Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

ISIS brides

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

    ISIS brides

    This seems to be a media generated storm, caused by one paper going looking for British girls in refugee camps, finding one and then the rest of the papers piling on.

    A friend who I consider to be a decent person has shared a Hatie Kopkins video saying 'I normally don't agree with Hopkins about anything, but she has a point' as Hatie tells ISIS brides they've made their choices and need to face the consequences. These extreme cases are how right wing hatred gets normalised.

    I remember reading about the experiences of German POWs after the war and how they went through denazification in the POW camps before being let out. I wonder if something similar could be used here, a deradicalisation scheme. It might give this girl's kid a chance of surviving at least.

    #2
    Aye. Shamima Begum has 2 alternatives (she's not really in a position to make choices). Either stay in camp with all the risks of poor health etc. for her and the child. Or be brought back to London and face prosecution, always assuming that Javid doesn't personally head down to Dover and stop her getting off the ferry.

    The only thing missing so far is Stephen Nolan's tupp'orth (unless anyone else is unlucky enough to catch his BBC NI show)

    Comment


      #3
      I'm really undecided on this one and I'd like to hear what the rest of OTF thinks. She was young when she flew out to join ISIS, marry and start producing the next generation of foot soldiers and dutiful wives, but four years later she doesn't appear to regret her decision and shows no signs of remorse. And if severed captive's heads in bins doesn't "faze" her she's going to be a hard deradicalisation nut to crack.
      Last edited by Nocturnal Submission; 15-02-2019, 18:17.

      Comment


        #4
        I haven't been following this, but doesn't the UK have to strip her of citizenship before it can lawfully deny her consular assistance?

        And wouldn't that process require somewhat higher standards of evidence than those employed by the red tops?

        Comment


          #5
          As some commentators have said- in her case and generally- remorse can be feigned (and bravado exaggerated), so how she performs in interview may not be wholly significant.

          As that er, bleeding heart do-gooder Jakey Mogg was saying on the BBC last night, the British State has certain legal obligations. We can't make her or her child stateless, for one (as Ursus suggests). So I imagine her story will fall from the news and she'll be left with the 40,000 other refugees in the camp. If she has the means/ support to effectively do a Ronnie Biggs, let's see if Javid's bluster sustains. That support isn't likely to come from our Amman or Beirut Embassies. Their job is to sell tanks, not repatriate ISIS poster-girls while taking on our tabloid media
          Last edited by Duncan Gardner; 15-02-2019, 13:32.

          Comment


            #6
            She isn't even trying to be remorseful, though, is she? She still thinks she made the right choice in going to Syria. Which surely complicates things, even if her mindset was originally formed by someone grooming and brainwashing her as presumably is the case. Whilst I wouldn't agree with the stance that she made her choice and must suffer the consequences (obviously!) because that is going way too far regarding decisions made when people are 15 or 16, if she is still a believer in what ISIS stood for then she is dangerous.

            From something I read on this on the BBC (I think) a deradicalisation scheme like PT talks about in his opening post already exists. And, for the friend who is getting taken in, try getting them to read this take from a former British spook - https://www.theguardian.com/commenti...n-isis-recruit

            Comment


              #7
              I agree Janik - it smacks of the cry for help because she's lost the security she felt she initially had. If she was still in an ISIS stronghold (I've not followed closely, do any still exist) and not a refugee camp then would she be sending out this cry for a return. In my view, absolutely not.

              The real loser is her unborn child.

              Comment


                #8
                Been debating this on Facebook with a couple of people. Begum needs to face interrogation, sure, but was a minor when she made this apparent choice, so if she's to be prosecuted here, it'll require thorough investigation. Some find 'brainwashing' and 'radicalisation' to be nebulous terms, but it seems pretty apparent to me that she and her teenage cohorts would've required considerable coercion before making such a decision.

                Whether she remains a 'threat' to this country is something that hopefully can be determined - but there's an unborn child to consider here that deserves a decent chance - even if our justice system determines that she doesn't.

                Comment


                  #9
                  She should be let back in, it is the humane thing to do, end of.

                  I don't see a clamour to stop Katie Hopkins or other far right agitators returning to the UK when they leave the country.
                  From the sounds of it, she has spend the last few years getting pregnant.

                  Comment


                    #10
                    Who? Kate Hopkins?

                    Comment


                      #11
                      Shamima Begum was groomed at the age of 15, then impregnated three times, indoctrinated and is now a 19-year-old who cannot see her way out of her current predicament. Any humane society would be welcoming her back and offering counselling for PTSD, given her horrific experiences.

                      Comment


                        #12
                        I'm with TG and VT here. She's a British citizen and should she turn up at a port of entry she should be allowed back in. The idea of denying her citizenship and entry to the country seems pretty abhorrent.

                        Comment


                          #13
                          The title of the thread should probably be "children groomed and manipulated into running away by fascist theocrats" rather than "isis brides"

                          Comment


                            #14
                            Interesting points.

                            Tempting as it is to limit her own culpability for her choices by blaming shadowy groomers and manipulators, I've known plenty of 15 year olds who have reached all kinds of ridiculous points of view by themselves, and of course they are the wisest people in the world and have no doubt they are right.

                            We hold teenage criminals to account for their actions if they're twoccing or stabbing each other. Why is joining a terrorist death cult any different?

