Shamima Begum, IS teen wants to come back to the UK

Some people are making a big deal out of her being “unrepentant “. Don’t you think it’s possible her current circumstances might make it kind of tricky to slate the jihadists and swear allegiance to the Union Jack?
 
I'm not British but I don't think you can set a precedent for bringing ISIS supporters home, regardless of how repentant they are.

You have no way of telling what some of them have been doing over there. It's quite likely there will have been people trained to carry out terrorist activities and then encouraged to travel back home in order to plan attacks.

It's cruel and there will be those who are genuinely repentant and regretful of their decision to travel to Syria but there has to be a line drawn somewhere. The safety of people on the trains and streets of your cities has to come before the comfort and lifestyle of people who made the decision to travel and support terrorism, no matter what age they were.
 
Stick said:
To be fair the raising of the child will happen that way anyway. Would you not be better to bring her back with child and try to help educate both?
Click to expand...

I’d bring the child but not her. She lost two kids by intentionally having them in a warzone in order to provide child soldiers to a sick regime. She’s not fit to raise children.
 
Pogue Mahone said:
Some people are making a big deal out of her being “unrepentant “. Don’t you think it’s possible her current circumstances might make it kind of tricky to slate the jihadists and swear allegiance to the Union Jack?
Click to expand...

Doesn’t seem to be an issue for the vast majority of others currently trying to worm their way back ‘home’. Isn’t she being held by the SDF? Not much incentive to feign loyalty to the Caliphate in front of them.
 
When she first went the narrative seemed to be that a young, vulnerable teenager had been brainwashed into joining IS? In other words she was portrayed as being a victim. In which case it doesn't make sense to me that said teen would be treated with little compassion just a few years later.

I mean I'm sure it would be easier for everyone if she feigned remorse at this point but at the same time I'm not sure you can take her apparent lack of remorse as absolute given the circumstances of her joining.
 
If there's another uprising, the last thing you need is trained radicals embedded back in society. It's like setting up mines in your own back garden.

Need to quickly find an alternative.
 
The UK has stopped funding UK citizens who find themselves in difficulty in foreign countries but they will need to issue temporary travel documents and she will have to find her own way home or with the help of her family. Maybe the family will look after her baby while she serves any prison sentence or possibly it will go into foster care or be put up for adoption but I don't know if anyone else is aware of any case where a British Citizen has been stripped of their nationality.
 
If any crimes have been committed, she should be arrested, charged, sent to trail and serve sentence (if found guilty) in that very country the same as any other British criminal who commits a crime overseas. The baby should be brought home and put into the care of either her family or social services if the family are found unfit.
 
How do we know it’s not some part of a tactical long game plan? That some day she will walk into a crowded place and blow herself up
 
Robbo's Shoulder said:
If any crimes have been committed, she should be arrested, charged, sent to trail and serve sentence (if found guilty) in that very country the same as any other British criminal who commits a crime overseas. The baby should be brought home and put into the care of either her family or social services if the family are found unfit.
Click to expand...

They're detained by Kurdish forces I believe. There is no recognised country or law I guess, which is what makes it difficult.
 
golden_blunder said:
How do we know it’s not some part of a tactical long game plan? That some day she will walk into a crowded place and blow herself up
Click to expand...
I'd say she would be the least dangerous woman in Britain if she returns. She wouldn't be able to cough without the government knowing.
 
There's no legal basis for denying her re-entry to the UK. She's a British citizen and you can't just strip British nationality from someone because they've done something wrong (assuming she got her citizenship by being born to British parents, rather than naturalisation.)

She's within her rights to come back if she can afford to travel. What happens when she gets off the plane is another matter. She will likely be held on arrival and comprehensively interviewed so they can figure out whether she can be held accountable for any crimes.
 
cyberman said:
I'd say she would be the least dangerous woman in Britain if she returns. She wouldn't be able to cough without the government knowing.
Click to expand...
They can’t literally watch her 24/7 for years. At some point their guard will go down
 
oates said:
The UK has stopped funding UK citizens who find themselves in difficulty in foreign countries but they will need to issue temporary travel documents and she will have to find her own way home or with the help of her family. Maybe the family will look after her baby while she serves any prison sentence or possibly it will go into foster care or be put up for adoption but I don't know if anyone else is aware of any case where a British Citizen has been stripped of their nationality.
Click to expand...

