help safeguard the child’s welfare."
Good Morning I googled “How did IS begin” The result is below, I’m not saying they are justified, merely highlighting the fact that they could say they are the victims...
Principally, Isis is the product of a genocide that continued unabated as the world stood back and watched. It is the illegitimate child born of pure hate and pure fear – the result of 200,000 murdered Syrians and of millions more displaced and divorced from their hopes and dreams. Isis's rise is also a reminder of how Bashar al-Assad's Machiavellian embrace of al-Qaida would come back to haunt him.
Good Morning I googled “How did IS begin” The result is below, I’m not saying they are justified, merely highlighting the fact that they could say they are the victims...
Principally, Isis is the product of a genocide that continued unabated as the world stood back and watched. It is the illegitimate child born of pure hate and pure fear – the result of 200,000 murdered Syrians and of millions more displaced and divorced from their hopes and dreams. Isis's rise is also a reminder of how Bashar al-Assad's Machiavellian embrace of al-Qaida would come back to haunt him.
“An eye for an eye “ springs to mind. Good Morning. The difference is this young Lady has not joined a barbaric group, butchering innocent Men, Women and Children,.
Let's (for the sake of argument) say that Shamima knowingly and without coercion travelled illegally to Syria and joined ISIS. Let's even say that she actively supported ISIS while there and still believes in the ISIS cause and is a danger to western society.
Why not bring her back to the UK and at least try her for her crimes? After all aren't 2 core British values innocent until proven guilty and the right to a fair trial?
Many ISIS fighters and supporters have returned already to the UK, some prosecuted and some reintegrated under the Home Secretary's own strategy.
The difference with those was that there was not a huge media storm before they returned.
Is there any relevance to her still being in Syria that we should attach to her words of the last few days? She might be in a refugee camp but I'm sure it's wise for her own safety that she is careful what she does and doesn't say whilst in such a situation.
Some of her comments could've been worded much better, particularly the Manchester comments, but when you take the emotion away you can understand what she is getting at.
It doesn't sit right with me that she's been stripped of her citizenship, and whilst it's a complex issue ultimately she is a British citizen.
Just caught up on the debate here and fair play to almost everyone involved, in what could have been a quickly closed thread. The usual suspect let himself down as standard but everyone else, particularly Dobie to my mild bemusement, has contributed well.
do I think she should be aloud back into the UK ... hmmm definitely NOT some may ask why so I will try and explain … regardless of her age when she left she knew she was going to support ISIS by marrying a fighter and bearing him children she knew he would be away at times working... IE... committing acts of terror .. by her own admission nothing fazed her as per her interview like the head in a bin...she justifies the acts of terrorism like Manchester arena as tit for tat her own words again (I guess that makes it okay then for those who think she should be aloud back into the UK ) wonder what the family's of all those killed would think .. it has been said that her mother has dual citizenship ive also read elsewhere that even thou she was born in the UK because the mother is a dual citizen then her children by birth right thru the mother has the right of citizenship to Bangladesh so she is not exactly stateless how true that is I do not no as I read it elsewhere … she shows no remorse and thinks she should be forgiven and no regrets if her husband was to get released or escape the prison ive no doubt she would disappear to be with him and carry on as usual until he was caught or killed then want to come back to the UK again .. please do not come back with she was groomed when they believe its okay to marry little kids that is ISIS not all Muslims .. anyway these are just my thoughts
Do you understand what radicalisation is ?
have to be honest not entirely, going to guess its along the lines of grooming .. regardless of if I understand what radicalisation is if she comes back to the UK she will be in the same environment as before she left .. does anyone really think that some one who shows zero remorse has no regret and still believes in the ISIS cause can be deradicalized … either way if as I now believe she will be returned only time will tell who's right or wrong ..
