Shamima Begum...

[amusingduck]

skwdenyer said:

As has been said elsewhere, when a 15 year old white girl is groomed into an entirely new belief set, we call her a victim.

For example?

[F1GTRUeno]

mrporsche said:

F1GTRUeno said:

mrporsche said:

Don’t want ?

Is / was there anything isis did that is not carried out by a current Muslim country. Or could be reached using one of the interpretations of the Koran ?

Killing homosexuals, the manner of death maybe different but they are hardly alone.

So you think Mohammed down the corner shop (to use a stereotype) working to feed his family, go on holday, see his mates and generally live exactly like we do follows the Quran the same as ISIS?

That is not what I asked.

People pick and choose the parts that work for their lives. As we saw on the student loan thread most Muslims in the U.K. appear ok to accept non sharia compliant loans yet Takaful banking is very important in Islam,.

Death for homosexuals seems important In Islam, doesn’t mean they all follow it to the letter.

Just because a handful of people in the U.K. don’t follow it to the letter doesn’t mean it is not in the scriptures.

Erm, exactly?

They don't follow it to the letter, hence they aren't radicals, which makes the point of a Muslim not being radical by following it to the letter nonsense?

The radicals are the extremists who claim to follow it to the letter, much like in every religion.

[1602Mark]

Tom Logan said:

1602Mark said:

AJL308 said:

1602Mark said:

AJL308 said:

I think she probably has some deep seated personality disorder rather than having been coerced into anything.

Were she diagnosed as such, she would have a defence in law under diminished responsibility I think?

I agree that her responses (or the little I have seen of them) aren't what one might deem as being 'normal' though.

She wouldn't have a defence. It's not an illness. If that were the case then almost every serial killer in history would use it.

Borderline Personality Disorder isn't an illness? Are you absolutely sure of that?

Being a radical Muslim is a personality disorder??

Who da thunk it.

Except nobody said that. AJL308 made a comment that he thought Begum ''had some deep seated personality disorder rather than being coerced into anything'', nothing more.

People with BPD can be more susceptible to manipulation / grooming and were Begum diagnosed it might explain her behaviours in interview? There was no inference that being a radical Muslim was a personality disorder.

Edited by 1602Mark on Sunday 28th February 20:39

[mrporsche]

F1GTRUeno said:

Erm, exactly?

They don't follow it to the letter, hence they aren't radicals, which makes the point of a Muslim not being radical by following it to the letter nonsense?

The radicals are the extremists who claim to follow it to the letter, much like in every religion.

This is where khan’s “Uncle Tom” comment comes into play. Somebody that follows the religion to the letter is not a radical they are simply a good Muslim.

What the other call themselves and how they reconcile that is upto them, are they half Muslims ??

[NMNeil]

I still can't understand the need for her to be in the UK for the hearing when video teleconferencing is so common?
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YRUnRuDyPWw

[F1GTRUeno]

mrporsche said:

F1GTRUeno said:

Erm, exactly?

They don't follow it to the letter, hence they aren't radicals, which makes the point of a Muslim not being radical by following it to the letter nonsense?

The radicals are the extremists who claim to follow it to the letter, much like in every religion.

This is where khan’s “Uncle Tom” comment comes into play. Somebody that follows the religion to the letter is not a radical they are simply a good Muslim.

What the other call themselves and how they reconcile that is upto them, are they half Muslims ??

i've no idea how you designate a 'good/bad/whatever Muslim', all I know is 1.6 billion people following something to the letter that says they need to invade and conquer and kill every non believer (or whatever it says in the Quran literally, I've never read it) would probably mean we'd all be dead and there'd only be Muslims left.

Hence they don't follow it to the letter, they just get on with their lives and pick and choose their bits to follow, never bothering anyone (which to me makes a good person, Muslim or otherwise) and it only ever seems to be the rag tag bunch of idiots in Al-Qaeda/ISIS/et al that claim to follow it perfectly and use it to commit atrocities, which is just the same as any other religion.

