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.

Original poster

To wonder how we CAN even consider not bringing the girl back from Syria?

667 replies

SpeakingALanguage · 18/02/2019 09:41

Do we not legally have to? We can't just wipe our hands of her, can we?

I've seen petition after petition on my Facebook feed about not allowing her back, sign the petition, etc etc.

But if she's a British citizen, does she not have every legal right to be here, even if she is vile and dangerous?

I did see someone mention she would have to get here on her own steam, but isn't there a big part in the British passport (I know she hasn't got one but she was entitled and is technically British), that says something along the lines of Her Majesty grants assistance and protection as needed?

Without her baby even coming into the argument, she alone regardless is allowed back here, vulnerable with a newborn or not.

OP posts:
TheRiverIsAComfort · 19/02/2019 12:58

Would you employ her as a nanny or childminder, if she managed to qualify herself and was found not guilty of committing a crime?

If not, why not?

Birdsgottafly · 19/02/2019 13:01

" If it was so easy for 15 year old Muslim girls to be lured to Isis I think there’d be more cases."

There have been hundreds across Europe. But we don't hear about them because they aren't asking to come back.

Just like we don't hear about the Isis plotters, who are stopped from being able to carry out their plans.

Everyone who knows this subject, says that it is a complex situation that we may never be able to stop.

Birdsgottafly · 19/02/2019 13:02

TheRiverIsAComfort, because she isn't mentally stable. As many Women who have been trafficked aren't. Or those kidnapped by Boko Haram etc.

TheRiverIsAComfort · 19/02/2019 13:05

Don't be ridiculous, Saturday.

That argument is a tired old trope and it's about time it was put to bed! It is dragged out every time something is suggested as to how we deal with these creatures.

Luckily, it is a worn out old tune and-outside of various echo chambers-most people recognise it for what it is: a flabby, weak piece of shit aimed at protecting these creatures.

Let's not be beastly to them at all shall we, poor things!

JellycatElfie · 19/02/2019 13:06

Yes, hundreds across Europe. How many percent of the population manage to resist isis I wonder?! You don’t stumble upon this bullshit. She went looking for it. She wasn’t groomed. She was responsible for what she did. If you disagree with me, do you also disagree that the boys who murdered Jamie bulger are ‘victims’ just like shamima? They were years younger.

Birdsgottafly · 19/02/2019 13:06

TheRiverIsAComfort, what are her crimes?

TheRiverIsAComfort · 19/02/2019 13:06

Hitler wasn't mentally stable, peter Sutcliffe isn't mentally stable.

I think you'll find that all those who want to murder strangers aren't mentally stable. It isn't a get out of jail card free card, although sadly in reality it probably is!

TheRiverIsAComfort · 19/02/2019 13:09

She joined an illegal organisation.

She made remarks about the UK which I'm sure could fit the definition of treason.

She probably was part of the group that went about beating other women who didn't comply. No hard evidence for this, as there is no hard evidence she was just a housewife but, on the balance of probability, more likely.

Birdsgottafly · 19/02/2019 13:10

JellycatElfie, do you realise that two Women were charged for targeting her and we know such Websites/people exist?

We close them down frequently, but they pop up again.

She was sent to a radical equivalent of a Sunday School. Again we aren't shutting down radical Schools and places of worship aka brainwashing sites.

Are all groomed children responsible for their sexual abuse, did they go looking for it, the children groomed by Priests etc?

JellycatElfie · 19/02/2019 13:11

This reply has been deleted

Message deleted by MNHQ. Here's a link to our Talk Guidelines.

TheRiverIsAComfort · 19/02/2019 13:12

However, Bird, I can see you are an apologist for her.

This thread has so far presented her as: a poor motherless child; a groomed child; a sexually abused child and now-and it had to happen-a person who has committed no crimes at all.

Do you think those of us who argue against all this are so thick that we can't see a propaganda machine at work- right here in front of our eyes- on this thread?

Puzzledandpissedoff · 19/02/2019 13:12

Interesting piece here about the family's lawyer: gellerreport.com/2019/02/muslims-shouldnt-ccoperate.html/

Again I'm not sure about the source, but if any of it's even half true it makes you wonder why Shamima's defenders would pick such a man ... or why her supposedly "devout" uncle would approach CAGE for advice, come to that

Notable, too, that the PP who insisted the family "don't share her views" promptly disappeared when this was queried ... odd, that Hmm

JellycatElfie · 19/02/2019 13:15

So you sympathise with shamima then? She was groomed, not responsible for being ok with beheadins etc.