                            Personally, I'd bring her back in, stick her in a deradicalisation camp and take her child off her when it's born. I'd say her parents can raise the baby, but cynic that I am, they didn't do that good a job with their daughter so I'm not sure if their grandchild is safe with them either.

                            Comment


                              #15
                              Originally posted by San Bernardhinault View Post
                              I'm with TG and VT here. She's a British citizen and should she turn up at a port of entry she should be allowed back in. The idea of denying her citizenship and entry to the country seems pretty abhorrent.
                              I think that the main issues up for debate are how much effort should be made to extricate her from the camp she's currently in and, when she's repatriated, whether she should be charged with any terrorism-related offence?
                              Last edited by Nocturnal Submission; 15-02-2019, 17:27.

                              Comment


                                #16
                                One thing I think that is worth bearing in mind is the motive of the media here. I'm not sure we should take a very quick interview with a Times hack as reliable evidence of her current world view. If we grant ex-soldiers the benefit of having experienced events that have a marked effect on their mental wellbeing, then why are we not granting the same to a young girl who has experienced things the overwhelming majority of us cannot even conceive? I wouldn't take anything stated so far as evidence of her genuine opinions - I'm not an expert but I guess that she isn't in a great place at the moment, and any reported comments to the press should be viewed in the light that we normally grant to a Murdoch paper.

                                I'd also be wary of using terminology like 'interrogate'. She needs help, not a light in her face. She may be able to give information that will prove to be valuable in the 'war' on terror. But it will probably need to brought out slowly. And surely the best thing we can do to avoid this kind of thing happening in the first place is to show young, marginalised girls that this is actually a failry nice place to be, on the whole?

                                Comment


                                  #17
                                  Listen to VT, people.

                                  Comment


                                    #18
                                    Absolutely. There's a ton of good sense in there.

                                    Comment


                                      #19
                                      @VT: I assumed in #2 above that she'd be prosecuted. Replace that with JW's interrogated. Let's not get carried away with implied threats of intimidation during the process. Yes, she's likely vulnerable and damaged but at least possibly dangerous.

                                      Comment


                                        #20
                                        Originally posted by Duncan Gardner View Post
                                        @VT: I assumed in #2 above that she'd be prosecuted. Replace that with JW's interrogated. Let's not get carried away with implied threats of intimidation during the process. Yes, she's likely vulnerable and damaged but at least possibly dangerous.
                                        Yes - possibly, though I still can't see exactly how dangerous she is going to be. I doubt she was a foot soldier. She may be prosecuted for being a member of a proscribed terrorist organisation, and fair enough. Actions have consequences and all that. But I hope we take her age and mental state in mitigation.

                                        By the way - I have actually interviewed a number of British citizens under the Prevention of Terorism Act. It's a bit dull.

                                        Comment


                                          #21
                                          She was born in the UK so that makes her a British citizen, regardless of what she has or hasn't done, she can't be left stateless. However, the British state is under no obligation to bring her home. If she does come home then I think she should be arrested and charged with assisting terrorism and have her baby should be removed from her.

                                          Comment


                                            #22
                                            @VT- nor do I know exactly how dangerous, if at all, she'll turn out to be. Always assuming her notional return, which as I've suggested above is hardly certain.

                                            BTW I have had a young teenage girl throw a molotov through next door's window (my Dad's office).She hadn't trekked across 2 continents in preparation, admittedly

                                            Comment


                                              #23
                                              Originally posted by Vicarious Thrillseeker View Post
                                              One thing I think that is worth bearing in mind is the motive of the media here. I'm not sure we should take a very quick interview with a Times hack as reliable evidence of her current world view. If we grant ex-soldiers the benefit of having experienced events that have a marked effect on their mental wellbeing, then why are we not granting the same to a young girl who has experienced things the overwhelming majority of us cannot even conceive? I wouldn't take anything stated so far as evidence of her genuine opinions - I'm not an expert but I guess that she isn't in a great place at the moment, and any reported comments to the press should be viewed in the light that we normally grant to a Murdoch paper.

                                              I'd also be wary of using terminology like 'interrogate'. She needs help, not a light in her face. She may be able to give information that will prove to be valuable in the 'war' on terror. But it will probably need to brought out slowly. And surely the best thing we can do to avoid this kind of thing happening in the first place is to show young, marginalised girls that this is actually a failry nice place to be, on the whole?
                                              Spot on this.

                                              She's not in a safe place.

                                              Get her home, talk to her and see what her world view is then.

                                              Comment


                                                #24
                                                Originally posted by Vicarious Thrillseeker View Post
                                                Shamima Begum was groomed at the age of 15, then impregnated three times, indoctrinated and is now a 19-year-old who cannot see her way out of her current predicament. Any humane society would be welcoming her back and offering counselling for PTSD, given her horrific experiences.
                                                Cannot argue with any of this. We have a duty to bring them all home, prosecute those that need to be prosecuted and try to deradicalise them. Letting them sit in a camp in Syria or Iraq helps nobody and probably only indoctrinates them more. There are plenty of modern examples of this.

                                                Comment


                                                  #25
                                                  VT's point about the motives of the press is a good one. It's been a while since the last anti-Muslim media hysteria and this all distracts from the Brexit disaster as well.

                                                  Comment

                                                  Working...
                                                  X