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

[Deaf Spacker]

At least with the recent child, the camp Doctors, which is run by a charity, have provided evidence by confirming its death. Your comment comes off as being callous, a innocent child has died, confirmed by reputable news sources, no need to go down the conspiracy theory route and lose sight of this tragedy.

Click to shrink...

It is not my intention to be callous but surely you can understand why some people are a bit suspicious and questioning her version of events.

It is sad that a child has died, and that child deserves our sympathy. However the woman whose ruthlessness caused its death as well as the deaths of her other two children, who knowingly travelled to join an organisation that commits crimes against humanity doesn't deserve any sympathy.

 

[Deleted member 30395]

You got no idea how bright she is or what her family circumstances were either buddy. Apparently she snuck out of the country so it could be her parents were horrified by her plans and probably tried to stop her. Most parents would.

I ain't had any right wing press present anything to me so you can cut that patronising junk out. The woman left the UK to go join a terrorist organisation which has murdered the people of her country. To my mind she gave up any rights to the UK's judicial system or protection the moment she stepped off the plane in Syria and signed up with them terrorists.

Click to shrink...

No you're right I don't - hence why I'm saying she should face a trial. Because we don't know. And let's face it, she's not exactly coming across as Foucault in these interviews.

So you're not basing anything of your opinion on the interview she did that was widely publicised across the press which was conducted by a Sky News journalist?

To my mind she gave up any rights to the UK's judicial system or protection the moment she stepped off the plane in Syria and signed up with them terrorists.

Click to shrink...

Thank god you're not in a position of power because this is black and white nonsense.

 

[Uzzy]

It is not my intention to be callous but surely you can understand why some people are a bit suspicious and questioning her version of events.

It is sad that a child has died, and that child deserves our sympathy. However the woman whose ruthlessness caused its death as well as the deaths of her other two children, who knowingly travelled to join an organisation that commits crimes against humanity doesn't deserve any sympathy.

Click to shrink...

So here's the thing I'd point out that has nothing to do with sympathy.

Her and other Europeans who joined ISIS are currently sitting in these refugee camps run by the Kurds, in awful conditions. Those camps cannot be sustained for long, and it's likely that people there will be just let out eventually and left to their own devices. (Or perhaps handed over to Assad)

Syria shares a land border with Turkey. Turkey shares a land border with the EU. So these former ISIS members have the opportunity to walk or bus into the EU, potentially without being watched or looked out for. By refusing to take responsibility for these people, we're leaving ourselves more vulnerable to them in future.

And to be fair to our Government, they were aware of this, which is why other former ISIS members who have gotten back have been monitored and watched and debriefed and in some cases imprisoned.

So it's your choice really. Do you want to have former ISIS members monitored by our security services, or let loose somewhere in the EU and potentially unmonitored.

 

[Prine]

It is not my intention to be callous but surely you can understand why some people are a bit suspicious and questioning her version of events.

It is sad that a child has died, and that child deserves our sympathy. However the woman whose ruthlessness caused its death as well as the deaths of her other two children, who knowingly travelled to join an organisation that commits crimes against humanity doesn't deserve any sympathy.

Click to shrink...

She doesn't deserve sympathy, but she should be judged like any other possible criminal of this nation, I find it hard to justify her treatment when we recently convicted another teen of raping and murdering a 6 year old girl (Alesha MacPhail), he goes to prison and doesn't have his citizenship revoked, but Shamima, with her disgusting ideas but nothing else has the most severe punishment, it sets a dangerous precedent, and means all children of immigrants are seen as second class citizens.

The most tragic aspect is that a Child was not protected by us, even from its mother.

 

[Plasma]

Jail for life. How about proving she's actually committed a crime worthy of such punishment.

Click to shrink...

She joined a terrorist organisation that's hell bent on killing as many innocent people as it can, whether she actually carried out said killings doesn't really matter she's still a part of it and that's worthy of being stuck in jail for the rest of her life.