[mrporsche]

F1GTRUeno said:

i've no idea how you designate a 'good/bad/whatever Muslim', all I know is 1.6 billion people following something to the letter that says they need to invade and conquer and kill every non believer (or whatever it says in the Quran literally, I've never read it) would probably mean we'd all be dead and there'd only be Muslims left.

Hence they don't follow it to the letter, they just get on with their lives and pick and choose their bits to follow, never bothering anyone (which to me makes a good person, Muslim or otherwise) and it only ever seems to be the rag tag bunch of idiots in Al-Qaeda/ISIS/et al that claim to follow it perfectly and use it to commit atrocities, which is just the same as any other religion.

But somebody following it to the letter is not a bad Muslim or a radical they are simply a Muslim.

To go back to my initial point is / was there anything isis did that is not carried out in a Muslim country or the inspiration is in their scriptures.

[F1GTRUeno]

mrporsche said:

But somebody following it to the letter is not a bad Muslim or a radical they are simply a Muslim.

To go back to my initial point is / was there anything isis did that is not carried out in a Muslim country or the inspiration is in their scriptures.

The part where the caliphate is the only thing that matters and it has to grow and conquer the world would seem a rather large part of it don't you think?

[Tom Logan]

F1GTRUeno said:

mrporsche said:

But somebody following it to the letter is not a bad Muslim or a radical they are simply a Muslim.

To go back to my initial point is / was there anything isis did that is not carried out in a Muslim country or the inspiration is in their scriptures.

The part where the caliphate is the only thing that matters and it has to grow and conquer the world would seem a rather large part of it don't you think?

Can mr porsche give us the name of another muslim country where people are immolated in cages, women are routinely gang raped, people are randomly killed for refusing to convert to islam, civilians are beheaded for being the wrong type of muslim, captured soldiers are routinely killed without any recourse to any military justice......I'll wait here for your answer...

[LimSlip]

mrporsche said:

But somebody following it to the letter is not a bad Muslim or a radical they are simply a Muslim.

To go back to my initial point is / was there anything isis did that is not carried out in a Muslim country or the inspiration is in their scriptures.

I don't think you understand the Quran as well as you might think you do. Would someone following the Bible to the letter be a "good Christian" in your view, having stoned their children to death for being unruly and having made sure to hold back when beating their slaves so they recover within a day or so? In case you hadn't noticed times move on, as do attitudes and beliefs.

[Starfighter]

NMNeil said:

I still can't understand the need for her to be in the UK for the hearing when video teleconferencing is so common?
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YRUnRuDyPWw

That was basically the conclusion of the Supreme Court. Refusing her the right to return to the UK to have her appear heard is not a denial of justice when balanced with the risk she presents.
We now get the hear the case for removing her UK citizenship and if that was lawful. If it was lay full then she stays out, if the Home Secretary acted unlawfully then she remains a UK citizen and has the right to enter the country. There will then be a debate and legal cases about if the state has an obligation to go and get her or if we just need to accept her when the arrived either at the border or an embassy. Once she is back she could then face charges and trial.

[Esceptico]

mrporsche said:

But somebody following it to the letter is not a bad Muslim or a radical they are simply a Muslim.

To go back to my initial point is / was there anything isis did that is not carried out in a Muslim country or the inspiration is in their scriptures.

The Bible is full of bad stuff that was used for most of the history of Christianity to justify some rather unsavoury behaviour pretty similar to radical Muslims (the Crusades anyone?). Are you saying that most Christians today who aren’t implementing the Bible to the letter are not really Christians? Islam has a long history and Islamic regimes and Islamic peoples have varied massively (same for Christians) even though they supposedly were members of the same religion. People aren’t using the Bible/Koran to determine their behaviour and beliefs. They are using them to justify their behaviour and beliefs.

[skwdenyer]

The Spruce Goose said:

F1GTRUeno said:

That she cannot return to the UK and be tried for her crimes, I thought that was obvious.

