To think everyone saying Shamima Begum should rot in Syria have completely overlooked the fact that she is pregnant

[StepAwayFromGoogle]

Just that really. She did a terrible thing going to Syria to marry an ISIS fighter. But she was only 15 and probably incredibly naive. She has already lost two children, one as a complication of malnutrition. And the child she is pregnant with has done nothing wrong. Surely we shouldn't leave him or her there to die too?

Stalin chose to be a dictator.
Jimmy Saville chose to be a paedophile/rapist
Harvey Weinstein chose to be rapist

See how stupid you sound BR.

Are you her sister or other interested party cos your posts are looking a bit odd!

She is reported in the news as saying she will go to Netherlands and wait for him get out of jail

She's listened to some posters on this thread! Psychic, weren't they?

No chance she'll get through the border. Her son might if his father acknowledges him once he's there but even then, that's if the Netherlands let him in to do his jail time.

“Stalin chose to be a dictator.
Jimmy Saville chose to be a paedophile/rapist
Harvey Weinstein chose to be rapist“
Did the Rotherham girls choose to be “prostitutes”?

I think we know where you're coming from BR.

It's an unusually sympathetic position, in which you refuse to allocate any blame to this ISIS Warrior and dare to compare her to gang rape victims. Luckily, that strange view-although out there-is not shared by the majority.

I think you think that she was right to go-a cheerleader of some sort- and if not, you're certainly giving a good impression of that.

Nope. I’m just not scared of nuance and complexity. And I understand about grooming, which you don’t seem to.

Please don't dishonour the Rotherham victims by comparing them to a jihadi terrorist sympathiser who advocates and joins in beheadings, rapes and murder. There is no comparison to be made.

You're certainly not scared of defending ISIS Warriors.

I wondered if there was a degree of gullibility about your posts, for which they could be pitied but now, they're so outrageous, that I think you sympathise a little bit too much, cheer a little too loudly, scratch about a little too noisily for excuses for this ISIS Warrior.

What do I conclude? I conclude that you think this ISIS Warrior was correct to go out there and you will fight her corner with no shame.

Nothing is off limits for you, you will even compare her to the victims of mass rape. That's not mis-guided, that's agenda driven.

Anyway, I don't bandy words with ISIS Warrior sympathisers as you are beneath the notice of right thinking people.

How are all the journalists getting access to her? She must be very busy now. Also the bundle of grey cloth she holds. Is it a baby? Really it could be anything in there. Can’t she show the baby and attempt to gain sympathy. I don’t understand the whole thing at all. I think she should stay there, but I don’t understand why the journalists aren’t asking the questions we want to hear.

bertram, I think you and I and most other people on this forum know that you are a fully paid up and committed adherent to the philosophies which allowed the Rotherham and Rochdale and Oxford etc, etc abuse carry on for so many years.

I think we all know you would have been at the front of the queue to call whistle blowers racists and demand allegations be hushed up and silenced because you objected to one of your pet fetishised groups might end up looking bad from it, and as Naz Shah is a fan of saying ‘the little slags should keep their mouths shut in the name of diversity.

I know that your philosophy is one which likes to excuse and cover up crimes committed by certain groups. I know that you have great difficulty accepting that bad people aren’t just white and British.

But I honestly do not believe you can’t see the difference between being groomed for sexual abuse and joining a terrorist organisation knowing they were committing war crimes, genocide, mass rape, slavery, torture, crucifixion and throwing gays off the top of buildings.

I don’t think you’re that stupid. I think you’re being deliberately disingenuous.

I believe that a thousand Rotherham victims could never matter as much to you as jihadi brides and accessories to genocide. I believe if Shamima Begum and other jihadis came back and committed atrocities you would probably support it and blame it on ‘teh evul west’ and probably MI5 and MI6 for phoning them up once a month and asking her to please try not to kill anybody because it’s harassment.

But don’t pretend you either know much about or care about the Rotherham victims. You just see them as an easy target to excuse genocide and rape n shit.