 

[Simon21]

Still to see any receipts on the "grooming", despite people repeating that over and over again.

 

[Uzzy]

She doesn't deserve sympathy, but she should be judged like any other possible criminal of this nation, I find it hard to justify her treatment when we recently convicted another teen of raping and murdering a 6 year old girl (Alesha MacPhail), he goes to prison and doesn't have his citizenship revoked, but Shamima, with her disgusting ideas but nothing else has the most severe punishment, it sets a dangerous precedent, and means all children of immigrants are seen as second class citizens.

The most tragic aspect is that a Child was not protected by us, even from its mother.

Click to shrink...

I said previously in this thread, but it bares repeating, British people who joined the Nazis didn't have their citizenship revoked, they were tried and imprisoned (or hung).

We took responsibility for them.

 

[nekkid]

No, it didn't. You clearly don't understand the word precedent.

Can you provide me sources where other people have been made stateless?

You think this kind of behaviour won't lead to more ill-feeling and indoctrination to groups like isis?

The point is that this takes us one step closer to the government being able to abuse these powers and do what they want; some 1984-esque dystopian state.

Click to shrink...

But they have been abusing this power since Mayhem introduced the bill allowing it in 2014. At an exponential rate.

Edit: just looking at it further - yeah the government have been making people stateless for years since 2014, but a court case last November set the precedent for people appealing that decision. But regardless, this isn't the first time - it's just a media-friendly, high-profile case.

So yes, I do understand the word, thanks.

 

[Winter-John]

No you're right I don't - hence why I'm saying she should face a trial. Because we don't know. And let's face it, she's not exactly coming across as Foucault in these interviews.

So you're not basing anything of your opinion on the interview she did that was widely publicised across the press which was conducted by a Sky News journalist?



Thank god you're not in a position of power because this is black and white nonsense.

Click to shrink...

A trial for what? There ain't no mystery to what she did. She ran off to Syria to support a bunch of terrorists who are responsible for murdering innocent people in her home country. There ain't no question of guilt here. Those are the facts.

Quit with the personal insults. I already you warned about that once.

 

[Menchi]

Sorry for the child, he'd done nothing wrong.

As for his mother? She's a monster. Not some brainwashed child. She still sat there equating the deaths of ISIS fighters to the deaths of children at a concert. Sure, we could take her back and imprison her for X amount of years.

Is there any guarantee that during those years of imprisonment, she herself, doesn't go on to radicalise others? That her being imprisoned doesn't inspire radicalisation? That once she's released she'll not continue to work for the benefit of a terror organisation equal to Nazis?

It baffles me why some see her as less of a threat than modern day nazis. She actually went out there to help the monsters, as opposed to the alt-right shit heels keyboard warriors. She should be seen with just as much disdain as those.

 

[Puroresu_kid]

She joined a terrorist organisation that's hell bent on killing as many innocent people as it can, whether she actually carried out said killings doesn't really matter she's still a part of it and that's worthy of being stuck in jail for the rest of her life.

Click to shrink...

So a 15 year old who may not have killed anyone should be locked up for life.

How exactly is that justice?

 

[Puroresu_kid]

Sorry for the child, he'd done nothing wrong.

As for his mother? She's a monster. Not some brainwashed child. She still sat there equating the deaths of ISIS fighters to the deaths of children at a concert. Sure, we could take her back and imprison her for X amount of years.

Is there any guarantee that during those years of imprisonment, she herself, doesn't go on to radicalise others? That her being imprisoned doesn't inspire radicalisation? That once she's released she'll not continue to work for the benefit of a terror organisation equal to Nazis?

It baffles me why some see her as less of a threat than modern day nazis. She actually went out there to help the monsters, as opposed to the alt-right shit heels keyboard warriors. She should be seen with just as much disdain as those.

Click to shrink...

Not exactly true. She equated innocent civilians dying from airstrikes to those in Manchester.

Also this country already had no problem with British citizens going to Libya picking up arms and fighting Gaddafi and they were welcome back no problem.

