British schoolgirl that left to join ISIS in 2015 says she has no regrets but wants to return home to the UK

Prine · Feb 20, 2019

SgtCobra said:
This shit actually makes me angry as hell. Wait for him? He should get life imprisonment if he really did fight with IS, fuck him. The fact that she's deciding to stay with him says enough about her wanting to distance herself from this whole ordeal.
They probably won't give her citizenship here anyway, maybe the poor child.

She does not consider her actions and support for the death of innocent as a crime, that infuriates me too, but she or my own personal feelings shouldnt be factor of her right to a fair trial and for that to happen here, in UK, i do want her to be locked just like any other piece of shit that wants to harm others. Its astonishing that she thinks she's able to continue life as normal, but then she does come across as someone who is indoctrinated, perhaps unable to hold herself to accountable, text book sociopath.

degauss · Feb 20, 2019

This thread is incredibly harsh on someone who is or was, effectively a trafficked young girl.

Lewpy · Feb 20, 2019

Puroresu_kid said:
But these people would be arrested, investigated and if found to be guilty of crimes punished.

That is how justice works rather than just dumping someone not liked on somebody else with no judicial process at all.

Dumping someone? From what I see, she left the UK to join a terrorist organisation of her own accord. She could of course stay put at the location she currently resides, no one is forcing her to leave there. She obviously felt she was better off moving countries (of her own accord) the organisation welcomed her with open arms too, hooked her up with a house and husband the moment she got off the flight.

Lets be clear, countries have very clear rules about being part of terrorist organisations, if you can't abide by them, then that's on you. They are not 'dumping' anyone they don't like, they are revoking the free movement of a person who poses a threat to national security, by association to one of the worst terrorist organisations the world has ever seen. I have absolutely no sympathy for her current situation, she put herself in that predicament. As for her child, that's another matter.

Deaf Spacker · Feb 20, 2019

degauss said:
This thread is incredibly harsh on someone who is or was, effectively a trafficked young girl.

I think her lack of remorse is a big reason and the fact that in every interview she gives, she digs an even deeper hole.

Timmm · Feb 20, 2019

degauss said:
This thread is incredibly harsh on someone who is or was, effectively a trafficked young girl.

15 year olds, who people consider not old enough to: drive, vote, smoke, purchase alcohol, get married, have sex, or leave compulsory education

But apparently are mature enough to make as big a decision as running away to join ISIS after being radicalised as an even younger child

Puroresu_kid · Feb 20, 2019

Lewpy said:
Dumping someone? From what I see, she left the UK to join a terrorist organisation of her own accord. She could of course stay put at the location she currently resides, no one is forcing her to leave there. She obviously felt she was better off moving countries (of her own accord) the organisation welcomed her with open arms too, hooked her up with a house and husband the moment she got off the flight.

Lets be clear, countries have very clear rules about being part of terrorist organisations, if you can't abide by them, then that's on you. They are not 'dumping' anyone they don't like, they are revoking the free movement of a person who poses a threat to national security, by association to one of the worst terrorist organisations the world has ever seen. I have absolutely no sympathy for her current situation, she put herself in that predicament. As for her child, that's another matter.

1. She was a child or does that matter.

2. What happens if Syria want her deported. Then where does she go? She isn't Syria's responsibility.

Lewpy · Feb 20, 2019

Puroresu_kid said:
1. She was a child or does that matter.

2. What happens if Syria want her deported. Then where does she go? She isn't Syria's responsibility.

1. She's not a child now. Children do stupid things, I know I've done my fair share over the years. Never thought it would be a good idea to join a terrorist group though, even at 15 years old I knew that was a bad idea. Also, she was given a platform to admit that it was a pretty stupid thing to do, essentially given a chance to admit her 15 year old self was kinda stupid. She just clarified her current 19 year old self is just as idiotic.

2. I'm sure if they were bothered about deporting her, then they would have done it during the last 4 years. If she wasn't a problem before, why would she be a problem now?

Seductivpancakes · Feb 20, 2019

That's unfortunate for her child.