What’s your view on salman abedi? Who murdered 22? Was he a victim of grooming too?

M3lon · 19/02/2019 13:15

theriver you need to look to your own extremism when you start referring to human beings as 'creatures'

Birdsgottafly · 19/02/2019 13:15

"She made remarks about the UK which I'm sure could fit the definition of treason."

Do you think she can renounce Isis were she is? It would mean death. So would not saying what she has been.

So, she hasn't committed a crime then has she?

She's been there four years and has had three children. She hasn't been up to the flights of fantasy suggestions on here. They've enough Men to do that, but the Soldiers are promised a young bride and plenty of Women to rape. So those roles are the ones fulfilled by the Women.

JellycatElfie · 19/02/2019 13:15

What about Jamie bulgers killers? Were they victims too?

JellycatElfie · 19/02/2019 13:16

Birdsgottafly

If you view shamima as a victim of grooming because she was a member of a terror group, do you also view the Manchester bomber as a victim?

If not, why not? What’s the difference?

TheRiverIsAComfort · 19/02/2019 13:17

I think, Bird, you have inadvertently shown your arse by your desire to insist on her innocence.

I don't know who you are or what your agenda is but...

Frequency · 19/02/2019 13:18

She probably was part of the group that went about beating other women who didn't comply. No hard evidence for this, as there is no hard evidence she was just a housewife but, on the balance of probability, more likely

The chances she was 'just a housewife' are extremely high, actually as IS believe Sharia law only allows married women to be wives and mothers and nothing more. The female 'jihadis' who don't commit any violence themselves but do facilitate it by acting as spies for the male terrorists must be unmarried.

That's not to say this woman hasn't committed other crimes such as inciting acts of terror but can't arrest her on the basis of nothing. We need proof and we cannot make her and her child stateless. Nor can we send her to a fucking prison ship. In fact that's the most ludicrous statement of the thread so far.

If she manages to make it back to the UK under her own steam we have to let her in. She will be arrested, interrogated and investigated and either charged and imprisoned if we have evidence she committed crimes or released and placed on a watch list the same as the many hundreds of former British IS fighters who have already returned to the UK.

findingmyfeet12 · 19/02/2019 13:18

The treason argument is going to be raised by the powers that be. There'll probably be changes made to the law.

It's a bit rich though considering we as a nation murdered hundreds of thousands of people in Iraq unlawfully Confused

JellycatElfie · 19/02/2019 13:18

Do you think she can renounce Isis were she is? It would mean death. So would not saying what she has been.

But isis are ok with her asking to come home? And giving an interview to sky news? Hmm I wonder why they want a fully fledged member of their terror group on uk soil. Maybe so she can blow another arena up and kill our innocent children???

TheRiverIsAComfort · 19/02/2019 13:18

M3: get a grip!

Puzzledandpissedoff · 19/02/2019 13:19

She was sent to a radical equivalent of a Sunday School. Again we aren't shutting down radical Schools and places of worship aka brainwashing sites

Out of interest, would this be something you'd favour?

Personally I've wondered if it isn't something which will have to happen sooner or later, but I don't imagine it would be unopposed

Birdsgottafly · 19/02/2019 13:19

"So you sympathise with shamima then? She was groomed, not responsible for being ok with beheadins etc."

I think her statements about baskets of heads, shows that she isn't in a right state of mind.

On a side note, plenty of people are OK with beheading, they are still a punishment. As are, stoning, flogging, lethal injections. We consider all those people OK, we even holiday in their Countries.

There'll be quite a few Grandparents who were fine with the lynchings in the US, but are 'decent' people. Even the Nazis went back to ordinary lives, allowed to settle all over the World.

JellycatElfie · 19/02/2019 13:20

Birdsgottafly

If you view shamima as a victim of grooming because she was a member of a terror group, do you also view the Manchester bomber as a victim?

If not, why not? What’s the difference?

Please create an account

To comment on this thread you need to create a Mumsnet account.

Join Mumsnet Log In

This thread is closed and is no longer accepting replies. Click here to start a new thread.