You can't pick and choose which civil war is legal to partake in and which one isn't.

This girl hasn't been proven to have done anything other than live in Syria in ISIS territory.

Why should her case be any different to the hundreds of fighters and women with children who have returned to the UK from Syria or Iraq?

I don't see people questioning what happened to those people and why are they not jailed for life? Yet this girl who was a child when she left has become a modern day Goebbels. The worst of humanity who should be left to rot.

 

[A Robot]

You can't pick and choose which civil war is legal to partake in and which one isn't.

Click to shrink...

Yes you can.

 

[Uzzy]

Sorry for the child, he'd done nothing wrong.

As for his mother? She's a monster. Not some brainwashed child. She still sat there equating the deaths of ISIS fighters to the deaths of children at a concert. Sure, we could take her back and imprison her for X amount of years.

Is there any guarantee that during those years of imprisonment, she herself, doesn't go on to radicalise others? That her being imprisoned doesn't inspire radicalisation? That once she's released she'll not continue to work for the benefit of a terror organisation equal to Nazis?

It baffles me why some see her as less of a threat than modern day nazis. She actually went out there to help the monsters, as opposed to the alt-right shit heels keyboard warriors. She should be seen with just as much disdain as those.

Click to shrink...

Ok, so should modern day Nazis be stripped of their citizenship? Should they not be imprisoned because of the fear that they might radicalise others? (BTW, that could be solved by properly funding prisons) Do we just throw our hands up and accept that they might continue to work for Nazis after release?

 

[Deleted member 30395]

But they have been abusing this power since Mayhem introduced the bill allowing it in 2014. At an exponential rate.

Edit: just looking at it further - yeah the government have been making people stateless for years since 2014, but a court case last November set the precedent for people appealing that decision. But regardless, this isn't the first time - it's just a media-friendly, high-profile case.

So yes, I do understand the word, thanks.

Click to shrink...

My understanding is that in all of those cases the citizens had dual-citizenship, so technically they weren't stateless just had UK citizenship removed.

In this case she may be entitled to dual citizenship (though Bangladesh say no, and being eligible does not equal having it)

Happy to read more on this though.

A trial for what? There ain't no mystery to what she did. She ran off to Syria to support a bunch of terrorists who are responsible for murdering innocent people in her home country. There ain't no question of guilt here. Those are the facts.

Quit with the personal insults. I already you warned about that once.

Click to shrink...

Again, that's not the way the law works. You can't lock someone up without due process.

And please, 'warn me'? Please point out where I used a personal insult.

 

[Menchi]

Ok, so should modern day Nazis be stripped of their citizenship? Should they not be imprisoned because of the fear that they might radicalise others? (BTW, that could be solved by properly funding prisons) Do we just throw our hands up and accept that they might continue to work for Nazis after release?

Click to shrink...

Yes. I don't believe Nazis deserve a citizenship. If ever there were a call to support Nazis, with a central location such as what ISIS had, I'd happily strip every single Nazi of their citizenship. Why on Earth should a monster that wants to see the death of millions be allowed to continue enjoying the rights, benefits and protections as a citizen of -any- country?

That said, since there isn't exactly anywhere for Nazis or ISIS supporters to go, as of yet, then rightfully so they should be imprisoned, preferably by the country they did the most damage to, and if not possible (as in Syria) return to a country they remain a citizen of.

In Shemima's case, and I'm sure many other returning supporters, there needs to be a way to ensure the poison doesn't spread from them, as these supporters stuck through to the end, so it is clear to me their sympathies haven't changed. How exactly this is done, I'm not sure. Neither do our lawmakers apparently.

 

[Westbahnhof]

A trial for what? There ain't no mystery to what she did. She ran off to Syria to support a bunch of terrorists who are responsible for murdering innocent people in her home country. There ain't no question of guilt here. Those are the facts.

Click to shrink...