Does Britain even have an embassy in Syria anymore? She'd probably have to go into Turkey or Iraq to be issued a visa. I'm hoping both countries don't allow her in.
 
She should not be allowed back into the UK.

My country has had a lot of people fly out to join ISIS (more than any in this part of the world unless I’m mistaken) and I really do wish that they all suffer a painful and gruesome death.

ISIS aren’t some little known entity, the entire world and their mother know what ISIS engage in. If you willingly join them, then you don’t deserve any sympathy.

Our government has thus far refused to entertain any kind of talk about allowing these people to come back here, which I am wholly in support of. The UK should take a similar stance, though I’m not sure if it’s legally possible. Not sure if it’s legally possible for us either, but none of ours have asked to come home and I appreciate the stance on not wanting them back.
 
Last edited:
Sigma said:
It's the law. That and her baby is a British citizen.
Click to expand...

I’d be all for her losing her citizenship though. She chose to leave and stands for/condones actions that go against the core values of the Western world.

She lost her right to call herself British when she left for the caliphate
 
Tough with her being a kid when she went. Add in the rape and the almost certainty that she's suffering serious guilt and trauma over the loss of two of her kids, and its a bit too easy to just say she's unrepentant. Clinging onto that may be the only thing holding her together mentally right now.
 
Heardy said:
I’d be all for her losing her citizenship though. She chose to leave and stands for/condones actions that go against the core values of the Western world.

She lost her right to call herself British when she left for the caliphate
Click to expand...

Completely disagree with this. You can't just go stripping people's citizenship because they do things you don't like. Especially when it comes to something as vague as 'going against core values'. I sure as feck don't trust this (or any) UK government with that much power.
 
Kentonio said:
Completely disagree with this. You can't just go stripping people's citizenship because they do things you don't like. Especially when it comes to something as vague as 'going against core values'. I sure as feck don't trust this (or any) UK government with that much power.
Click to expand...

Like joining a terrorist organisation?
 
Heardy said:
I’d be all for her losing her citizenship though. She chose to leave and stands for/condones actions that go against the core values of the Western world.

She lost her right to call herself British when she left for the caliphate
Click to expand...

Morally maybe, but legally no. I think the government have already said they are not going to make her stateless.

Kentonio said:
Completely disagree with this. You can't just go stripping people's citizenship because they do things you don't like. Especially when it comes to something as vague as 'going against core values'. I sure as feck don't trust this (or any) UK government with that much power.
Click to expand...

Agreed. It's a slippery slope.
 
Skills said:
Like joining a terrorist organisation?
Click to expand...

Yup. The only circumstance I can think of that warrants it would be joining a hostile country during a time of war. Islamic State were never a recognized country and are not in a state of war against the UK as far as I'm aware.
 
Kentonio said:
Islamic State were never a recognized country and are not in a state of war against the UK as far as I'm aware.
Click to expand...

They were and are absolutely in a state of war with the UK.
 
NinjaFletch said:
Not legally they aren't, otherwise you would have to recognise them as a state.
Click to expand...

So states can only be in a state of war with other states? Well you learn something new every day I suppose. So the British government were never - legally - at war with the IRA?

Do all the ISIS declarations of war and attacks, and the fact that British troops have been involved in fighting them over in Syria and Iraq, count for nothing then when we’re weighing up the legalities here?
 
Honestly I think that once somebody leaves to join ISIS they should understand that going back is not an option - might help put others off the idea of leaving in the first place if they see that they won't get bailed out if they want home. It's tough but I don't have much sympathy for the girl.
 
Leave her be in her paradise on earth. I swear if she’s brought back it’ll open up a can of worms you really don’t want to deal with. It’s not a new and unique problem.

