Rees Mogg

Page may contain affiliate links. Please see terms for details.

ebikeerwidnes

Well-Known Member
It is scary that people think that she should be considered guilty because most of the witnesses might be dead

That really is not how it works - you still need evidence

I would however agree that a fair trial where she committed the offences would be correct
however, she has been there for ages and they don;t seem to want - or be able - to do it.
And I am not sure that she would actually get a fair trial out there.

which brings us back to bringing her back here and trying her here. If she was groomed then the other people mentioned above (the ones who were made wards of court and had their passport removed) would be witnesses as to how they - including her - were recruited

nothing is an ideal situation - but leaving her to rot over there does seem like the worst option
 
  • Like
Reactions: C R
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.)
 
That. Exactly.

No different in principle to any other child groomed for sex.
While you can discus whether they are groomed in the uk or not or whether they are groomed at all, comparing them with any other grooming victim and saying there is no difference is something else.
The nature of IS was very well known, the victims weren't picked of the street because they where white, they bought the plane tickets themselves and from there travelled to Syria.
Where they might have committed other crimes but even ignoring that, had to be very talented 'groomers'' maybe because they weren't
They where lured to there not for sex, not as breeding machines (and no they doesn't mean they weren't used as such) but by abusing their religious believes, by convincing them they had to go their because of their religion.

I known this is about a girl but the response was actually not gender specific, there are more then enough boys/males who travelled too, so if you than narrow it down too ''they must have been groomed for sex'' you're totally off. It was never about sex
 

multitool

Shaman
The nature of IS was very well known,

To whom?

You are making big assumptions about what Shamima Begum knew about the violent activities of IS and conflating it with what you knew. You are also not being rigourous with chronology. What you know now may not be the same as what you knew in February 2015, when Begum left the UK. Let alone what Begum knew.

Adolescents aren't renowned as voracious consumers of current affairs, and I doubt her groomers were feeding her with promises of gore and bloodshed. What we do know about IS is that it had an extremely polished PR team.

In particular, IS published a slick online magazine called Dabiq. So let's have a little look at the representation of youth in Dabiq, and in particular the representation of youths as perpetrators of violence. Well, at the time of Begum's grooming there were none. There has been academic analysis of Dabiq and you can read for yourself the kind of life that was depicted for young teenagers. Here is an example:

https://cvir.st-andrews.ac.uk/articles/10.15664/jtr.1201/print/

Note that the nature of Dabiq changed over time, and in particular around issue 7, which was long after Begum's period of grooming.
 
Last edited:

matticus

Guru
I repsond to arguments on their own merits, not whether I like the advocate or not. I don't go trawling their back catalogue to see if they've claimed that the Earth is flat, or David Icke is Jesus either.
Well said! Meanwhile, I find myself very sympathetic to the following tweet (is she a woman of good character? I know not... )


View: https://twitter.com/JuliaHB1/status/1616720550126125058?t=_O-jmTDKAQ6EmktOMC1UmQ&s=19
 
To whom?

You are making big assumptions about what Shamima Begum knew about the violent activities of IS and conflating it with what you knew. You are also not being rigourous with chronology. What you know now may not be the same as what you knew in February 2015, when Begum left the UK. Let alone what Begum knew.
I'm not your assuming i'm making assumptions, maybe in you left minded bubble everything always okidokiland but i live in the real world and i see real issues. The issue of radicalization isn't knew, neither where the intentions of IS before Begum and others joined.
IS maybe came falling out of the sky for you but for others it wasn't an besides are you seriously trying to make people believe that she did'nt investigate for a little bit what it was about?



Adolescents aren't renowned as voracious consumers of current affairs, and I doubt her groomers were feeding her with promises of gore and bloodshed. What we do know about IS is that it had an extremely polished PR team.
Okidokiland again? IS surely had a sleek PR however violence was a very big part of that PR the other part was religion. i'm not going to speculate on what drove her to go there but i do say that based on everything what was happening and no you didn't need to follow news affairs very closely to understand what was happening at the time she joined. It was all over.