This whole paragraph makes it seem like you don't know how the law works. No matter how cut and dry, a trial is in order.
"A trial for what", goddamn.
Who would decide when a case is "obvious" enough to skip a trial? The government? The people? That's just a recipe for disaster.

 

[Plasma]

So a 15 year old who may not have killed anyone should be locked up for life.

How exactly is that justice?

Click to shrink...

She isn't 15 anymore and just because she didn't kill anyone doesn't mean she wasn't involved, she still joined a terrorist organisation and that's enough. She doesn't feel any remorse for the actions that ISIS have carried out and the only reason she's looking to come back now is because everything has gone to shit for ISIS. She cannot just be allowed to come back into country to integrate back into society so if she does come back she needs to be locked up.

 

[krazen]

She isn't 15 anymore and just because she didn't kill anyone doesn't mean she wasn't involved, she still joined a terrorist organisation and that's enough. She doesn't feel any remorse for the actions that ISIS have carried out and the only reason she's looking to come back now is because everything has gone to shit for ISIS. She cannot just be allowed to come back into country to integrate back into society so if she does come back she needs to be locked up.

Click to shrink...

What are the odds that at 15 she's a full on psycopath knowingly making all these decisions and is biding her time for terrorist actions.... vs she was an idiot at 15 + made a wrong choice +, and was brainwashed raped and traumatized along the way. We usually treat people brainwashed by a cult differently; pulling statehood seems racist. Answer for her crimes psyche help first imho.

 

[Puroresu_kid]

She isn't 15 anymore and just because she didn't kill anyone doesn't mean she wasn't involved, she still joined a terrorist organisation and that's enough. She doesn't feel any remorse for the actions that ISIS have carried out and the only reason she's looking to come back now is because everything has gone to shit for ISIS. She cannot just be allowed to come back into country to integrate back into society so if she does come back she needs to be locked up.

Click to shrink...

I don't think anyone is arguing the case she would come back and carry on as if nothing has happened.

She comes back and faces trial if necessary. If not she is gets help though social services and de radicalisation programs etc etc.

As I said women, children and men have already returned so it's not like this is new. Their are tools to deal with these situations.

Plenty just want their pound of flesh with this girl when she is not the only example.

 

[Menchi]

Not exactly true. She equated innocent civilians dying from airstrikes to those in Manchester.

Also this country already had no problem with British citizens going to Libya picking up arms and fighting Gaddafi and they were welcome back no problem.

You can't pick and choose which civil war is legal to partake in and which one isn't.

This girl hasn't been proven to have done anything other than live in Syria in ISIS territory.

Why should her case be any different to the hundreds of fighters and women with children who have returned to the UK from Syria or Iraq?

I don't see people questioning what happened to those people and why are they not jailed for life? Yet this girl who was a child when she left has become a modern day Goebbels. The worst of humanity who should be left to rot.

Click to shrink...

ISIS aren't fighting a civil war. They're a terrorist organisation that managed to get a foothold in a country that was having a civil war. Equating those two seems misguided, if not malicious.

Are you actually giving ISIS legitimacy? Because I can't take your comparison to people going to fight in civil wars, usually in support of the groups that would align with what's "right" in our democracies, as anything other than trying to equate them.

ISIS, Nazis, Boko Haram, IRA... These are all terrorist organisations that can't push a civil war agenda, because they're not doing that. Don't legitimise them.

 

[TheUnseenTheUnheard]

Its kinda interesting to hear about a kid's experience in joining ISIS but she probably shouldn't be welcomed back to the UK.

 

[MilesQ]

ISIS aren't fighting a civil war. They're a terrorist organisation that managed to get a foothold in a country that was having a civil war. Equating those two seems misguided, if not malicious.

Are you actually giving ISIS legitimacy? Because I can't take your comparison to people going to fight in civil wars, usually in support of the groups that would align with what's "right" in our democracies, as anything other than trying to equate them.

ISIS, Nazis, Boko Haram, IRA... These are all terrorist organisations that can't push a civil war agenda, because they're not doing that. Don't legitimise them.

