Soldato
- Joined
- 25 Nov 2005
- Posts
- 12,612
She made her choice when she thought it was a good idea to go and join literal terrorists
ISIL, ISIS, Daesh discussion thread.
- Thread starter RoboCod
- Start date
I don't know if it's been discussed already, but we've had hundreds of British nationality Isis fighters returned/repatriated to the UK. I guess I don't understand why she seems to have been singled out for this treatment (or have there been others?), when surely actual fighters would be more of a security risk?
Soldato
She has been singled out because she was one of the most well known. If we have let actual fighters back in but not a teenage girl who never fought then its purely a political decision.
Soldato
Did they have (or could be eligible for...) dual nationality though? If so and they got back in then she might have a case, otherwise, tough ****.
Soldato
- Joined
- 25 Nov 2005
- Posts
- 12,612
If it was a political decision and therefore discrimination she would surely have a case in the courts to appeal which should go her way no ?
Soldato
It was decided that the minister of state did have the power to rescind citizenship therefore it was legal.
I have not seen articles on ISIS fighters allowed back into the country. Certainly not hundreds.
Here you go
UK faces uphill challenge in resettling Isis jihadis
Of the 900 Britons thought to have fought with Isis, about 40% have already returned
www.ft.com
British jihadis returning home from Syria and Iraq will have their movements restricted and be enrolled in mandatory deradicalisation programmes if they cannot be prosecuted for terrorism offences, say Whitehall officials. Arrangements by police and security services to manage Isis fighters are under new scrutiny since Turkey this week announced it would begin repatriating foreign terror suspects to their countries of origin. The first British national arrived at Heathrow on Thursday. Minimising the threat posed by the returnees will not be easy. The UK, along with European allies including France, Sweden and the Netherlands, is now set on a steep learning curve in resettling potentially dangerous extremists, some of whom may have been repatriated against their will. Of the 900 Britons estimated to have travelled to fight with Isis, around 40 per cent have already returned, 20 per cent are thought to have died and the remainder, around 360, are still in the Middle East. Security officials say they are confident they will be able to identify any fighters attempting to re-enter the country, even if they come without the assistance of a country such as Turkey. Alongside the fighters themselves are an unknown number of spouses and children who are likely to have been traumatised by their experiences in the so-called Caliphate. Alex Younger, head of MI6, warned earlier this year that they were “likely to have acquired the skills and connections that make them potentially very dangerous”. The government has made clear it will try to prosecute all repatriated fighters, but it is notoriously difficult to find evidence of terrorist acts committed in unstable conflict zones. Keeping track of the fighters once they are in the country will also be a challenge. Security services are stretched and MI5 is in the process of taking on responsibility for radical rightwing extremists as well as Islamist terror. Because surveillance is expensive, it would only be possible for the highest-risk returnees, and it is likely that most will have to be managed in the community by police and council officials. On arrival in the UK, all returnees will be detained at the airport under Schedule 7 of the Terrorism Act. Under these powers, the police can question individuals for several hours and confiscate items such as digital devices for investigation. If there is not enough evidence for the suspected fighters to be charged immediately, they can be managed under Terrorism Prevention and Investigation Measures and Temporary Exclusion Orders, which impose curbs such as compulsory reports to a police station, overnight curfews, and in some cases the ability to forcibly relocate suspects within the UK. Recommended David Gardner A third, more terrible, incarnation of Isis could yet appear These measures will be accompanied by mandatory enrolment on the Home Office’s Desistance and Disengagement Programme — a branch of the controversial Prevent scheme to deradicalise potential extremists, but toughened to combat the threat posed by those who have already demonstrated a clear terrorist affiliation.
Last edited:
Soldato
I know I sound like a broken record but she was a child when she travelled to Syria unable legally to do many things like vote, get married, consent to sex, drink smoke or join the armed forces. Why do you think in this country a child isn’t allowed to take such important decisions? Surely is 100% responsible for her choice and was old/mature enough to make it then you will be actively campaigning for children to get the vote, leave school, sign on for job seekers and of course serve on the frontline in the armed forces…..
I think I’ve now posted a version of that about 852.4 times in this thread and nobody has attempted to explain the difference between this decision and many othered we don’t allow children to make or bare full responsibility for.
Soldato
Colour me surprised but I agree with every word of that and he puts many of the posters of this forum to shame.Well, here's something I never thought I'd see in my wildest dreams, Peter Hitchens (not someone ever accused of having too much empathy) agreeing with your side of the argument!
www.dailymail.co.uk/debate/article-11793153/amp/PETER-HITCHENS-Shamima-Begum-punished-without-trial-nasty-mob-justice.html
Soldato
Let the **** rot in whatever hellhole decides to take it in! That has always been, and always will be, my stance on this piece of human garbage.
Soldato
- Joined
- 29 Jul 2004
- Posts
- 7,109
Under 18s can be tried as an adult in the UK, depending on the crime. Terrorism, supporting terrorism, treason etc would or at least should, fall under that.
Soldato
Note the use of the word CAN it is is a special case even for the most serious of crimes. So again why is this child responsible for this decision and children aren’t allowed to vote or get married etc? Is it really that inconvenient/hard for you to admit that our society the one you are screaming and raging to protect deems a child not mature enough to take major life determining decisions…..
Soldato
- Joined
- 29 Jul 2004
- Posts
- 7,109
When they commit heinous acts, they get to face the consequences of their actions regardless of age. Unless you're advocating for anyone under the age of 18 to have an exemption from all laws, based on the fact society has decided they aren't allowed to drink or vote until 18? If you are then you're an idiot.
There is however a major flaw in your argument (aside OFC from the fact that child killers/terrorists get tried as adults where appropriate).
She may have been 15 when she travelled to Syria, but she turned 16 there, and 17, and 18, all the time committed to the cause and taking part in heinous acts. In fact it wasn't until after her 19th birthday that she decided that maybe making bombs and helping brutalise other women wasn't really for her.
Even if you believe she was too young to understand at 15 that terrorism was bad (which is quite a stretch as she was 5 years older than the Bulger killers, and they knew that torturing, sexually assaulting and brutally killing a two year old was wrong) you can't defend her doing it as an adult.
Soldato
- Joined
- 25 Nov 2005
- Posts
- 12,612
You don't just misplace that much Uranium
Things getting a bit spicy in the region - few attacks or threatening action towards US bases in Iraq and Syria over the last couple of days - lots of USAF and RAF assets up tonight doing stuff (with mission relevant idents rather than the usual call signs) so I suspect some retaliation is coming.
Last edited:
Last edited: