Active discussions

Meet the Other Phone. Child-safe in minutes.

Meet the Other Phone.
Child-safe in minutes.

Buy now

Please or to access all these features

Talk
AIBU?

Share your dilemmas and get honest opinions from other Mumsnetters.

See all MNHQ comments on this thread

Original poster

to think they should charge the Syria girls

999 replies

adsy · 21/02/2015 08:14

If they are indeed with terrorists in Syria then when a small chink of sense comes back to them and they want to come home, I hope they will be charged.

OP posts:
26Point2Miles · 21/02/2015 20:57

Ahh bless limited had to take things out of the context they were written in in a poor attempt to prove a (non existent) point! Lol.

Christ, that was a feeble attempt!

26Point2Miles · 21/02/2015 20:59

What have they done? Well one of them has stolen a passport to travel on. Wasn't legal last time I looked. Not something you'd want to encourage or go unchecked in this current climate eh?

woodhill · 21/02/2015 20:59

ghostland they are just misunderstood. perhaps Isis just need a hug. I totally get where you are coming from.

countessmarkyabitch · 21/02/2015 21:02

Then charge them with stealing a passport. Not with war crimes, or murder, ffs.

AuntieStella · 21/02/2015 21:02

If (and I do not think we know yet) they have travelled into IS controlled territory and joined, or spoken or acted with or in support of IS, a proscribed terrorist organisation, then they have committed an offence. (My apologies for saying just 'Syria' in previous post, when I meant IS controlled territories to fit in with how I read the opening post about the scenario of them being 'with terrorists')

There is no way to verify what they have done once in IS controlled territory, and I do not think women cannot be terrorists. Nor do I think they would be considered children once in Syria. I think they have reached both marriageable and fighting age there.

Joyfulldeathsquad · 21/02/2015 21:03

no no I agree limited they have gone on holiday to chase away the winter blues. I seen then in duty free browsing through the bikinis and expensive sunglasses! Ooooh to be going on a girls holiday- sun sand and burka! Grin They know where they are going and why they are going and it wasn't for peace.

I don't think there is anything more dangerous than passionate brainwashed Young minds tbh.

Who's fault is this limited? If a 15/16 chopped your child's head off would you be so sympathetic? Would you still be resolute they were too Young to be judged??

countessmarkyabitch · 21/02/2015 21:03

"These people are 15 and 16 years old and have committed no crime."

So you know they have not reached Syria?

cherryade8 · 21/02/2015 21:05

I feel no sympathy for them. They must be aware of the atrocities, including the burning alive of a hostage recently. Let's hope they don't bother coming back.

Many teenagers have wacky ideas, like being in a band, joining controversial political parties etc, but flying round the world to join a sub human murderous gang is not in the same league.

26Point2Miles · 21/02/2015 21:05

Murder?

TheGirlWhoPlayedWithFire · 21/02/2015 21:09

I'm sorry but if you choose to make an adult decision then yes, that makes them young women, not girls in my book.

Calling them girls only serves to prove your point that they are too young to really form decent opinions, or make a decision.

They have made a decision - one I am not sure they realise will have awful consequences for them, but they must have known something about ISIS that prompted them to join. Whatever that was is concerning. So therefore they should be treated as being capable of such decision which girls are not.

Girls are generally not teenagers, but children.

It would be patronising to call them girls if they got pregnant, as they'd be deemed to be grown up to make their own decision in that situation. Why should this decision be any different?

AuntieStella · 21/02/2015 21:09

Countess: was that a x-post?

I have just explained that I meant IS controlled areas (as in being 'with terrorists' in opening post) and have apologised for not being clear enough in the earlier post.

sunabroad · 21/02/2015 21:12

First of all they are children!

Secondly there is no evidence yet to prove that they went to join ISIS. They could have very well gone for humanitarian work, for which there is a huge huge need in Syria. It is hugely unfair to accuse them of a supposed crime (intention to join ISIS) without an ounce of evidence or admission of intention.

Not everyone who goes to Syria goes with the intention to join ISIS. Yes, they were being hugely naive, but sadly that is what teenagersdo.

ILovePud · 21/02/2015 21:12

I think you make a very valid point ghostland.

limitedperiodonly · 21/02/2015 21:14

I've already confessed to not being a lawyer 26Point2Miles and neither am I a member of the security services.