do I think she should be aloud back into the UK ... hmmm definitely NOT some may ask why so I will try and explain … regardless of her age when she left she knew she was going to support ISIS by marrying a fighter and bearing him children she knew he would be away at times working... IE... committing acts of terror .. by her own admission nothing fazed her as per her interview like the head in a bin...she justifies the acts of terrorism like Manchester arena as tit for tat her own words again (I guess that makes it okay then for those who think she should be aloud back into the UK ) wonder what the family's of all those killed would think .. it has been said that her mother has dual citizenship ive also read elsewhere that even thou she was born in the UK because the mother is a dual citizen then her children by birth right thru the mother has the right of citizenship to Bangladesh so she is not exactly stateless how true that is I do not no as I read it elsewhere … she shows no remorse and thinks she should be forgiven and no regrets if her husband was to get released or escape the prison ive no doubt she would disappear to be with him and carry on as usual until he was caught or killed then want to come back to the UK again .. please do not come back with she was groomed when they believe its okay to marry little kids that is ISIS not all Muslims .. anyway these are just my thoughts
Do you understand what radicalisation is ?
have to be honest not entirely, going to guess its along the lines of grooming .. regardless of if I understand what radicalisation is if she comes back to the UK she will be in the same environment as before she left .. does anyone really think that some one who shows zero remorse has no regret and still believes in the ISIS cause can be deradicalized … either way if as I now believe she will be returned only time will tell who's right or wrong ..
So do you not think , that an inability to show remorse /regret in the terms that some people expect is not as a direct result of her radicalisation/ brainwashing ?
hhyftrftdr said:Is there any relevance to her still being in Syria that we should attach to her words of the last few days? She might be in a refugee camp but I'm sure it's wise for her own safety that she is careful what she does and doesn't say whilst in such a situation.
Some of her comments could've been worded much better, particularly the Manchester comments, but when you take the emotion away you can understand what she is getting at.
It doesn't sit right with me that she's been stripped of her citizenship, and whilst it's a complex issue ultimately she is a British citizen.
Just caught up on the debate here and fair play to almost everyone involved, in what could have been a quickly closed thread. The usual suspect let himself down as standard but everyone else, particularly Dobie to my mild bemusement, has contributed well.
Is there any relevance to her still being in Syria that we should attach to her words of the last few days? She might be in a refugee camp but I'm sure it's wise for her own safety that she is careful what she does and doesn't say whilst in such a situation.
Some of her comments could've been worded much better, particularly the Manchester comments, but when you take the emotion away you can understand what she is getting at.
It doesn't sit right with me that she's been stripped of her citizenship, and whilst it's a complex issue ultimately she is a British citizen.
Just caught up on the debate here and fair play to almost everyone involved, in what could have been a quickly closed thread. The usual suspect let himself down as standard but everyone else, particularly Dobie to my mild bemusement, has contributed well.
So you would be happy that she didnt speak honestly, or if
Is there any relevance to her still being in Syria that we should attach to her words of the last few days? She might be in a refugee camp but I'm sure it's wise for her own safety that she is careful what she does and doesn't say whilst in such a situation.
Some of her comments could've been worded much better, particularly the Manchester comments, but when you take the emotion away you can understand what she is getting at.
It doesn't sit right with me that she's been stripped of her citizenship, and whilst it's a complex issue ultimately she is a British citizen.
Just caught up on the debate here and fair play to almost everyone involved, in what could have been a quickly closed thread. The usual suspect let himself down as standard but everyone else, particularly Dobie to my mild bemusement, has contributed well.
Here's an idea , she could of shut her mouth and not said anything.
Is there any relevance to her still being in Syria that we should attach to her words of the last few days? She might be in a refugee camp but I'm sure it's wise for her own safety that she is careful what she does and doesn't say whilst in such a situation.
Some of her comments could've been worded much better, particularly the Manchester comments, but when you take the emotion away you can understand what she is getting at.
It doesn't sit right with me that she's been stripped of her citizenship, and whilst it's a complex issue ultimately she is a British citizen.