“You're certainly not scared of defending ISIS Warriors.“
Ah. That’s what I mean by nuance. I haven’t and don’t defend ISIS warriors. I just don’t feel the need to jump up and down shrieking “I hope they rot, and I hope the baby dies a horrible death!”.”

Oh dear! Now you're reduced to making things up. Off you trot!

Gosh, Bejam-I hope you feel better after that extraordinarily offensive rant. Have a good afternoon.

Hell no she should not be allowed back. WTAF. She's a danger to society and should stay the fuck out!

Bertrand go and have a lie down ffs.

Gosh, Bejam-I hope you feel better after that extraordinarily offensive rant. Have a good afternoon.

This is just fucking typical of you. You can’t bring yourself to muster up any outrage about a girl involved in terrorism, torture, war crimes, genocide.

But you’ve got incredibly offended by me pointing out that most people on this forum know that you have long standing, open and overt sympathy for terrorists and extremists.

Nice to know you have your priorities right.

@Bejam

Brilliant post-incisive thinking and very eloquently put.

You’re an apologist for terrorism bertrand. You are exactly the sort of person extremists depend on, because they know matter what they do, you’ll be out there waving the white flag insisting that they’re just poor little misunderstood darlings who have been driven to commit genocide because someone once gave them a funny look on a bus or something.

“You’re an apologist for terrorism bertrand”

I’m not, you know. And you won’t find a single post from me that shows I am. Thinking that a 15 year old may possibly have been groomed into being a Jihadi does not make someone an apologist for terrorism.

That’s what I mean by nuance

Yeah, we’ve all read the Guardian. We all know ‘nuance’ is left wing code for defending the indefensible.

Maybe go and find a few Yazidi sex slaves and tell them that their rapes were ‘nuanced’ because some of those jihadis are quite good looking and make a good catch. Or maybe tell the parents of someone they burned to death in a cage that it was ‘nuanced’ because it saved them wasting a lot of money on a wedding or a a university.

War crimes are not nuanced.

“most people on this forum know that you have long standing, open and overt sympathy for terrorists and extremists.”
Blimey. Missed that! Well, if my sympathy is long standing, open and overt you will have no trouble in finding some, will you?

bertand, you and I and everyone else on here know it’s not one post. You’ve been doing it regularly for years. If there’s ever any discussion of an atrocity by ISIS you’ll pop up insisting they’re nice boys really and the crucifixions and beheadings were all a great big misunderstanding and if we were all just a little bit nicer to them then they’d stop raping, torturing and murdering people.

Luckily though, even the cleverest of them- and I don't think Bert falls into that group- eventually show their arse and then their agenda is clear.

They become hysterical, shouting about babies being left to rot-the mask slips and who they were trying to hide is staring loon like right back at us!

I think it is probably safest not to engage with her.

Wonder if those who sympathise with her are trotting out the "he was groomed" excuses for all the 19-year-old men who raped and killed and terrorised the inhabitants of Syria? If they're not being given a free pass on account of 'grooming' then she can't be either.

I can understand someone being groomed at fifteen and perhaps going off all starry-eyed. But...the beheadings and burning alive had been all over the news, nobody could claim they didn't know what was happening. And even if she'd gone out as an innocent 15-year-old, the first head she saw thrown in a bin should have sent her scuttling home, realising she was surrounded by psychopaths. Since she didn't, and actuallly liked being there, the grooming excuse doesn't hold water. She liked what was being done.

She's not coming back, thankfully, so that's that. Teenagers tend towards extremes.

There were similar issues in the US about the FLDS cult and in the Canadian case they just had about that group. If youa re born into and brought up in a cult when do you get agency/;responsibility and criminal liability for the actions you take and when not. These girls however are different in that they were brought up in Western culture to an extent and made an active choice to get more extreme within their religion. I don't regard it as grooming or not to sufficient an extent I would let her back in. It also will act to deter others.

You are either with us or against us. She made her choice.

Nope. Don’t think that-never posted that.

Oh, sorry, maybe nobody actually said the baby should be left to rot. They just said she should. And “her baby her responsibility” But I do apologise.