She seems to have gone there to be a brood mare, or more prosaically, to get laid. So far as I can see there's no evidence of her committing or aiding abetting outrages.
All the way to Syria to get laid? do you believe that yourself? I don't see that either as i'm not here and not there, however before the IS was destroyed they made:
- flashy video's showing executoins, protraying their reign of terror as ''true islam'' etc. etc.
- made an enlish written magazine/recruitement tool called al-dabiq (yes i have read them all)
There is also an documentary from Vice ''inside IS'' or something like that, all of the above claim/show in more or less form that women where not excluded from the violence but to the contrary where active participants.
If she's to be charged with murder, or any other offence like helping make suicide vests, then there needs to be evidence. It's nowhere near sufficient to say she must have been involved. Neither is she guilty unless there are witnesses to acquit; that's simply not how it works.
I don't say that, in terms off yes i made it very clear that i
personally don't believe she didn't participate in hostilities. However i'm not calling for her and all other in her position to be accused without evidence trial ect. i just think she should be put on trial there, just as i or anyone else would be put on trail in the country where we are commiting an crime. So that's either Syria or Iraq in this case.
She was almost certainly groomed to go out there while under the age of consent and with the intention the male fighters would have sex with her. It is, to say the least, a bit odd that those shouting longest and loudest about other girls groomed for sex are so keen to let this victim rot in Syria.
So above you claim she when there to be a ''brood mare'' but few lines futher you have decided she
has to be a victim? even if you so desprerately want to she her as a victim, she is also a suspected offender so she has to be charged and appear for a court first.
Don;t zshee the relevance with other girls, i assume you mean the Rotherham grooming gang which was a whole different setting all together. The victims didn't join an murderous cult they where victims because they where white and the racist offenders target them because they tought so low of white poeple that is was ok for them to use and abuse white girls.
The removal of her citizenship was a stunt by a Home Secretary with Leadership ambitions and done at a time of day to catch the morning headlines.
i don't believe it is revoked by an court so it also a fact that she doesn't have a British citizenship anymore.
With an attitude like yours, I sincerely hope you are never called for jury service.
even if i was it's really not your problem
If she committed crimes in England, and joining a proscribed terrorist organisation is just one charge she could face, then she should be tried in England. These offences would necessarily have occurred prior to her travelling to Syria so let’s try her for these first.
She committed them in Syria and possibly Iraq, so my point it she should be charged and on trial there. like i explained before. For the surviving victims amongst other things.
She could easily be returned for trial but that would necessitate reinstating her UK citizenship which would require a reversal of a publicity stunt by the then Home Secretary which will be far too embarrassing for HMG. Removing her citizenship wasn’t the big ‘up yours’ that Sajid Javid thought it was. It was a win for Daesh who want to dismantle our democracy and human rights though their terrorism. Javid has played into their hands and shown that they can corrupt our normal judicial process and right to a fair trial.
Think that is to much credit to either Jarvid or Isis/deash etc. other countries like the Netherlands have tried that same ''publicity stunt'' so maybe it isn't just about Brittian after all. (they had to revoke it because it would leave said person without nationality, which in this case isn't true.)
How is it isis/deash winning if it goes your way and she is coming back to the uk where we can't convict her so she will become a hero in some area's just like Isis predicted they would do. How is defeating them an not aiding them? Or does it take and other terrorist attack for people to see that, spoiler then we are too late.
The terrorists are extremely well-practised and adept at online recruitment of young people. They target them for their naïveté and ease of manipulation. In the month after Begum and her friends flew to Syria, several other children at the same school who had been targets of radicalisation were made wards of court and had their passports removed to prevent them from travelling abroad. This is the bigger problem; protecting our children from online terrorist exploitation.
That is nonsense, because it much more specific, a youngster traveling to the us from some kind of KKK ofshoot will be arrested before he even reaches the aeroplane.
Yes online indoctrination is an issue, but the elephant in the room is any criticism on a certain religion is called islamophobia. While at some points criticism is needed, for example to protect children. The government failed the white children of Rotherram, the government failed those children until it was to late, but at least they might have stopped a few by preventing them from traveling abroad.
That does not take away that the crimes these children might be quilty off qualifies for them to be tried as adults. ( in uk/us almost any country i believe)
Police and intelligence services knew Begum and her friends were at risk of joining a terrorist organization and failed to intervene.
that does not take away responsibility from her actions
People who think citizenship removal is some form of justice in this case are mistaken. Justice would be ensuring that Begum is fairly tried and, if convicted, properly sentenced. Allowing terrorists, or our own government, to disrupt that process is a denial of justice.
glad we agree, so what the problem with either Iraq or Syria where the alleged crimes would have happened putting her up to an trial? or bringing in charges.
Taking away citizenship is a seperate topic, she can legal fight that which in turn she can either win or lose. There are a few dutch jihadi's who won there taking away citizenship back. (and a few who didn't because they also had a marrocan passport.)
