Forgetting everything but the fact an innocent baby has died

[UnexpectedButExpected]

AIBU to feel unbelievably sad that Shamima Bergum’s baby has died.

The poor mite simply didn’t have a chance in the world he was born in to.

So you at least admit she was groomed then derxa? I would prefer the term radicalised by a variety of sources. As a result of that she travelled to Syria to marry a jihadi fighter. She got that result and seemed to be quite happy with it but then IS was defeated. If the caliphate hadn't fallen then she might have been living as a 'housewife' now.

It is a different girl whose mother died, similar name.

“assume that she must have been groomed because she though 15 was an okay age to marry is naive to say the least.”

That’s not why I am assuming she was groomed.
And I do follow the news. That’s why I am surprised at people saying she was definitely not groomed.

I would prefer the term radicalised by a variety of sources

The difference there is terminology, much like the difference between grooming gangs (exclusively Asian) and paedophile rings (exclusively white). It's the same thing with different words.

Apologies, I misread the name, have asked for it to be deleted since it's incorrect.

The difference isn’t semantic, grooming and radicalisation are fundamentally different.

I too am stunned that people are happy to write posts without knowing basic facts. One poster suggested it would be easy to bring Begum back, because consular staff could bundle her into a car and drive her away. There haven’t been consular staff in Syria for years - many years before Begum traveled there. Genuinely astonished that people make assertions without knowing basic facts

So, what about young British girls kidnapped and taken to India to be married? Is the age of consent not relevant in that situation either?^

Surely the kidnap and forced marriage is the issue here, far more the actual age of cconsent in the other country. Shamima, OTOH, chose to go to Syria for the specific purpose of being an ISIS bride. She gave particulars of the sort of man she was looking for and was matched up with someone who fitted her requirements.

Why? Both young teenage girls, groomed by older men.

Both were groups were teenage girls. One group were befriended by an older man and gradually built up a relationship with them not realising that they were part of a gang who intended to abuse them until it was too late. The other group sought out a group on the dark web despite knowing that they were murdering, raping and beheading people and decided they would like to join in. Do you see the difference?

Shamima said in an interview:
Asked if she had made a mistake by travelling to Syria, Ms Begum told Sky News: "In a way, yes, but I don't regret it because it's changed me as a person.

"It's made me stronger, tougher. I married my husband. I wouldn't have found someone like him back in the UK."

Agree Dungeondragon and it really pisses me off when those comparisons are made, because the girls in the Rochdale abuse case were in care and extremely vulnerable to the attentions of those men.

SB has a stable home life and a loving family. She sought out IS.

There is no fucking comparison.

Begum has said that she was drawn towards ISIS partly because of the beheadings, which she supported. She planned the sort of man she wanted to marry. She chose to travel on someone else’s passport. These are not ‘poor choices’ by some innocent kid. She sought out this way of life and was entirely comfortable with it

That’s not why I am assuming she was groomed.

I was replying to the person who seemed to think that there could be no way a 15 year old would marry a 23 year old unless they had been groomed.

Amazing how much detailed information people seem to have about this case

Amazing, too, how so many will pooh-pooh suggestions which don't fit their narrative, yet swallow them wholesale when they do. Among many other examples, we're seeing this yet again with some who held the camps to be chaotic hellholes now telling us SB's alleged births can be proved via careful record-keeping and medical care

No doubt the security services have better information, but personally I don't pretend to know. I can suspect - and do - that much of what terrorist supporters say is self serving lies, but that's not the same as knowing

So for me it remains about the balance of risk to the majority - and right now I'm not convinced that this is being given sufficient weight

I have no idea. But if she can somewhere to be filmed by a British news crew, surely she can be bundled into a car by British consular staff or, if necessary, military personnel? II have no idea. But if she can somewhere to be filmed by a British news crew, surely she can be bundled into a car by British consular staff or, if necessary, military personnel?

That would be the same military personnel who every October/November we have to read that they aren't worthy of a poppy or any respect or sympathy, even those with life changing injuries, or the ones who didn't come back from recent conflicts because they chose to go. It doesn't matter that some of them were 15 when they made that decision and 16 when they joined up, that's just tough. Yet all of a sudden the very same people who repeatedly bang their gums on that want those men and women to risk their lives to go into Syria to bring terrorists back. It's an absolute joke.

Get down the armed forces recruitment centres with your sons and husband's in the morning they'll be happy to have them, but in the meantime stop fucking volunteering mine.

Spot on TheFairyCaravan. The cavalier disregard for the lives they are volunteering whilst positioning themselves as the caring ones is sickening.

The poster who wrote that didn’t even know there haven’t been consular staff in Syria for years because it’s so dangerous

I love the fact that some people seem to think that if a journalist war correspondent manages to interview someone in a warzone it must be perfectly safe. Do you have any idea what a dangerous job it is and how brave they are? I am very thankful that they do it as otherwise we wouldn't know what is going on in some parts of the world but nobody should be forced to go there to bring back people who have been warned not to go there.

I have no idea. But if she can somewhere to be filmed by a British news crew, surely she can be bundled into a car by British consular staff or, if necessary, military personnel?

Well, your first sentence there is accurate. You clearly do have no idea, or you’d know that the UK doesn’t currently have diplomatic or consular presence in Syria so she can’t come back that way. The only option is sending in the military and I for one don’t think the likes of her are worth risking the lives of our armed forces for. News crews are also of course at risk in these regions but maybe less so than official representation of the British state.

At least nine journalists are known to have been killed in Syria in 2018 alone, with more attributed to ISIS in other parts of the region.

TheFairyCaravan really good post.
its always some one else's live that posters want to risk, never theirs or a family member.

I don't think the baby has died I think the baby has been put on a plane back to the uk to be with his grand parents

Really? Who do you think put him on a plane? And where was this plane?

TheFairyCaravan well said and thank you to your family (and every other military person) for their service.

Can't wait to see what everyone is now going to say to excuse the Iqbal sisters who have also been stripped of their citizenship, the fact that they served in an all women punishment squad out there will no doubt be someone else's fault too.

And what it will in fact mean for everyone given that people in positions of power can bend things so easily according to their own agendas. Very murky, shaky ground we're on.

This is what really worries me sagrada - and the fact that the first abuse of power is the difficult one. If the govt/ hS get away without being challenged on the legality of this, then another will follow.