But I doubt if either of them would be that fussed about 16 year old girl stealing a passport if there were no other indications of her being a master criminal.

I am surprised that you can cross borders as a minor but I suppose if you have a passport - and we now insist that babies have passports - you can do it.

sunabroad · 21/02/2015 21:18

Ghostland, your point is baseless, because tell me, which child in the past 20 years has been charged for joining an illegal organisation?

Joyfulldeathsquad · 21/02/2015 21:22

sunabroad so why did they just go? Why didn't they tell people that incase they got accused of this. They have no plans to come back.

duchesse · 21/02/2015 21:23

Late to the party, but:

  1. They are young teenagers- children really. Teenagers sometimes do stupid things. This is no exception.
  2. As girls, if (and that's a very big IF) they have gone to Syria to join ISIS, they will almost certainly not be front-line combatants. Their role will be more akin to slavery than anything, due to the beliefs of the men they would be joining. (again, a big IF as we know nothing of their whererabouts or intentions).
  3. I've said this before but if supposedly clever young Britons can be radicalised (again, a big IF as we do not know that this is the case here) then we cannot in any way understand the vectors for radicalisation at play here and we desperately need to.
  4. IF (big if) they have gone to Syria to join ISIS, they will be doing themselves far more injury than anyone else, especially leaving school at this stage in their lives.
  5. Which would point, yet again, to this being a reckless stupid mistake by immature children. Which at 15, they still are.

I'm guessing that the people calling for sentences on these girls haven't had much contact with 15 year olds recently. Most of them haven't even finished growing their bodies, let alone their brains. They are not mature or able to make informed decisions about a lot of things because they simply don't have the maturity or experience to make them. They make THINK they do, but that's a major part of the problem. If these supposedly clever young teenagers think it's a good idea to join those barbarian thugs, they they haven't been absorbing a thing that's been happening in the news recently.

Joyfulldeathsquad · 21/02/2015 21:25

A very good point ghostland. Hypocrisy at it's worst.

duchesse · 21/02/2015 21:25

Nor do I think they would be considered children once in Syria. I think they have reached both marriageable and fighting age there.

As far as I can tell, anybody breathing and willing to wield a weapon is welcome with those people. Being viewed as an adult may be part of the attraction. The point is if they have joined ISIS they are merely cannon fodder- a person of any age can die.

Farahilda · 21/02/2015 21:28

If no child has been charged, prosecuted, or convicted since proscription was first introduced in the 2000 Terrorism Act, that is surely a good thing.

But surely irrelevant in deciding whether future acts by other people, of any age, are crimes.

Of course, if they turn up as fighters for the Opposition Coalition rather than with terrorists, then there probably wouldn't be any reason to charge them with anything.

But can anyone explain this BBC article on possible involvement of Asqa Mamood if there is no IS intention?

SoonToBeSix · 21/02/2015 21:29

They are children, they have been groomed, they are victims who will almost certainly be sexually abused.
I cannot understand how anyone could view them differently.

26Point2Miles · 21/02/2015 21:33

Well supposing they don't end up returning to the UK til they are 18/19/20.... Not children anymore then. A couple of years living and breathing Isis, absorbing their idealology, and then they rock up at our border wanting to come back?

RockingDuck · 21/02/2015 21:34
  1. where did they get the money / they're rich enough* etc
  • they prob got sent the money/tickets whatever by the contact
  1. I think they may have gone to try and rescue their friend? the police apparently interviewed them after she ran for Syria in December - who knows what follow up was done with them, but the school/community/police etc should have flagged them as high risk because of the friend
  1. Agree that airport also seems bonkers that youngsters can board flights unaccompanied
duchesse · 21/02/2015 21:45

26.2 Well supposing they don't end up returning to the UK til they are 18/19/20.... Not children anymore then. A couple of years living and breathing Isis, absorbing their idealology, and then they rock up at our border wanting to come back?

It's their border as well.

The balance of probabilities is that they'd be jolly lucky to reach 19/20 if (BIG bloody IF) they have gone to hang out with ISIS.

26Point2Miles · 21/02/2015 21:49

It's not 'their' border if they've moved to Syria to live...