AIBU to think that the IS bride would never have been allowed the freedoms she has, unless they have a grander plan?

[Sureyouwill]

I just find it all a bit suspicious.
She looks dopey or doped.
Her interview was very rehearsed.
They want to get her back here for nefarious reasons.
They would not have allowed her to speak to press.
She is a willing accomplice in a grander plan?

Vietnam

We all know what they mean. Brown criminals. As evidenced by these attitudes.

To all those saying she's old enough to know her own mind, do you apply that to the 15 year old Rotherham girls? (Some of them) "willingly" engaged in sexual activity and alcohol and drug use did they not?

My personal opinion is they were groomed and manipulated and just children, but that's my view of Shamima too. Just curious if you apply your principles equally!

I’m sorry, what the fuck? I am related to one of the Rotherham victims. That is an evil, nasty and offensive comparison.

The girls in Rotherham harmed nobody but themselves. This girl was involved with an organisation which tortured, raped and murdered hundreds of thousands of innocent people.

I can’t imagine what sort of vile, repulsive person you’d need to be to think that comparison was a reasonable one.

Does anyone else here feel like a few posters watched a news bulletin and are now experts on the legalities of this situation?

Take the emotive knre jerk response away for a moment and look at the underlying principle. Is 15 old enough to be held accountable for criminal activity when there's evidence of grooming involved? That's the point I am making.

Yes. 15 years old is way past old enough.

10 years old is the age of criminal responsibility.

She was not a victim. She was not groomed. She was a twat who knew what she was doing.

It’s actually quite concerning how little you know about something you’re so worked up about OP

This! A lot of your questions have been covered in the news multiple times in the past few days. Whether or not she’s allowed back in is not a matter of what the public think, or ‘she’s made her bed’, that’s not how it works.

Does anyone else here feel like a few posters watched a news bulletin and are now experts on the legalities of this situation?

At least we’ve watched the news. If you had, you wouldn’t have needed to create this thread.

Then any other 15 year old who makes shite decisions can't use that defence either then.

I don't like her at all. Couldn't care less if she never makes it back or in what state she's in.

But yes we have to and we should. She is British. We can't hide from that.

However I hope from now on the UK will now send criminals back even if they are in danger in their own country.

No one's said we should collect her.

On what grounds is she a lying bitch?

This thread shows people only care about grooming victims when they're "cute" and sympathetic figures.

Victims of grooming are still victims even if they've been groomed into doing horrible things.

No. I don't believe she's a victim of grooming at all.

I think your post shows that any girl who makes a bad choice will have people swarming to justify her appalling choices because she's a young female.

If she comes back she needs to be investigated and prosecuted.

She is claiming that two of her children died of malnutrition within the last 3 months, but she’s well nourished and has completed a pregnancy which is very strange as one would expect a mother to feed her children before herself.

The baby seemed to arrive suddenly and conveniently with her up and giving interviews within hours.

I don’t believe her story. I think she’s wanted back here too. I think they’re banking on being able to renergise and resurrect ISIS as a Western based terror org and she is wanted for publicity. A lot of what she’s saying about the romance with her husband seems to be designed to appeal to impressionable young people. She wouldn’t necessarily have to be violent to do ISIS’s dirty work here.

Who's justifying it?

We're saying she shouldn't be left to die because of it

Why shouldn't she be left to die?

If she gets to an embassy or to the British boarder then we absolutely should let her in. That is our legal duty that we are bound to fulfil.

But if she is stuck where ere she is? If she can't move or gets in any further trouble?

Leave her to it.

It's the government saying that they can't stop her because they can't legally take her citizenship away.
I don't recall anyone on this thread saying that the UK should get her out of there.
You posted therefore you invited people to discuss.

Seline, I bet terrorists thank their lucky stars they have gormless useful idiots like you who will insist they are poor misguided little loves who just need a cuddle and a bit of counselling.

It has fuck all with ‘victims’ being ‘cute’ or not. I think that just demonstrates your own shallowness and denial. It has to do with the fact that other victims of grooming didn’t create a wake of dead bodies behind them while Shamima had her self described ‘good time’ in Syria.

If you aren’t capable of seeing that distinction, you must be a pretty morally bankrupt person.

Don’t be disingenuous Seline, you’ve done nothing but try to justify her actions.

The people who joined Islamic State decided to leave their countries and join a new one (clue in the word "State", in their eyes it was a new country) which was at war with their original country. Surely that makes someone a traitor. Historically, traitors were put to death.

We're saying she shouldn't be left to die because of it

So you are in favour of someone going out to rescue her?

Put more peoples lives at risk to do so?

She can’t become stateless, so if she makes it across then she will be allowed back in.

I don’t think there’s going to be any rescue mission to actually retrieve her though.

The only people you should feel sympathy for are all the innocent syrians whose lives were destroyed by this conflict.

Teachers, nurses, dentist, mothers and fathers etc.. who are stuck in refuge camps or drowned at sea because those little cowards (including this woman) wanted to build their own utopic Islamic State.

And since Isis brides formed groups to punish and beat syrian women who didn't cover themselves completely ( google Al-Khansaa Brigade) I feel no sympathy at all for her.

She' callous, unrepentant and indoctrinated to the bone and nobody in their right mind should go and try help her come back.

But, if you feel so sympathetic, I'm sure you can send financial aid over there to make her life easier, how about that?

@SelineWe all know what they mean. Brown criminals. As evidenced by these attitudes.

What a disgusting thing to say. Her husband is white and I think he's a scumbag too. Jihadi John was white (I think), and I laughed when I heard he'd been killed. Many Muslims, regardless of their colour, want this woman left to rot in Syria. One has already posted on here.

This has nothing to do with racism. The fact that you are trying to make it so just demonstrates that you are all out of arguments.

Utterly pathetic. Shame on you.

"The facts are, we are not going to go out there and take her back."

"The Question. Should we? Should we not?"

No, that's not the question. Because everyone in authority I've seen commenting on the matter has point blank said that they're not prepared to risk anyone's safety to do so. So there's no "should we?" about it.