Click to shrink...

While I agree, wasn't Syria in a state of civil war at the time ISIS came in and took advantage of the instability?

Same as Libya, but I don't think ISIS made it there, it just collapsed after Gaddafi was killed by a knife in his ass.

 

[Puroresu_kid]

ISIS aren't fighting a civil war. They're a terrorist organisation that managed to get a foothold in a country that was having a civil war. Equating those two seems misguided, if not malicious.

Are you actually giving ISIS legitimacy? Because I can't take your comparison to people going to fight in civil wars, usually in support of the groups that would align with what's "right" in our democracies, as anything other than trying to equate them.

ISIS, Nazis, Boko Haram, IRA... These are all terrorist organisations that can't push a civil war agenda, because they're not doing that. Don't legitimise them.

Click to shrink...

No I'm not. The point is ISIS were also in Libya.

As for Syria you tell me which groups a citizen from the UK could join and take up arms against Assad and then return no problem.

Which group is the terrorist and which isn't? I'm not giving legitimacy to anyone I'm simply making the point that hundreds of citizens left the UK to fight in Libya or Syria taking up arms under many different organisations. Assad would say they are all terrorists. Plenty returned and no doubt many were scrutinised to see if they are a danger to UK society. I fail to see why in the case of this young girl it shouldn't be the same.

 

[Menchi]

While I agree, wasn't Syria in a state of civil war at the time ISIS came in and took advantage of the instability?

Same as Libya, but I don't think ISIS made it there, it just collapsed after Gaddafi was killed by a knife in his ass.

Click to shrink...

Yes, I stated as such, it was due to the ongoing civil war that ISIS got a foothold. You're right that the reason they failed to do so in Libya is Gadaffi was killed pretty "soon" and the rebels managed to form an interim government.

No I'm not. The point is ISIS were also in Libya.

As for Syria you tell me which groups a citizen from the UK could join and take up arms against Assad and then return no problem.

Which group is the terrorist and which isn't? I'm not giving legitimacy to anyone I'm simply making the point that hundreds of citizens left the UK to fight in Libya or Syria taking up arms under many different organisations. Assad would say they are all terrorists. Plenty returned and no doubt many were scrutinised to see if they are a danger to UK society. I fail to see why in the case of this young girl it shouldn't be the same.

Click to shrink...

I can't tell you which ones to fight for, but I could tell you one -not- to fight for, ISIS. You're clouding the waters here. We're talking -specifically- about people choosing to fight for, and support ISIS. Shemima has not once denied she went out there for anything other than ISIS. She stated her support for the Caliphate there, and has expressed she left as the Caliphate dream was dead. There is no confusion about -what- she went to support.

There is a civil war going on there, with groups opposing Assad, for the people of Syria, not for the support of a Caliphate. I have no real problem with someone fighting in support of those rebels, against the Syrian regime. I do oppose fervently, people in support of ISIS.

Again, it feels like you're trying to equate a terror organisation, with rebel fighters against a monstrous regime. They are not the same, and Shemima, and other ISIS supporters, are not confused about this.

 

[TheMango55]

Why is Britain responsible for this baby's death? It might come as a surprise, but babies survive outside of Britain fairly often.

 

[Noodle]

Our citizen means she's our responsibility, no matter what. Bring her home and charge her if the evidence is so overwhelming.

A trial for what? There ain't no mystery to what she did. She ran off to Syria to support a bunch of terrorists who are responsible for murdering innocent people in her home country. There ain't no question of guilt here. Those are the facts.

Click to shrink...

How do law work? The trial should be quick and easy if it's as clear-cut as you say.

Quit with the personal insults. I already you warned about that once.

Click to shrink...

 

[astro]

I've changed my mind on my original reaction to this.

She was 15 when she was radicalized, and that doesn't matter if she had a person whispering to her or if she sought out the materials herself.