Puroresu_kid · Feb 20, 2019

Lewpy said:
1. She's not a child now. Children do stupid things, I know I've done my fair share over the years. Never thought it would be a good idea to join a terrorist group though, even at 15 years old I knew that was a bad idea. Also, she was given a platform to admit that it was a pretty stupid thing to do, essentially given a chance to admit her 15 year old self was kinda stupid. She just clarified her current 19 year old self is just as idiotic.

2. I'm sure if they were bothered about deporting her, then they would have done it during the last 4 years. If she wasn't a problem before, why would she be a problem now?

She was radicalised from 13. It can happen.

The last 4 years? She was in IS territory during a civil war. The Syrian authorities were in no position to do anything with her.

She is now is an refugee camp which eventually I would assume will be no more as they process and do what is required to help refugees get back to 'normality' after a war.

Now what should the Syrians be expected to do with this girl? All I'm hearing from you is excuses for Britain to avoid its duties to its citizens and wishing or hoping some other country deals with her.

nekkid · Feb 20, 2019

Timmm said:
15 year olds, who people consider not old enough to: drive, vote, smoke, purchase alcohol, get married, have sex, or leave compulsory education

But apparently are mature enough to make as big a decision as running away to join ISIS after being radicalised as an even younger child

And the discussion might be different if she said "I was a kid, I was stupid, this is horrific, I'm sorry and I want out". But nope, we have a grown-ass adult justifying the Manchester bombing.

Lewpy · Feb 20, 2019

Puroresu_kid said:
She was radicalised from 13. It can happen.

The last 4 years? She was in IS territory during a civil war. The Syrian authorities were in no position to do anything with her.

She is now is an refugee camp which eventually I would assume will be no more as they process and do what is required to help refugees get back to 'normality' after a war.

Now what should the Syrians be expected to do with this girl? All I'm hearing from you is excuses for Britain to avoid its duties to its citizens and wishing or hoping some other country deals with her.

Avoid their duties? Ever heard of the expression 'the needs of the many outweigh the needs of the few'? What about the duty it has to the citizens that want to live in a civil society without the threat of terror? Because right now she has done nor said anything to convince me she has moved on, and is no longer a threat.

Salty_Josh · Feb 20, 2019

They're discussing this in parliament now. Just a reminder that two previous cases where the government has tried to revoke citizenship of someone didn't work because it was found to be against their human rights (it is a human right to have a nationality and you can't deprive them of that) and you they failed to show nationality by descent (again with a dual British-Bangladeshi citizenship).
Sajid Javid is really annoying me saying he "can't discuss a specific case". He is glossing over why he won't bring her back to prosecute either. Really is just a coward's way of doing things by leaving her out there free taking up space in a refugee camp she doesn't deserve to be in, especially when she was supporting the people who forced them into those camps. As some snp lady just said, this government is just pandering to populism.

Another point we haven't discussed in this thread is that there would be uproar if accepted a criminal into this country if they were stripped of their nationality and had British "nationality by descent", so why should we expect another country to do the same?

Puroresu_kid · Feb 20, 2019

Lewpy said:
Avoid their duties? Ever heard of the expression 'the needs of the many outweigh the needs of the few'? What about the duty it has to the citizens that want to live in a civil society without the threat of terror? Because right now she has done nor said anything to convince me she has moved on, and is no longer a threat.

How are terrorists dealt with by the security forces currently? Tried and if guilty imprisoned. That's how a civil society deals with terrorists.

Puroresu_kid · Feb 20, 2019

Salty_Josh said:
They're discussing this in parliament now. Just a reminder that two previous cases where the government has tried to revoke citizenship of someone didn't work because it was found to be against their human rights (it is a human right to have a nationality and you can't deprive them of that) and you they failed to show nationality by descent (again with a dual British-Bangladeshi citizenship).
Sajid Javid is really annoying me saying he "can't discuss a specific case". He is glossing over why he won't bring her back to prosecute either. Really is just a coward's way of doing things by leaving her out there free taking up space in a refugee camp she doesn't deserve to be in, especially when she was supporting the people who forced them into those camps. As some snp lady just said, this government is just pandering to populism.

