Shamima Begum...

[otolith]

Religious fundamentalists are much of a muchness whichever book of fairytales they are taking literally.

[eldar]

AJL308 said:

There were questions asked about his case but he left the UK on the basis of displaying a British passport. If he was happy to use a UK passport to enable him to travel, the purpose of which was to undermine the war effort, then he was obliged to adhere to it's conditions and to the law of the UK.

It was complex. He was American/Irish, and naturalised German. Had fraudulently obtained and used a British passport. The latter meant the decision to try and hang him was taken.

[eldar]

1602Mark said:

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?

Presumably she could appeal to the local court to demand protection?

[Tom Logan]

1602Mark said:

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?

One can only hope = problem solved.

[crofty1984]

F1GTRUeno said:

Tell that to the 1.6 billion that don’t.

I can't remember who said it, but I do remember the quote "There's well over a billion of us - if the scriptures REALLY said that we should kill you, you'd all be dead by now"

[mrporsche]

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

You've heard that argument but you will ignore it ?

It is completely different to the Bible, Sharia is a set of rules / guides as to how a muslim should life their life;

From shaving pubic hair to, praying and banking

There is nothing as detailed in the bible as to how you shoudl live your life.

Sharia is so perfect a country could function without government if everybody lived by the rules.

Saudi is deemed to be the country closest to the literal interpretation and everybody says they are extreme and a bad influence in european mosques. They are not extreme they are just living closest to the word of god.

[anonymous-user]

1602Mark said:

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?

I was reading about this, an argument made by the press, but the camp is in territory run by the kurds, not the extremists as has been made out . Probably explains why when she was wearing western clothes when not giving her sob story to the media.

if the camp was surrounded by extremists, then it wouldn't explain how some detainees have gone back to their country.

Edited by anonymous-user on Monday 1st March 21:22

[Biggy Stardust]

skwdenyer said:

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."

As the vast majority of Bangladeshi-descent British people haven't had their nationality revoked one has to at least consider that her going abroad on a stolen passport, joining a proscribed terrorist organisation & being involved with commiting atrocities might have had at least a slight bearing on the case.

[jakesmith]

Just think if she's said 'sorry' in that TV interview shed be back here now. can't be the brightest unfortunately not to be able to work that out, or maybe not very well brought up.

[Oilchange]

Biggy Stardust said:

skwdenyer said:

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."

As the vast majority of Bangladeshi-descent British people haven't had their nationality revoked one has to at least consider that her going abroad on a stolen passport, joining a proscribed terrorist organisation & being involved with commiting atrocities might have had at least a slight bearing on the case.

]

I think we SHOULD remind ourselves about what she did do. Apparently she was prancing round like some self appointed Gestapo telling people how to dress on pain of death and strapping people into suicide vests.*

I am alarmed you choose to deflect this point with the 'parents not UK born argument'

That might have a profound effect on whether we should or should not allow her entry back into the UK imo.

• Wiki

[anonymoususer]

The Spruce Goose said:

Probably explains why when she was wearing western clothes when not giving her sob story to the media.

Edited by The Spruce Goose on Monday 1st March 21:22

She looked quite sassy too.

[anonymoususer]

Next thing people will be saying stuff like this was staged by her

[skwdenyer]

Oilchange said:

Biggy Stardust said:

skwdenyer said:

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."

As the vast majority of Bangladeshi-descent British people haven't had their nationality revoked one has to at least consider that her going abroad on a stolen passport, joining a proscribed terrorist organisation & being involved with commiting atrocities might have had at least a slight bearing on the case.

]

I think we SHOULD remind ourselves about what she did do. Apparently she was prancing round like some self appointed Gestapo telling people how to dress on pain of death and strapping people into suicide vests.*

I am alarmed you choose to deflect this point with the 'parents not UK born argument'

That might have a profound effect on whether we should or should not allow her entry back into the UK imo.

• Wiki

I hear all of these arguments. And I don't dismiss them. They are rational.

So by all means let her come back, and put her on trial for her crimes. That is how a civilised nation behaves. That is what it should mean to have human rights. It is all too easy to say "yes, but she's done X or Y" in justification, but I like to think most people have some notion that there are such things as human rights, inalienable rights that come with British citizenship. It is how we like to differentiate ourselves from other nations.

If we abandon those principles, how can we pretend to be superior to all those "lesser" states we see on the news?

The mistake I appear to have made is to believe that progress made towards proper human rights was permanent; it is anything but. Those rights are simply in the gift of whichever populist government has power this week. History provides us with ample warning as to the dangers that holds.

[anonymous-user]

skwdenyer said:

The mistake I appear to have made is to believe that progress made towards proper human rights was permanent; it is anything but. Those rights are simply in the gift of whichever populist government has power this week. History provides us with ample warning as to the dangers that holds.

The mistake you made was for your emotions to cloud you viewpoint and not read the judgement, it seems pretty clear on all counts.

The supreme court unlike the USA one is not political biased as you make out, in fact your whole rhetoric is tainted with very biased viewpoints that bear nothing to the actual facts.

[alfaman]

anonymoususer said:

Next thing people will be saying stuff like this was staged by her

Awwwww...she obviously loves us really ...has swapped the ISIS flag, swords and AK-47 for a union jack cushion.

Bless

[jakesmith]

skwdenyer said:

I hear all of these arguments. And I don't dismiss them. They are rational.

So by all means let her come back, and put her on trial for her crimes. That is how a civilised nation behaves. That is what it should mean to have human rights. It is all too easy to say "yes, but she's done X or Y" in justification, but I like to think most people have some notion that there are such things as human rights, inalienable rights that come with British citizenship. It is how we like to differentiate ourselves from other nations.

If we abandon those principles, how can we pretend to be superior to all those "lesser" states we see on the news?

The mistake I appear to have made is to believe that progress made towards proper human rights was permanent; it is anything but. Those rights are simply in the gift of whichever populist government has power this week. History provides us with ample warning as to the dangers that holds.

Why do you think that one decision you disagree with equals an entire country with a history of law and order going back hundreds of years, abandoning it’s principles on the world stage, a bit dramatic, no?

Do you honestly think that refusing to take back someone who effectively renounced their citizenship, borderline committed treason, and joined a criminal terrorist organisation opposed to every value our society holds, is some shocking violation of our own values? I can tell you we’ve done far worse in geopolitics and it’s not harmed our standing in the way you say.

[JuanCarlosFandango]

alfaman said:

Awwwww...she obviously loves us really ...has swapped the ISIS flag, swords and AK-47 for a union jack cushion.

Bless

Interesting bit of messaging that she was motivated to go and join in a frenzy of brutality, oppression and murder under the banner of ISIS but her cushion bears the British flag.

[Biggy Stardust]

skwdenyer said:

So by all means let her come back, and put her on trial for her crimes.

And if she's found guilty, what then? A suspended sentence & a lifetime of being supported by the state she despises whilst attempting to promote IS to a new group of lunatics?

Giving her pretty much everything she wants doesn't seem much of a punishment, clearly isn't a deterrent & probably won't do much as far as rehabilitation goes.

[JuanCarlosFandango]

1602Mark said:

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?

Are we sure we can keep her safe from that here?

[gazza285]

anonymoususer said:

Next thing people will be saying stuff like this was staged by her

Flag’s upside down.