Just read a bit more, he’s got six years just for going over to join ISIS, and he’s under investigation for plotting an attack at a fun fair back in the Netherlands.
Shamima Begum, IS teen wants to come back to the UK
- Thread starter Tommy
- Start date
-
In the latest episode of the United Hour Podcast, Nik (@Rood) is joined by CEO Duncan Drasdo and Financial Director Andy Green from the Manchester United Supporters Trust for a special episode on all things behind the scenes at Old Trafford including a brief history of MUST and their aims today, views on INEOS and Sir Jim Ratcliffe so far, and the Old Trafford regeneration.
Just read a bit more, he’s got six years just for going over to join ISIS, and he’s under investigation for plotting an attack at a fun fair back in the Netherlands.
- Who are these greater threats we let back in? whose ideology is more dangerous than Isil's? She may not be the first traitor but perhaps these laws need reform? Also based off her speech, she does not seem a candidate for deradicalisation. This was the claim of an extremism expert from Kings College London. I listened to his podcast and the straight up said it does not work for everyone and there are tell tell signs if it is likely to succeed.
- The word "groomed" is being thrown about and is often inaccurate. Groomed means "trained for a purpose". who was she groomed by when she did a lot of research herself, made an informed decision and was basically just following her mate who had already left? The idea of these girls being "groomed" is manipulative language reserved exclusively for Jihadi "females" to present the idea that they are weak, innocent, flowers,"passive" to this experience and therefore victims. Again plenty experts have identified that in the vast majority of cases, these jihadi brides are self radicalised, do a lot of research and make an informed decision as they want to get married. sources include Nikita Malik (Director, Centre on Radicalisation and Terrorism at Henry Jackson Society) and Shiraz Maher (Director at the International Centre for the Study of Radicalisation and Political Violence at King's College London). research has suggested that girls are more likely than boys to have chosen to join Isil for themselves by self-radicalisation and made independent decisions to become members, as well as more active in seeking extremist material. Please bear in mind that Shamima admitted she had seen the beheading videos before leaving for Isil and that is did not phase her. Boys tended to join under the influence of family.
- Her age is not that relevant as 19 year olds, 30 year olds, 25 year olds have also done the exact same thing in similar circumstances (e.g. Hoda Muthana). Age is not the deciding factor of radicalisation. This idea of "brainwashed", again removes any agency from these women and is a liberal narrative. A few months after she had left, she was legally able to raise a family here in the UK yet she is portrayed as a 9 year old by some. Nothing suggests this could not happen to her at 22, since it does happen often. its more the ideologies aligning with her principles.
- I agree mostly that washing our hands with her is wrong, unless the Syrian authorities want to trial her themselves.
- I am anxious about how our authorities will deal with her as they keep saying they need evidence of foul play, where as in other countries, simply joining Isil is illegal. I do agree that serial killers and Peados are dealt with by the state but if they were abroad and dual national, they could have their citizenship stripped too. I doubt it happens though as I am unsure as to whether these grooming gangs get sent packing.
It will be difficult to prosecute Shamima then. He was an Isis fighter and by default involved in the killing. Why would they only give him 6 years?
Your wife makes solid points. I can't argue against most of them but I can argue against the bolded. Islamic extremism is different to the cases of paedophilia or serial murder, in the sense that it spreads by way of indoctrination... and prisons are an extremely fertile ground for that. There's no evidence that prison turns people into peadophiles or serial murders but there's extensive evidence that it can turn them into indoctrinated religious extremists. As such placing such people in prison has an extra risk that is not present with different types of offenders.
I do agree with her that it's our job to deal with it, not another nation's. However part of the problem is that we don't have an effective way yet. Not just us, but it's a European wide problem. Partly because 5-6 years is extremely lenient. Partly because going to prison is not an effective form of punishment for people that will use that time to recruit more to their cause. The leniency and ineffectiveness of the system are being exploited and pretty much everyone knows that. Hence why people don't really trust either the system or politicians to do a good job of protecting them and prefer keeping her away.