Another point we haven't discussed in this thread is that there would be uproar if accepted a criminal into this country if they were stripped of their nationality and had British "nationality by descent", so why should we expect another country to do the same?

Exactly. Javid is simply pandering to the masses. He was quick to say he would do all he could to stop her coming back and once he said that he had to revoke her citizenship.

He doesn't want to be either firstly a Muslim home secretary allowing an Islamic terrorist into the uk and secondly his eyes are on tory leadership when May goes.

Salty_Josh · Feb 20, 2019

Puroresu_kid said:
Exactly. Javid is simply pandering to the masses. He was quick to say he would do all he could to stop her coming back and once he said that he had to revoke her citizenship.

He doesn't want to be either firstly a Muslim home secretary allowing an Islamic terrorist into the uk and secondly his eyes are on tory leadership when May goes.

He has the cheek to talk about upholding values, being fair, acting morally and working within the law. What a joke. Even the torries are giving him a myriad of reasons he should just deal with the problem

captainmal01 · Feb 20, 2019

BarryFishFinger said:
The assumption seems to be she has default Bangladeshi citizenship under Jus Sanguinis. The whole issue of whether she can come back seems to hinge on this.

Let's say she does have birthright automatically through Jus Sanguinis. Removing her "main" national identity and relying on another country where she has basically no connection seems to be an extremely grey area, while relying on another country to take in a person that honestly shouldn't be their problem to deal with. At a domestic level, it seems wrong and at a diplomatic level callous. And I'm trying to find if under Jus Sanguinis, even though you automatically get citizenship, do you still have to apply for your child so the country knows they exist? Because if not my original point still applies and she is in limbo right now.

Heshinsi · Feb 20, 2019

Xypher said:
Actually, looking at the law it might be legal under Article 8 Paragraph 3 b:
"3 . Notwithstanding the provisions of paragraph 1 of this Article, a Contract- ing State may retain the right to deprive a person of his nationality, if at the time of signature, ratification or accession it specifies its retention of such right on one or more of the following grounds, being grounds existing in its national law at that time:"
"(b) that the person has taken an oath, or made a formal declaration, of alle- giance to another State, or given definite evidence of his determination to repudiate his allegiance to the Contracting State."

One could argue that when she joined ISIS she pledged allegiance to the "Islamic State in Syria".
Or even based on Article 8 paragraph 3 a II:

"(ii) has conducted himself in a manner seriously prejudicial to the vital interests of the State;"
One could argue that her joining a terrorist force that is threatening western soicety is a manner prejudicial to the interests of the state.
Source for the law:
https://www.unhcr.org/ibelong/wp-co...ion-on-the-reduction-of-Statelessness_ENG.pdf

But ISIS isn't a recognised legal state. We can't start playing games just to strip someone of their citizenship. She is now stateless, and that is illegal. Not to mention that this was done with no trial at all. British citizens who fought for the fucking Nazis didn't have their citizenships revoked, but were captured, tried, and punished for their treason.

Timmm · Feb 20, 2019

nekkid said:
And the discussion might be different if she said "I was a kid, I was stupid, this is horrific, I'm sorry and I want out". But nope, we have a grown-ass adult justifying the Manchester bombing.

A "grown-ass adult" who was radicalised at 13, went to a warzone at 15, has since been through the trauma of seeing 2 children starve to death, all while living in an area of the world that will not have reported on the Manchester bombing the same way it was in the UK

It's not really hugely surprising that she would act that way given her circumstances

TheStebe · Feb 20, 2019

https://news.sky.com/story/is-teen-...british-citizen-suggests-sajid-javid-11642889

Islamic State recruit Shamima Begum's baby son can be British despite her citizenship being removed, Home Secretary Sajid Javid has suggested.

nekkid · Feb 20, 2019

Timmm said:
A "grown-ass adult" who was radicalised at 13, went to a warzone at 15, has since been through the trauma of seeing 2 children starve to death, all while living in an area of the world that will not have reported on the Manchester bombing the same way it was in the UK

It's not really hugely surprising that she would act that way given her circumstances

The lack of news coverage doesn't explain away her saying 'meh - deserved it' at the disembodied heads in her dustbin.

raygcon · Feb 20, 2019

Take her back, prosecute her follow the usual legal process. Then make a new law, make it clear, and warn everyone who wanna join terrorist group who do activity against UK interest in the future that they will get their will get citizenship revoke. So at least next time the government can say they have warned.