In particular, IS published a slick online magazine called Dabiq. So let's have a little look at the representation of youth in Dabiq, and in particular the representation of youths as perpetrators of violence. Well, at the time of Begum's grooming there were none. There has been academic analysis of Dabiq and you can read for yourself the kind of life that was depicted for young teenagers. Here is an example:

https://cvir.st-andrews.ac.uk/articles/10.15664/jtr.1201/print/

Note that the nature of Dabiq changed over time, and in particular around issue 7, which was long after Begum's period of grooming.
Are you now trying to educate me over the existence of something i referred to multiple times? really? I have read the source directly i don't need an acadamic analysis to tell me what was written there..

They abused the religion just as Hitler abused the already widespread hatred against Jews at the time, and claimed Joining IS was an holy call so yes they did a lot to recruit poeple, but the main issue explaining their effectiveness is that they play on one side the victim card on the other side engage hatred against the west.
But enough about that, i can keep on posting links, articles etc. to explain to you that in 2015 it was very clear to anyone what isis was, but reality has made it a bit easyer.


A few quotes ''Documentary maker Andrew Drury, who has travelled to Syria to speak to the 23-year-old on several occasions, said Begum is a 'narcissist' who 'sees herself as a victim'.''

''The Times quotes him as saying: 'She sees herself as a victim now but she told me quite clearly it was her choice to go [to Syria] and she went of her own free will''

'''She is a narcissist. She wants to be a somebody. Now she sees herself as a celebrity. Being part of Isis meant she was a somebody and now she's a somebody again.'''
full article: https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/ar...m-Syria-brands-narcissist-sees-celebrity.html

Now you can off course attack that documentary maker but i think that person can judge someone he was defending earlier mind you, better than a me or anyone else from behind a computer.
 

Badger_Boom

New Member
The full article is behind a paywall, however are some here seriously supporting getting this lady back to the Uk she was an innocent bystander to this all? (repeating the lies Isis told them to say, like that they where just cooking dinner and being an housewives'.) However from Isis propaganda we known they had loads of women only ''brigades'' specializing in spreading terror killing and torturing etc. Sure there is not way to tell whterh she was part of that, but that shouldn't mean we need to pretend she is/was just an young schoolgirl who made an mistake.
The comparison with ''Rhianan Rudd'' is nonsense, not only highlights that yet again a other failure of social services, all she did was downloading an bomb making manual, and believing some far right idiot in an time she was extremely vulnerable if anything it shows the risk of letting some age groups on the internet unsupervised.
However that is something else as traveling to an war zone and live their to the very end claiming you just made dinner and baby's, while the propaganda showed it was more like making baby's dinner and torturing and killing people and pretend it's all part of islam.

They(she and all other ex-isis remaining) should be trailled right there and then according to the laws that are normal there simple.

Moral this and moral that, well to anyone defending that, how moral would you feel if she is repriatrated back, gets off scots free and for example stabs an random person to death because of the total idiocy in her head?
We have repatriated dozens of males of all ages who have spent time fighting with daesh and a number of other unpleasent terrorist groups with barely a murmur and varying degrees of de-radicalising success. Why should she be treated differently?
 

icowden

Legendary Member
Moral this and moral that, well to anyone defending that, how moral would you feel if she is repriatrated back, gets off scots free and for example stabs an random person to death because of the total idiocy in her head?
How would you feel if she is repatriated, gets off scots(sic) free and for example, studies to become a doctor and invents a cure for cancer?
How would you feel if she is repatriated,gets off scots(sic) free and for example, studies to become a scientist and contributes to discovering what Dark Matter is?
How would you feel if she is repatriated,gets off scots(sic) free and for example, becomes a housewife and sets up a wellbeing centre?

Why is it always the negative thing that is used as the example?

The point is that whataboutery gets us nowhere. She is a British Citizen. If we bring her back to the UK and she gets off scot free she will still be monitored by the intelligence agencies. We will know where she is and what she is doing. She ceases to be a threat and could be a resource to lead us to greater threats. There is no benefit to the UK in disowning her.

Frankly as I have a 14 and 16 year old girl, I can confidently say that these three girls had very little idea of what they were doing. Questions should be asked of who they were talking to. Someone groomed them, fed them the information that led to them going to Syria. At 15 you don't just pop over to Syria on the off chance.
 
Top Bottom