Afaik, we’re dealing with (and have been for some years) the same issues in Norway. The country’s largest newspaper had a story a few months back tracking the whereabaouts of sympathizers who left for IS. I seem to remember thinking we took a stance of ‘leave it for now, and should they show up here we’ll have to deal with it in some way’. Imo it’s the lesser of evils for the government. Technically they’re still Norwegian citizen, but hopefully we won’t lift a finger to bring that plague back here.

Compassion, hah, I love how naive some people are! More power to you.
 
NinjaFletch said:
I'm really not sure how I feel about it.

On the one hand I completely get the emotional reaction, but on the other hand I kind of think she's in her own way a bit of a victim. She seems stupid and unrepentant, but she was a 15 year old girl when she went and has been subjected to four years of grooming and brainwashing and we know little about how she was radicalised to the extent that she went.

I don't know how far that should be taken in to mitigation though, most of us have done stupid things at that age. Few of us have joined a death cult.
Click to expand...

This sort of sympathy is what encourages terrorists worldwide. My own country is currently suffering from the aftermaths of a ghastly attack by a suicide bombing brainwashed youth cnut.

Zero tolerance for terrorists. Shoot them on sight, whether they are 10, 15 or 50 years old. Women and kids who get brainwashed are far too gone to come back, and it would be better to put them out of their misery.

This piece of work should rot in ISIS land for sure.
 
It seems difficult if not impossible to account for the mindset and decisions made by these people in terms of the existing laws we have concerning stuff like citizenship, warfare, and terrorism. These laws are clearly not adequate to deal with the age of globalized terrorism or whatever you want to call it.

Whatever the existing legalities, when these people travelled to the caliphate (made hijrah as they term it), they consciously rejected their citizenship and the idea of a nationality based on anything other than their (idea of their) religion. Many of them symbolized this by tearing up and/or burning their passports on arrival, and all would have been required to give bay’ah (pledge allegiance) to Abu Bakr al-Baghdadi. For them the only legitimate entity on the planet was the Islamic State, and everything beyond it was regarded as an abode of war with which there could never be peace.

Surely this all must mean something on the day when Shamima finds herself in a British court?
 
Last edited:
Handré1990 said:
I seem to remember thinking we took a stance of ‘leave it for now, and should they show up here we’ll have to deal with it in some way’. Imo it’s the lesser of evils for the government. Technically they’re still Norwegian citizen, but hopefully we won’t lift a finger to bring that plague back here.
Click to expand...

Same with us. We’ve ruled out intervening in any way on bringing them home, and would prefer if they don’t come back, but haven’t actually outlined what they will do if they do come back. Thankfully none have attempted to as yet, and hopefully they never do.
 
Hope she never finds her way back to Britain. If she tore up her passport then she’ll have a problem getting a replacement. Is that her major issue, no documents?
 
Kapardin said:
This sort of sympathy is what encourages terrorists worldwide. My own country is currently suffering from the aftermaths of a ghastly attack by a suicide bombing brainwashed youth cnut.

Zero tolerance for terrorists. Shoot them on sight, whether they are 10, 15 or 50 years old. Women and kids who get brainwashed are far too gone to come back, and it would be better to put them out of their misery.

This piece of work should rot in ISIS land for sure.
Click to expand...

Let's not get in to what encourages terrorists worldwide. It's a debate we've had on here before and it's one that will derail the thread.

I'm not proposing sympathy for her or saying that she shouldn't be held responsible for her actions. I just think that what she did, and what she's trying to pass off as normal in that interview, are so far removed from what you would expect of a normal 15 year old kid growing up in Britain (her age when she left) that it's insane to try and pretend that it occurred in complete isolation. We are all products of our environment and something in hers caused her to make decisions that no normal kid would have which has caused her to ruin her life by the time she turned 20.

I think that that's sad, from a human point of view, without being justification for what she's done.

But maybe that's also a pretty gendered response. I'm not certain I would respond in the same way if it was a boy.
 
Last edited:
Heardy said:
I would love to know that rational logic / thought process of those 16% thinking she should be allowed to return.
Click to expand...