She was our citizen. She should have been kept here and tried if we found any wrong doing. The decision makers absolutely have a role to play in the baby's death, they KNEW the environment they were sending that child back into.

This entire thing was a populist farce by the government and sets a horrible precedent.

 

[Doctor_Thomas]

I think the most digusting part of this is the usual sorts celebrating the baby's death.

Apparently, we're OK with dead babies now, because ISIS is so awful.

 

[Puroresu_kid]

Yes, I stated as such, it was due to the ongoing civil war that ISIS got a foothold. You're right that the reason they failed to do so in Libya is Gadaffi was killed pretty "soon" and the rebels managed to form an interim government.



I can't tell you which ones to fight for, but I could tell you one -not- to fight for, ISIS. You're clouding the waters here. We're talking -specifically- about people choosing to fight for, and support ISIS. Shemima has not once denied she went out there for anything other than ISIS. She stated her support for the Caliphate there, and has expressed she left as the Caliphate dream was dead. There is no confusion about -what- she went to support.

There is a civil war going on there, with groups opposing Assad, for the people of Syria, not for the support of a Caliphate. I have no real problem with someone fighting in support of those rebels, against the Syrian regime. I do oppose fervently, people in support of ISIS.

Again, it feels like you're trying to equate a terror organisation, with rebel fighters against a monstrous regime. They are not the same, and Shemima, and other ISIS supporters, are not confused about this.

Click to shrink...

I'm really not. I'm saying whatever the group you would think one on return would be arrested and assessed. You can't just leave and go and pick up arms in another country and then just come back without the security forces asking questions on your return.

Just read this report on UK citizens going to Libya to fight against gaddafi including the Manchester bomber and you see how messy it becomes when deciding who is is the terrorist and who isn't.

https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.in...itish-government-libya-isis-a8369506.html?amp

But no sooner had Britain joined the war against Gaddafi than these suspected terrorists became useful allies. Their control-orders were lifted, their passports returned and they were told that the British government had no problem with them going to Libya to fight against Gaddafi. In place of past restrictions, they were allowed to pass to and fro at British airports. Some militants are reported as saying that when they had problems with counter-terrorism police when flying to Libya, the MI5 officers with whom they were in touch were willing to vouch for them and ease their way to the battlefront in Libya, where MI6 was cooperating with Qatar and UAE as financiers of the armed opposition.

Click to shrink...

Now Shemima as far as we know didn't even pick up arms. Yes she made a huge mistake as as a child leaving to join ISIS but from what I have read about her she is far from the worst human on earth. She was a uk citizen, her child was a UK citizen and this tragedy of a 3 week old baby dying could have been avoided if Sajid Javid showed some actual moral backbone rather than trying to follow the popular opinion.

 

[astro]

I'm really not. I'm saying whatever the group you would think one on return would be arrested and assessed. You can't just leave and go and pick up arms in another country and then just come back without the security forces asking questions on your return.

Just read this report on UK citizens going to Libya to fight against gaddafi including the Manchester bomber and you see how messy it becomes when deciding who is is the terrorist and who isn't.

https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.independent.co.uk/voices/manchester-bomber-salman-abedi-concert-british-government-libya-isis-a8369506.html?amp



Now Shemima as far as we know didn't even pick up arms. Yes she made a huge mistake as as a child leaving to join ISIS but from what I have read about her she is far from the worst human on earth. She was a uk citizen, her child was a UK citizen and this tragedy of a 3 week old baby dying could have been avoided if Sajid Javid showed some actual moral backbone rather than trying to follow the popular opinion.

Click to shrink...

Very well written. This is the absolute truth of it. The hypocrisy and pandering to populist is sickening.

 

[KillGore]

She abandoned her country to join a terrorist organization, willingly. Regardless of what she did or did not do, she knew what they were.

Can't believe people are defending this lol

So in the 1940s, is someone left to join the Nazi party, knowing who and what they were, supported the people supporting the movement/actions, and then wanted to come back, they should've welcomed him/her with open arms?