''Thirdly, the Court of Appeal mistakenly believed that, when an individual’s
right to have a fair hearing of an appeal came into conflict with the requirements of national security, her right to a fair hearing must prevail. As I have explained, if avital public interest - in this case, the safety of the public - makes it impossible for a case to be fairly heard, then the courts cannot ordinarily hear it. The appropriate response to the problem in the present case is for the appeal to be stayed until Ms Begum is in a position to play an effective part in it without the safety of the public being compromised.''

So you think the rights of one individual are greater than the national security, well I can fully disagree with you on that, and clearly the Court made the right decision.

I don't think that, no. But in this case, AIUI, the Supreme Court was not asked to rule as to whether SB is/was a threat to national security; the determination was made by the Home Secretary. Nor was this as, again AIUI, a judicial review into the reasonableness of any such determination made by the Home Secretary.

Against that background, the SC appears to have said IF the person in question is a threat to national security and IF that threat cannot be mitigated in a reasonable way THEN the only course left is to stay proceedings (note, not throw them out) until that situation changes.

Let's think about this for a moment. In effect, it says that the right to a fair trial - something I would argue is inalienable in our most once-respected of democracies - is now conditional not upon the judgement of a court, but upon the political whim of a Minister.

The SC in its judgement is keen to point out that allowing politicians to make these decisions is in fact an important facet of democracy (the person making the decision is subject to removal by the public); far from being persuasive, to me this is to ignore the lessons of history, that an independent judiciary is *precisely* who should make such decisions, not a partisan populist politician. This is the first of many cop-outs by the SC.

The SC does make clear that there has been no hearing on the matter of national security, and then again makes clear that such an issue would not be - *should* not be - justiciable. Here again we see the SC abrogating (IMHO) responsibility for what should be one of its most sacred obligations (again IMHO) to ensure that, even where the decisions are inherently political, that the sword of power (direct or de facto) is wielded reasonably.

I shan't go on; there are far greater legal minds than mine who are already writing at length about the matter. This from a prominent QC is pithy:

"The Court’s narrow reasoning, & considerable deference to executive power is deeply troubling. If the courts cannot step in to protect fundamental rights, who can?"

Again, we should remind ourselves that, at its heart, this case centres not on what SB did or did not do, but on the fact that her parents were foreign-born. Despite SB being born in Britain, as a British Citizen, her nationality is somehow "second class."

If anyone reading this is of similar descent, I'm sorry to say but you're not "proper British" and you exist on parole. You do not have the same rights as the rest of us. I, lacking that background, could never receive the same punishment (banishment or, effectively, deportation). Maybe you could?

I'll leave only with this: both Sajid Javid and Priti Patel *could* be stripped of their citizenship under this approach. Perhaps that's why they both tried so hard to bury this girl in the sand? Perhaps they believe themselves actually to be second-class citizens, and that they must somehow prove their Britishness by this action? All I can say is, if that is so, I would wish they had a different idea of what it means (or used to mean) to be British.

[Seattaken]

F1GTRUeno said:

The S*n would absolutely say fk her.

I’m well aware the Supreme Court ruled on it, doesn’t mean they’re definitively correct does it?

Legally yes their rule is absolute but ethically and morally their decisions can be challenged hence we have discussion about it.

Edited by F1GTRUeno on Sunday 28th February 18:43

Quite right the difference between legality and ethics.

[1602Mark]

NMNeil said:

I still can't understand the need for her to be in the UK for the hearing when video teleconferencing is so common?
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YRUnRuDyPWw

The only problem I see with it is the not knowing whether she faces retribution from other camp members were she to say anything they deemed to be against their beliefs. Were she to denounce all things Islam and/or extremist how does she then live amongst the radicals I assume she is surrounded by in the camp?