Timmm · Feb 20, 2019

nekkid said:
The lack of news coverage doesn't explain away her saying 'meh - deserved it' at the disembodied heads in her dustbin.

Actually she said that she didn't feel anything when she saw a severed head in a bin, another sign she's traumatised. But don't let that get in the way of your prejudice

Mass_Pincup · Feb 20, 2019

raygcon said:
Take her back, prosecute her follow the usual legal process. Then make a new law, make it clear, and warn everyone who wanna join terrorist group who do activity against UK interest in the future that they will get their will get citizenship revoke. So at least next time the government can say they have been warned.

No I'm against this. Countries can't pick and choose when you're a citizen if you were born into citizenship. She grew up in England and should be treated as such even if she betrayed her country. That should be the case for everyone.

Heshinsi · Feb 20, 2019

raygcon said:
Take her back, prosecute her follow the usual legal process. Then make a new law, make it clear, and warn everyone who wanna join terrorist group who do activity against UK interest in the future that they will get their will get citizenship revoke. So at least next time the government can say they have warned.

International laws forbid revoking someone's citizenship where they don't actually hold dual citizenships (fuck the UK trying to act like your parents holding foreign passports automatically means you to too). So no, the UK coming up with bullshit laws to circumvent that is not ok.

Podge293 · Feb 20, 2019

Timmm said:
I would have thought an Irish person would have a more nuanced perspective on the British government making someone stateless just cos "terrorist"

If you're referring to the IRA generally they were Irish citizens. Brits can't touch that

But in this case if she has a second nationality they're not making her stateless they're just revoking the British part.

However if the second nationality is bullshit then they need to step up, take her back and rightfully punish her

nekkid · Feb 20, 2019

Timmm said:
Actually she said that she didn't feel anything when she saw a severed head in a bin, another sign she's traumatised. But don't let that get in the way of your prejudice

Prejudice? Please continue...

Heshinsi · Feb 20, 2019

Podge293 said:
If you're referring to the IRA generally they were Irish citizens. Brits can't touch that

But in this case if she has a second nationality they're not making her stateless they're just revoking the British part.

However if the second nationality is bullshit then they need to step up, take her back and rightfully punish her

She doesn't have a second citizenship. They're using the fact that her parents are from Bangladesh as an excuse to strip her of her British citizenship, and hoping Bangladesh steps in to grant her a passport. It's beyond fucking stupid. Why the fuck should Bangladesh be on the hook for someone who has never stepped foot their based entirely on heritage? Imagine America stripping citizenship to domestic terrorists or those who joined ISIS or married their fighters (like that one FBI agent, and going, "well you're *insert European country* problem now."

https://amp.cnn.com/cnn/2017/05/01/politics/investigates-fbi-syria-greene/index.html

An FBI translator goes to Syria, marries an ISIS fighter she was supposed to investigate, lies about it, and receives the lighter of all sentences.

Ash735 · Feb 20, 2019

Ironically it seems people here are more bothered about this than she is, her response was pretty much "oh well, I'll just go stay in Holland then with my isis soldier husband".

Podge293 · Feb 20, 2019

Heshinsi said:
She doesn't have a second citizenship. They're using the fact that her parents are from Bangladesh as an excuse to strip her of her British citizenship, and hoping Bangladesh steps in to grant her a passport. It's beyond fucking stupid. Why the fuck should Bangladesh be on the hook for someone who has never stepped foot their based entirely on heritage? Imagine America stripping citizenship to domestic terrorists or those who joined ISIS or married their fighters (like that one FBI agent, and going, "well you're *insert European country* problem now."

https://amp.cnn.com/cnn/2017/05/01/politics/investigates-fbi-syria-greene/index.html

An FBI translator goes to Syria, marries an ISIS fighter she was supposed to investigate, lies about it, and receives the lighter of all sentences.

And my line has always been if she doesn't then the UK needs to step up and deal with this.

However if she does then fuck her. She's a fucking terrorist.

Deleted member 8463 · Feb 20, 2019

The Venn diagram for people who are vehemently against grooming gangs and who support victims of those, and those who are glad she's had her citizenship revoked is a single circle.

DryCreek · Feb 20, 2019

///PATRIOT · Feb 20, 2019

Almagest said:
She comes across as a sociopath tbh.

I, for one, am sorry for the baby but I don't think she should be allowed to come back.

I agree this girl has some personalty disorder. this girl is mentally ill.

Timmm · Feb 20, 2019

nekkid said:
Prejudice? Please continue...

What is there to continue? Your statements are prejudiced ones

Podge293 said:
If you're referring to the IRA generally they were Irish citizens. Brits can't touch that

But in this case if she has a second nationality they're not making her stateless they're just revoking the British part.

However if the second nationality is bullshit then they need to step up, take her back and rightfully punish her

I brought up Ireland because its not inconceivable to have a person raised in the UK to Irish parents end up supporting the IRA. Should that be enough for the British government to declare them a terrorist, strip them of citizenship, and deport them to a place they have never lived?

It's not the stateless part thats an issue - it's using it to wash your hands of a problem that is your own just because of a technicality in citizenship law. Bangladesh shouldn't be burdened with someone who has been radicalised in the UK just because the UK stripped her citizenship faster.

This also sets a terrible precedent for the reverse situation too - the UK are establishing behaviour where a country is unable to deport a terrorist that they have nothing to do with just because they have been made stateless another country

nekkid · Feb 20, 2019

Timmm said:
What is there to continue? Your statements are prejudiced ones

Prejudiced against a criminal individual who is known to have supported a terrorist organisation? Or prejudiced against something more broad?

Davey Cakes · Feb 20, 2019

I'd say let her come back, but stick her into some sort of rehab. Maybe even jail time? Treatment is absolutely required in one way or another.

She's still young enough that she could be persuaded away from the ideologies of ISIS. It's not too late for her, necessarily.

No way she can just stroll on back into her prior life like nothing happened, though. Not really how treason works. I'll leave some room for empathy towards a young person trying to discover herself, but there SHOULD be consequenc

ZealousD · Feb 20, 2019

Timmm said:
15 year olds, who people consider not old enough to: drive, vote, smoke, purchase alcohol, get married, have sex, or leave compulsory education

But apparently are mature enough to make as big a decision as running away to join ISIS after being radicalised as an even younger child

15 is old enough to learn that you shouldn't murder people.

We're talking the bare minimum of morality standards here.

Rabalder. · Feb 20, 2019

Didn't realize there were so many Daily Mail readers on this forum.

DryCreek · Feb 20, 2019

War Peaceman · Feb 20, 2019

ZealousD said:
15 is old enough to learn that you shouldn't murder people.

We're talking the bare minimum of morality standards here.

But it is subjective isn't it? Let's say you are a muslim and you see western governments invading and murdering muslims globally. It makes more sense in that lens. In recent decades the UK government has given little indication that killing muslims is a bad thing to do.

That is not to justify her joining ISIS, but that your basic framing is flawed. She should face justice as a British citizen.

Timmm · Feb 20, 2019

I was going to respond, but Hodgy got there first!

Lewpy · Feb 20, 2019

nekkid said:
Prejudice? Please continue...

Yeah, I thought that was an odd word to use. If finding someone's weak justification for crimes against humanity is deemed as prejudice, then I think there seems to be some projection going on.

nekkid · Feb 20, 2019

Lewpy said:
Yeah, I thought that was an odd word to use. If finding someone's weak justification for crimes against humanity is deemed as prejudice, then I think there seems to be some projection going on.

I'm prejudiced against murderers and rapists, too, then!

Whenever I see a conviction, I immediately judge them negatively.

ZealousD · Feb 20, 2019

Hodgy said:
she claims she hasn't murdered anyone.