Has she tried to seek asylum elsewhere?

 

[astro]

She abandoned her country to join a terrorist organization, willingly. Regardless of what she did or did not do, she knew what they were.

Can't believe people are defending this lol

So in the 1940s, is someone left to join the Nazi party, knowing who and what they were, supported the people supporting the movement/actions, and then wanted to come back, they should've welcomed him/her with open arms?

Has she tried to seek asylum elsewhere?

Click to shrink...

She was 15. She was indoctrinated first by religion then by radicalized views: either those spoken to her or those she found online. Adolescent brains are scientifically proven to act on impulse and make poor decisions compared to adult brains. This cannot be ignored.

And NO ONE is saying let her off. They're saying she should have been held accountable in the UK, the country she was a citizen of.

Forcing her and her child to return to a place where the child was pretty much doomed to die was sickening pandering to populism.

I can't believe people like you are ignoring all of this.

 

[Deleted member 8257]

Why is Britain responsible for this baby's death? It might come as a surprise, but babies survive outside of Britain fairly often.

Click to shrink...

Not in places like Syria which is still a warzone outside a few pockets.

 

[Noodle]

She abandoned her country to join a terrorist organization, willingly. Regardless of what she did or did not do, she knew what they were.

Can't believe people are defending this lol

So in the 1940s, is someone left to join the Nazi party, knowing who and what they were, supported the people supporting the movement/actions, and then wanted to come back, they should've welcomed him/her with open arms?

Click to shrink...

Who's suggesting this?

Leaving someone stateless is a human rights violation. Might want to avoid voicing support for those before reaching for the Nazi comparisons.

Anyway, leaving her stuck in a refugee camp lead her baby to dying. Is that enough blood vengeance or do you need more?

 

[Puroresu_kid]

She abandoned her country to join a terrorist organization, willingly. Regardless of what she did or did not do, she knew what they were.

Can't believe people are defending this lol

So in the 1940s, is someone left to join the Nazi party, knowing who and what they were, supported the people supporting the movement/actions, and then wanted to come back, they should've welcomed him/her with open arms?

Has she tried to seek asylum elsewhere?

Click to shrink...

Who is defending it?

Saying she should be allowed to to return to the UK does not mean one defends her actions.

 

[Deleted member 862]

So in the 1940s, is someone left to join the Nazi party, knowing who and what they were, supported the people supporting the movement/actions, and then wanted to come back, they should've welcomed him/her with open arms?

Click to shrink...

*Royal family looking around nervously*

 

[Dave]

Who is defending it?

Saying she should be allowed to to return to the UK does not mean one defends her actions.

Click to shrink...

She can return and go to prison forever, or not return. Pretty simple really.

 

[Z-Beat]

They should've taken the baby away and put her in jail. Apparently they couldn't because of a bureaucracy shitshow?

 

[Zvonimir Boban]

Ok, so should modern day Nazis be stripped of their citizenship? Should they not be imprisoned because of the fear that they might radicalise others? (BTW, that could be solved by properly funding prisons) Do we just throw our hands up and accept that they might continue to work for Nazis after release?

Click to shrink...

*Michael Barrymore voice*

Nah they're all white.

Why is Britain responsible for this baby's death? It might come as a surprise, but babies survive outside of Britain fairly often.

Click to shrink...

The.

Baby.

Was.

British.

So in the 1940s, is someone left to join the Nazi party, knowing who and what they were, supported the people supporting the movement/actions, and then wanted to come back, they should've welcomed him/her with open arms?

Click to shrink...

Guest of honour at her wedding was Adolf Hitler. She's cool though.

 

[konka]

I feel like I have a lot of leeway for teenage idiocy because I did a lot of it myself. I don't feel like sneaking out of a country to join ISIS and to this day continuing to defend them falls under the guise of teenage idiocy. You know by 15 that murdering people is wrong.

 

[KillGore]

Who's suggesting this?