Just caught up on the debate here and fair play to almost everyone involved, in what could have been a quickly closed thread. The usual suspect let himself down as standard but everyone else, particularly Dobie to my mild bemusement, has contributed well.
Please explain what she is getting at , because i can not understand that killing innocent people is in anyway justified. I know you understand her feelings but explain to us what she is getting at ?
Is there any relevance to her still being in Syria that we should attach to her words of the last few days? She might be in a refugee camp but I'm sure it's wise for her own safety that she is careful what she does and doesn't say whilst in such a situation.
Some of her comments could've been worded much better, particularly the Manchester comments, but when you take the emotion away you can understand what she is getting at.
It doesn't sit right with me that she's been stripped of her citizenship, and whilst it's a complex issue ultimately she is a British citizen.
Just caught up on the debate here and fair play to almost everyone involved, in what could have been a quickly closed thread. The usual suspect let himself down as standard but everyone else, particularly Dobie to my mild bemusement, has contributed well.
Here's an idea , she could of shut her mouth and not said anything.
Speaking "honestly" has considerable risk when someone is in this position. Let's take 1 example. She said that there were some similarities between what is happening in Syria and the Manchester atrocity. Put simply, there is.
I take the point you (and others) have made about ISIS fighters being the author of their own misfortune. But is that true for their child brides? For the thousands of innocent civilians who were bombed by the Syrian Government and the Russians merely because they lived in the area overrun by ISIS? It is clear that ALL sides in that conflict have committed various atrocities, including chemical warfare. Many people killed in that conflict have been just as blameless as those in Manchester. People do not choose to have their towns captured.
Saying nothing is not an option. The press would just be saying that she has said no words of contrition. They are concentrating on a young girl who did something incredibly stupid, rather than concentrating on the people who have left to fight.
I want to know how 3 15-year-old girls in East London were persuaded to give themselves up to this vile organisation, and how best to ensure it doesn't happen again. And to show what a desperately sad life such misguided people then lead, where children die and people face prosecution. And that is best served by her being in the UK.
Comments
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-47301623
Escape was impossible, she claimed: "They'd kill you if you tried."
" I have no regrets about going and no remorse for the actions of IS"
You reap what you sow young lady, and whilst it may be that it is difficult for you to understand as one of the snowflake generation, you also have to take responsibility for yourself.
It seems a reasonable strategy to me, I am not sure why Mr Javid is not following it now?
"Syria returners illustrative example: In 2015, a British woman travels to join Daesh. In 2017 the individual flees Daesh-held territory with a new born baby and they make their way to Turkey. On arrival in Turkey the mother and the child are detained for entering the country illegally. Following the mother’s detention the British authorities are notified. DNA testing of the child is conducted to establish their entitlement to a British passport. Given that the mother has lived in Daesh-held territory, the Home Secretary and a judge approve the use of a Temporary Exclusion Order (TEO) to manage her return to the UK. The TEO allows us to specify the route of return to the UK and to impose obligations upon the individual once they return to help protect members of the public from a risk of terrorism. The mother and her child are subsequently deported to the UK from Turkey via the route specified by the TEO. On arrival in the UK the police launch an investigation into the woman’s activities in Syria to determine whether any crimes have been committed. If there is evidence that a crime has been committed then the mother will be charged and the Crown Prosecution Service will conduct criminal proceedings. If there is no evidence of criminality, the mother is assisted in reintegrating into society, for example, by requiring her to attend a series of sessions with a specially trained de-radicalisation mentor. In the meantime the mother is also obliged – as part of her TEO – to report regularly to a police station and to notify the Home Office of any change of address. The local authority is involved to ensure that the child is not at immediate risk and appropriate measures are put in place to help safeguard the child’s welfare."
Full document available here...
https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/716907/140618_CCS207_CCS0218929798-1_CONTEST_3.0_WEB.pdf
This young Lady is the real victim.