I'm more curious about the thought process of the ones who think she shouldn't. On what basis? It's an absolutely ridiculous stance. A country can't ban their citizens from returning. It's unheard of. I think the only situations you can be stripped of your nationality is if you're naturalized (this can happen in the US, although rare) or, in the case of some (rare) countries that don't allow dual citizenship, so they'll remove yours if you become a citizen of another country.

None of these situations apply to her, so I wonder what people are thinking when suggesting that she is banned from entering. Are they suggesting that the government of their country should take a completely illegal act, possibly even without authority, for satisfaction of the masses?

I'd rather have a terrorist back, really.
 
Robbo's Shoulder said:
If any crimes have been committed, she should be arrested, charged, sent to trail and serve sentence (if found guilty) in that very country the same as any other British criminal who commits a crime overseas. The baby should be brought home and put into the care of either her family or social services if the family are found unfit.
Click to expand...

In some countries, joining a terrorist organisation or fighting in a foreign conflict were not criminal offences at the time when most individuals travelled to Syria.

Several countries have since introduced new laws which, however, cannot be applied retrospectively.

Even in countries where such actions have long constituted criminal offences, authorities struggle to gather the evidence needed to build a strong criminal case.

Knowing that somebody joined IS or committed atrocities in Syria from an intelligence perspective is one thing.

Being able to prove that beyond a reasonable doubt in a court of law is another.
Click to expand...
 
Robbo's Shoulder said:
If any crimes have been committed, she should be arrested, charged, sent to trail and serve sentence (if found guilty) in that very country the same as any other British criminal who commits a crime overseas. The baby should be brought home and put into the care of either her family or social services if the family are found unfit.
Click to expand...

Spot on.
We absolutely have to follow the law of the land.
If she decides to try to return and it wouldn't surprise me if the baby prevents this in the short term then she will need either a valid UK passport or visa or asylum.

If she is proven to have broken our laws then IMHO she should be denied entry.

For all we know she might actually be married and that being the case if she was permitted entry at some point her husband could apply to join her.
 
If I was in ISIS infested Syria right now and gave an interview to a british paper I would also not say strong words against ISIS, especially after joining them first, which would make me a traitor against murderous lunatics. Who knows if they're gonna find me and kill me. So I think we should take the unrepentant angle with a pinch of salt.

Bringing her back, especially considering she's pregnant, would be the right thing to do. Take care of the baby, trial her and try to rehabilitate her. She would obviously end up in some sort of national security watch list for the rest of her life. If she behaved, then it would be kind of a success story. If not, she would eventually contact other bad people and the secret services could even catch a few more bad apples.

Letting her and the baby there would send the message to others that there's no point trying to leave ISIS and I don't think that's a good message.
 
Arruda said:
I'm more curious about the thought process of the ones who think she shouldn't. On what basis? It's an absolutely ridiculous stance

I'd rather have a terrorist back, really.
Click to expand...

And I am curious about the thought process that thinks this even remotely a sensible thing to say.
 
2cents said:
So states can only be in a state of war with other states? Well you learn something new every day I suppose. So the British government were never - legally - at war with the IRA?

Do all the ISIS declarations of war and attacks, and the fact that British troops have been involved in fighting them over in Syria and Iraq, count for nothing then when we’re weighing up the legalities here?
Click to expand...

I may be slightly wrong I'm not an expert in international law, but I believe technically yes.

Which is to say that technically 'war' describes a state of relations between two countries. i.e. in Chamberlain's declaration against Germany:

"This morning the British Ambassador in Berlin handed the German Government a
final Note stating that, unless we heard from them by 11 o'clock that they were
prepared at once to withdraw their troops from Poland, a state of war would
exist between us.

I have to tell you now that no such undertaking has been received, and that
consequently this country is at war with Germany.

You can imagine what a bitter blow it is to me that all my long struggle to win
peace has failed. Yet I cannot believe that there is anything more or anything
different that I could have done and that would have been more successful...'

If you don't recognise the other party as a sovereign state, you can't be in a state of war with them and you can't, therefore, be at war with non state actors. It's a bit of a relic from the nineteenth early twentieth century though because if we're being really strict with it then neither the UK nor the US ever went to war with Iraq.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.