Leaving someone stateless is a human rights violation. Might want to avoid voicing support for those before reaching for the Nazi comparisons.

Anyway, leaving her stuck in a refugee camp lead her baby to dying. Is that enough blood vengeance or do you need more?

Click to shrink...

She can return, she'll just have to go to prison. Or are you against that as well? What other excuse will you use to defend her?

 

[Zvonimir Boban]

I feel like I have a lot of leeway for teenage idiocy because I did a lot of it myself. I don't feel like sneaking out of a country to join ISIS and to this day continuing to defend them falls under the guise of teenage idiocy. You know by 15 that murdering people is wrong.

Click to shrink...

1) Yet 15 year olds end up being groomed into gangs every day.

2)The human brain is nowhere near finished developing at 15 years old.

3) Do we throw away the rule of law for every single person older than kindergarten age because "I knew it was wrong to be naughty when I was 7 years old?"

 

[Puroresu_kid]

They should've taken the baby away and put her in jail. Apparently they couldn't because of a bureaucracy shitshow?

Click to shrink...

She can return, she'll just have to go to prison. Or are you against that as well? What other excuse will you use to defend her?

Click to shrink...

Stop saying she'll have to go to prison. That's not how it works. There is no guarantee if she returned she would face a trial let alone prison.

Part of me thinks the reason they didn't want her to return was exactly that. The British public baying for blood would want her in prison yet you need charges that warrent that and I'm not convinced the home office believed they had enough to get her sent down and didn't want to risk the public backlash to that.

 

[War Peaceman]

She can return, she'll just have to go to prison. Or are you against that as well? What other excuse will you use to defend her?

Click to shrink...

Most people tend to agree that she should face justice for any crimes she may have committed. The concern many of us have is that people seem to want to commit a human rights violation to prevent her return, because of crimes she is presumed to have committed. That isn't justice, that is unilateral application of state power. It may be that she is guilty, but the justice system exists to decide that, not politicians or the Home Secretary or the papers. Justice and due process works both ways.

 

[Boy Wander]

I would consider it a mitigating circumstance when evaluating any crimes she did or didn't do in a subsequent trial, yes.

Click to shrink...

Fucking hell a guy from Manchester of all places sympathising with an ISIS member.

 

[Mikebison]

The.

Baby.

Was.

British.




.

Click to shrink...

Wasn't the baby born in Syria? The mum was British obviously, but Britain had no responsibility for that baby. Like, the UK should and probably would've taken the baby from her and set it up with a new family eventually, but it's hard to do when they were in Syria. And the citizenship thing going differently probably wouldn't have got her and the baby back to the UK much quicker, baby still would've died.

 

[Jexhius]

The UK government, or any other government, should never have the power to a strip a citizen of their citizenship. They absoutely cannot be trusted with this power and there is no-one to hold them accountable, bar the usual right-wing tabloids.

The government's response to this particular situation was shameful and they've been a mess for sometime on this particular issue.

If you consider these people to be a threat let them back and give them a trial, like anyone else.

 

[Puroresu_kid]

Wasn't the baby born in Syria? The mum was British obviously, but Britain had no responsibility for that baby. Like, the UK should and probably would've taken the baby from her and set it up with a new family eventually, but it's hard to do when they were in Syria. And the citizenship thing going differently probably wouldn't have got her and the baby back to the UK much quicker, baby still would've died.

Click to shrink...

The baby becomes British Citizen based on her mother's British status as citizen.

Journalists got to that camp and this girl and her baby could of got out with political will.

 

[Deleted member 862]

Wasn't the baby born in Syria? The mum was British obviously, but Britain had no responsibility for that baby. Like, the UK should and probably would've taken the baby from her and set it up with a new family eventually, but it's hard to do when they were in Syria. And the citizenship thing going differently probably wouldn't have got her and the baby back to the UK much quicker, baby still would've died.

Click to shrink...

she's British. The baby is British. We had a responsibility to the child (and the mother really but even if you just focus on the child the home office failed)