I'm guessing here, but it's probably because..
- They couldn't irrefutably prove that he specifically did anything while in Syria. And..
- Sentences for simply being a member of a terrorist organisation (without ties to specific actions or plans of action) carry very small sentences under the current legal framework.
6 years for a jihadi soldier of ISIS is basically a joke. And the people are the butt of it.
Holy feck. You can literally go abroad, commit genocide and come back to the UK, serving 3 years with good behaviour
How in the world do the Dutch think that’s worth only 6 years...?
I wonder why the Dutch didn’t just declare him an enemy combatant and hold his trial in a military court?
If as reported others have returned to the UK after joining ISIS, why is this case courting so much publicity? There is some sort of agenda here that I'm not quite comfortable with.
She will end up back in the UK after her lawyers win an appeal, of that I've no doubt. It's just political posturing that's causing the delay. It's what happens once she arrives back that remains the important issue here.
She will end up back in the UK after her lawyers win an appeal, of that I've no doubt. It's just political posturing that's causing the delay. It's what happens once she arrives back that remains the important issue here.
Surely that would surely legitimise IS as an actual army, not a terrorist organisation.
Also, why do we have a US English spellcheck on here?
It’s because it was a high-profile news event when the three friends left. At that time people weren’t used to the idea that normal civilian types were also going off to join ISIS alongside the more typical male-loser types. And three schoolgirls was big news. So the general public was already familiar with her case to an extent not applicable to most others. Her subsequent choice to give a series of interviews has only jogged the public's memory.
Because their cases were widely publicised when they fled London to join ISIS. They were 3, they were underage, they were girls. Effort was made track them down and prevent them from crossing to Syria, which failed. People are familiar with their story and their names.
I'm more uncomfortable with the fact others have returned without us knowing without a big deal being made, rather than the fact that she receives all the attention and publicity.
I feel your worry is misplaced. You seem more worried about her, rather than worrying how to protect the people of this country from her and ilk.
Because the only crime they have evidence of is that he joined IS.
I get that but you think any ISIS returnee would garner a lot of attention though.
Maybe because they find their own way back and immediately get arrested at an airport/port.
This girl was found by a Times reporter in a refugee camp which naturally was considered a scoop and headline news.
I'm not worried for her at all, i'd rather a sas unit goes out there and blows her away if i'm being honest. Worried about her would be logical if she was to come back and be in a position to radicalise others.
If you are the courts and fully aware of their atrocities , could you not extend the sentence to at least 10 years? Just being an active member of Isis is a pretty big deal. Can they not review the laws on terrorism like they did with R.I.C.O.
I just want to address the bold because I don't believe this point is valid. First, "brainwashing" is a loaded, unscientific term that most psychologists and psychiatrists never use because it invokes this fantastical idea from fiction where people get programmed like robots (think Clockwork Orange or Manchurian Candidate). This view of "brainwashing" is completely exaggerated and misleading about what coercion actually is. The best academic work on this topic that I am aware is Robert Jay Lifton's Thought Reform and the Psychology of Totalism: A Study of 'brainwashing' in China. Lifton was a Harvard Psychiatry professor who spent many years researching and interviewing people influenced by thought reform.
This girl would not really qualify as a passive actor here. She was an active agent in her radicalization from my view not someone who just had something happen to her.
Secondly, I don't know about the UK but at least the law in the US doesn't absolve someone of guilt because they were under someone's coercive influence. For example look at Squeaky Fromme and the other Manson killers. They still had to face life in prison despite the clear coercive influence of Charles Manson.
It’s probably quite difficult. You will have people saying that once they arrived they wanted to come home etc. but couldn’t because their passports were taken and no-one will necessarily have any evidence to the contrary. Then they become a “victim”.
It's not rocket science though? There's simply hardly any proof at this point in time. One Syrian refugee testified to Dutch police that he thinks the guy worked for ISIS, and there is a Facebook picture of the guy holding a gun and that's literally it. The verdict took place in the summer of 2018, when they didn't even have a single clue where the guy was. It's more preliminary and setting the tone for future prosecution than anything.