I googled “How did IS begin”
The result is below, I’m not saying they are justified, merely highlighting the fact that they could say they are the victims...
Principally, Isis is the product of a genocide that continued unabated as the world stood back and watched. It is the illegitimate child born of pure hate and pure fear – the result of 200,000 murdered Syrians and of millions more displaced and divorced from their hopes and dreams. Isis's rise is also a reminder of how Bashar al-Assad's Machiavellian embrace of al-Qaida would come back to haunt him.
“An eye for an eye “ springs to mind.
This young Lady is the real victim.
Good Morning
I googled “How did IS begin”
The result is below, I’m not saying they are justified, merely highlighting the fact that they could say they are the victims...
Principally, Isis is the product of a genocide that continued unabated as the world stood back and watched. It is the illegitimate child born of pure hate and pure fear – the result of 200,000 murdered Syrians and of millions more displaced and divorced from their hopes and dreams. Isis's rise is also a reminder of how Bashar al-Assad's Machiavellian embrace of al-Qaida would come back to haunt him.
“An eye for an eye “ springs to mind.
Good Morning.
The difference is this young Lady has not joined a barbaric group, butchering innocent Men, Women and Children,.
Why not bring her back to the UK and at least try her for her crimes? After all aren't 2 core British values innocent until proven guilty and the right to a fair trial?
Many ISIS fighters and supporters have returned already to the UK, some prosecuted and some reintegrated under the Home Secretary's own strategy.
The difference with those was that there was not a huge media storm before they returned.
She might be in a refugee camp but I'm sure it's wise for her own safety that she is careful what she does and doesn't say whilst in such a situation.
Some of her comments could've been worded much better, particularly the Manchester comments, but when you take the emotion away you can understand what she is getting at.
It doesn't sit right with me that she's been stripped of her citizenship, and whilst it's a complex issue ultimately she is a British citizen.
Just caught up on the debate here and fair play to almost everyone involved, in what could have been a quickly closed thread. The usual suspect let himself down as standard but everyone else, particularly Dobie to my mild bemusement, has contributed well.
She might be in a refugee camp but I'm sure it's wise for her own safety that she is careful what she does and doesn't say whilst in such a situation.
Some of her comments could've been worded much better, particularly the Manchester comments, but when you take the emotion away you can understand what she is getting at.
It doesn't sit right with me that she's been stripped of her citizenship, and whilst it's a complex issue ultimately she is a British citizen.
Just caught up on the debate here and fair play to almost everyone involved, in what could have been a quickly closed thread. The usual suspect let himself down as standard but everyone else, particularly Dobie to my mild bemusement, has contributed well.
So you wld d of preferred is ouls So you would be happy that she didnt speak honestly, or if Here's an idea , she could of shut her mouth and not said anything.
I know you understand her feelings but explain to us what she is getting at ?
Speaking "honestly" has considerable risk when someone is in this position.
Let's take 1 example. She said that there were some similarities between what is happening in Syria and the Manchester atrocity. Put simply, there is.
I take the point you (and others) have made about ISIS fighters being the author of their own misfortune. But is that true for their child brides? For the thousands of innocent civilians who were bombed by the Syrian Government and the Russians merely because they lived in the area overrun by ISIS? It is clear that ALL sides in that conflict have committed various atrocities, including chemical warfare. Many people killed in that conflict have been just as blameless as those in Manchester. People do not choose to have their towns captured.
Saying nothing is not an option. The press would just be saying that she has said no words of contrition. They are concentrating on a young girl who did something incredibly stupid, rather than concentrating on the people who have left to fight.
I want to know how 3 15-year-old girls in East London were persuaded to give themselves up to this vile organisation, and how best to ensure it doesn't happen again. And to show what a desperately sad life such misguided people then lead, where children die and people face prosecution. And that is best served by her being in the UK.
Reposting.