But has no problem defending those that do.

War Peaceman said:
But it is subjective isn't it? Let's say you are a muslim and you see western governments invading and murdering muslims globally. It makes more sense in that lens. In recent decades the UK government has given little indication that killing muslims is a bad thing to do.

That is not to justify her joining ISIS, but that your basic framing is flawed. She should face justice as a British citizen.

Uh, you kind of are justifying her joining ISIS.

ISIS predominantly murdered Muslims. You do not join ISIS because you are angry at Muslim murder.

Deleted member 78 · Feb 20, 2019

nekkid said:
The lack of news coverage doesn't explain away her saying 'meh - deserved it' at the disembodied heads in her dustbin.

Pretending that this is someone who has had a "normal" experience and should react in a way that you deem appropriate is weird given that her story of being groomed and leaving the UK and living in a warzone is anything but normal.

Deleted member 19003 · Feb 20, 2019

Let's assume she can come back to Britain.

Lots of people then want her jailed and her baby removed, but what could she be charged with that would actually imprison her for any meaningful length of time? And how could they remove her baby from her?

I believe that's part of the issue, the UK doesn't have a good way to deal with radicalized people who haven't acted with violence. They would be imprisoning her on her ideology and support for an extremist group only. I don't think the UK could effectively keep her jailed for very long or remove her parental rights. But maybe I'm wrong and there are very harsh penalties for nonviolent supporters of isis?

Dan Thunder · Feb 20, 2019

Even if her current beliefs are dangerous to this country the fact is that she's allowed to have the rule of law applied to her, . At what point do we get to determine who benefits from it? When you start saying that it only applies to whoever X, Y, Z thinks it should apply to then it stops being a law.

nekkid · Feb 20, 2019

Dopus said:
Pretending that this is someone who has had a "normal" experience and should react in a way that you deem appropriate is weird given that her story of being groomed and leaving the UK and living in a warzone is anything but normal.

I'm not saying I don't understand the reason. I'm just not going to sympathise with her, in the same way that I wouldn't sympathise with a mass murderer who had a bad childhood.

raygcon · Feb 20, 2019

Cas said:
Let's assume she can come back to Britain. Lots of people then want her jailed and her baby removed, but what could she be charged with that would actually imprison her for any meaningful length of time? And how could they remove her baby from her? I believe that's part of the issue, the UK doesn't have a good way to deal with radicalized people who haven't acted with violence. They would be imprisoning her on her ideology and support for an extremist group only. I don't think the UK could effectively keep her jailed for very long or remove her parental rights. But maybe I'm wrong and there are very harsh penalties for nonviolent supporters of isis?

Depends on how the court interpret her action for the involvement with terrorist group I guess. Maybe something similar to how the law punish a person who support murderer.

Tbh, I wouldn't want to live in the same city as a person who already joined terrorist group like that. You will never know how their mind works. There is suicide bomber for a reason.

ZealousD · Feb 20, 2019

Cas said:
Lots of people then want her jailed and her baby removed, but what could she be charged with that would actually imprison her for any meaningful length of time?

Aiding and abetting?

Deleted member 19003 · Feb 20, 2019

raygcon said:
Depends on how the court interpret her action for the involvement with terrorist group I guess. Maybe something similar to how the law punish a person who support murderer.

Tbh, I wouldn't want to live in the same city as a person who already joined terrorist group like that. You will never know how their mind works. There is suicide bomber for a reason.

Sounds to me like it may likely be a slap on the wrist, a minimum amount of jail, and she will be released quickly once it's shown there's no evidence that she herself did any violence in Syria. She would be allowed to go back to normal life in the UK with no remorse and no less radicalized. Hasn't that always been the loophole these foreign terrorists who return home try to abuse? Can't keep them locked up based on their thoughts alone, you need to prove intent to harm or evidence of already engaging in violence/harm.

British schoolgirl that left to join ISIS in 2015 says she has no regrets but wants to return home to the UK

Attempted to circumvent ban with alt account

user requested ban

Community Resettler

Community Resettler

User requested account closure

Community Resettler

User requested account closure