With numbers in the 100s it’ll probably only be the high-profile cases we hear this much about. For example the rapper from London Abdel-Majed Abdel Bary was big in the news as his dad was in al Qaeda, some of his music got airtime on the radio, and he did stuff in Syria like posting a photo of himself holding a severed head captioned “hanging with my homie, or what’s left of him.” He was rumored to have fled ISIS in 2015, suspiciously coinciding with the refugee surge in Europe that summer. If he was to turn up somewhere in Britain we’d hear all about it for weeks.
Honestly just sick of seeing her ugly mug at this point.
Genocide whilst enslaving people is an oxymoron. You're either killing them or enslaving them, you can't do both at the same time.
And I've shown how that argument makes Britain morally bankrupt
400 isis people have returned to the UK
More nonsense. Genocide is about exterminating a people, killing is not the only means:
“ISIS has sought to erase the Yazidis through killings; sexual slavery, enslavement, torture and inhuman and degrading treatment and forcible transfer causing serious bodily and mental harm; the infliction of conditions of life that bring about a slow death; the imposition of measures to prevent Yazidi children from being born, including forced conversion of adults, the separation of Yazidi men and women, and mental trauma; and the transfer of Yazidi children from their own families and placing them with ISIS fighters, thereby cutting them off from beliefs and practices of their own religious community.”
https://news.un.org/en/story/2016/0...udes-isil-committing-genocide-against-yazidis
UN human rights panel concludes ISIL is committing genocide against Yazidis
Finally some fecking sense.
Suppose that's something the Corbynharvester and I have in common then. There's a handful of people in this thread saying the same thing.
Agenda?
She'd have thought nothing of it if her husband massacred you and your family mate. I'm sick of hearing people trying to defend her or make this into a race issue.Myself personally wish that other returning ISIS members had gone through the same (or more, preferably). That's the real issue in what you've said - why didn't the rest have the same scrutiny and are now back amongst us?
That's literally what the Nazis did in the Holocaust.
It’s incredible. A genocide which was conducted right in front of the world, with the perpetrators not only not denying it but boasting about and celebrating it, has a denier on the Cafe.
fecking unbelievable.
Presumably he's splitting hairs? One hopes, at least...
He is not splitting hairs. Anyone who has read his posts should know, that this is perfectly in line with everything he has written in the CE forum. Calling him an ISIS apologist would be an understatement.
Yes, but he’s presenting a poor arguement.
Last edited:
Well said mate. People just throwing the 'groomed' word around are the ones skewing this whole debate by bringing in things that are non-factual. She's a grown adult now and just the other day she said that she stood by her decision to leave and that she knew perfectly well what she was doing at 15 years old, as we all did. Yet here we are, people are making excuses on her behalf and their argument seems to be "well we let 400 other ISIS fighters back in"
Labour and Corbyn are about to become irrelevant in British Politics so his obvious apologist view is null and void.
I love how every single time Corbyn seems to open his mouth he makes it less likely he'll ever get elected.
Finally? Number 1 Nazi Rees-Mogg was saying this days ago whilst St Jeremy was tweeting about some stuff happening in Kashmir.
Mmm I wouldn't call that sense, more like political seppuku.
He's right that she should be allowed to return. But If you're gonna go with that angle then the immediate next phrase you should use is "to face the full force of Justice". He chose to go for "to answer some questions and also receive our support". Britons are not in mood to give collaborators and enablers of genocidal maniacs support. Every poll shows that.
But I guess there's no real change here, if you think about it. Corbyn was unelectable before this anyway. I wonder what will be left of the Labour party by the time his leadership ends. The Tories are thanking their lucky stars he's in opposition, they know they'll get re-elected despite fecking up Brexit spectacularly.
A race issue? What the feck you talking about, race has nothing to do with this.Agenda?
Myself personally wish that other returning ISIS members had gone through the same (or more, preferably). That's the real issue in what you've said - why didn't the rest have the same scrutiny and are now back amongst us?