[mrporsche]

Tom Logan said:

Can mr porsche give us the name of another muslim country where people are immolated in cages, women are routinely gang raped, people are randomly killed for refusing to convert to islam, civilians are beheaded for being the wrong type of muslim, captured soldiers are routinely killed without any recourse to any military justice......I'll wait here for your answer...

That is not what I said though.

Sex with slaves was practised Mohammed and his men.

The concept of jizya, pay the tax as a non Muslim or die.

Pakistan has a statement in their passport application form which says the aamhadis are not Muslims. There was rejoicing when the Scottish shop keeper was killed.

11 Muslim countries have the death penalty for homosexuality.

Mohammed had no issues with killing non Muslims, captured soldiers and taking their women as slaves.

The inspiration is there.

[mrporsche]

LimSlip said:

I don't think you understand the Quran as well as you might think you do. Would someone following the Bible to the letter be a "good Christian" in your view, having stoned their children to death for being unruly and having made sure to hold back when beating their slaves so they recover within a day or so? In case you hadn't noticed times move on, as do attitudes and beliefs.

What does the bible have to do isis?

That said if they feed thousands with a few fish and some bread, raised people from the dead, cured the sick and preached about peace and love then that would appear to be a Christian thing to do.

The bible is full of fire and brimstone but then god sent his only son to save the world. The old was replaced with the new anybody following the old and ignoring the new is not follow the scriptures as written.

Unlike the bible The Koran is not a story, it is the word of god as dictated to the most perfect man ever, whom Muslims should try to emulate. His life started out as peace and love but then ended up in violence and conquest.

[mrporsche]

Esceptico said:

The Bible is full of bad stuff that was used for most of the history of Christianity to justify some rather unsavoury behaviour pretty similar to radical Muslims (the Crusades anyone?). Are you saying that most Christians today who aren’t implementing the Bible to the letter are not really Christians? Islam has a long history and Islamic regimes and Islamic peoples have varied massively (same for Christians) even though they supposedly were members of the same religion. People aren’t using the Bible/Koran to determine their behaviour and beliefs. They are using them to justify their behaviour and beliefs.

No I am pointing out that Muslims living by the word of God as dictated to the most perfect man ever are simply Muslims not radicals or extremists just Muslims.

[F1GTRUeno]

mrporsche said:

No I am pointing out that Muslims living by the word of God as dictated to the most perfect man ever are simply Muslims not radicals or extremists just Muslims.

Good luck telling Christians that they aren’t Christians for not following the Bible to the letter and that it’s just ‘a story’.

I’ve heard the argument about the Quran being the immutable words and having to take it literally but it’s honestly no different to Christians taking the Bible literally. The hardcore batst ones do, everyone else picks and chooses. Same with Islam, otherwise they couldn’t possibly live a normal life anywhere but in the caliphate.

You mention inspiration being there and yeah, there are some things where they’re still ‘behind’ what we think is civilised but in Bible Belt America you’d get the exact same beliefs for instance.

To live in the 21st century most religious people pick and choose what they practice to varying degrees.

Edited by F1GTRUeno on Monday 1st March 09:35

[JuanCarlosFandango]

F1GTRUeno said:

Good luck telling Christians that they aren’t Christians for not following the Bible to the letter and that it’s just ‘a story’.

I’ve heard the argument about the Quran being the immutable words and having to take it literally but it’s honestly no different to Christians taking the Bible literally. The hardcore batst ones do, everyone else picks and chooses. Same with Islam, otherwise they couldn’t possibly live a normal life anywhere but in the caliphate.

You mention inspiration being there and yeah, there are some things where they’re still ‘behind’ what we think is civilised but in Bible Belt America you’d get the exact same beliefs for instance.

To live in the 21st century most religious people pick and choose what they practice to varying degrees.

Edited by F1GTRUeno on Monday 1st March 09:35

As a practicing Christian I don't see how you could begin to take the bible literally or use it as an instruction manual. It isn't instructional and although Christians tend to believe it contains revelations I don't know of any who consider the whole book to be revealed truth. It is a collection of stories and open to interpretation.