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.

“She exposed herself to this as a 15 year old. She knew full well what she was doing.”

How are you so very sure of this?

Well how do you explain how she was exposed to it? I live in East London. I'm on the internet. I've never had someone approach me and ask me to nip over to Syria and join ISIS. I'm taking an educated guess that you have to seek this out.

Let’s not forget that while she made these decisions while legally underage, she continued them as an adult.

Who really believes she regrets joining IS?
Or that she no longer believes in what they stand for?
Would she want to come back to the UK if the Caliphate wasn’t falling?

I don’t think she regrets IS, just the loss of her children but I do not think she ascribes that to her decision or the IS life. I do not think she would be returning if the Caliphate was stronger.

How long do we let a legal adult trade on the ‘but I was 15’ argument?

Pp have commented that every IS raised male terrorist will have been exposed as a child, handed guns. How long do we show sympathy for them as adults because they were radicalised (some would say groomed, wrongly but they would say it) as children?

Why does SB deserve a rescue, the only person in the world to be treated this way?

Not extradition, but rescue - that is what is being proposed. Not one person on this thread who thinks she should be brought back has explained why she shouldn’t be subject to standard treatment of committing a crime abroad.

“Well how do you explain how she was exposed to it? I live in East London. I'm on the internet. I've never had someone approach me and ask me to nip over to Syria and join ISIS”

Perhaps you’re not in the target group?

Today 10:04 BertrandRussell

But those two boys were rightly treated very differently to adults.

Today 10:39 BertrandRussell

They were psychologically evaluated and deemed to be fully accountable. I found the way the trial was conducted profoundly uncomfortable at the time, as did many other people.

I was a bit confused because the above statements seemed quite contradictory!

You're not alone in being confused. It takes some skill to argue against yourself.

Perhaps you’re not in the target group?

And what puts you in a target group?

Perhaps you’re not in the target group?

And what puts you in a target group?

Well, being Muslim for a start. ISIS present themselves as being the only genuinely faithful Muslims. They're able to quote parts of the Qu'ran that back up their extremist ideology.

The Bible has been used in the same way, sadly.

Lizzie48
So are you saying that all Muslims are targeted then? I don't think that is true.

I think you probably put yourself in the position to be targeted. So you go to certain websites or visit certain groups. I would be very surprised to hear that SB did not make the first moves into joining.

Plenty of non Muslims have been radicalised. SB’s husband was a 15 year old non Muslim when he was radicalised. In fact it seems non Muslim converts are easier to radicalise than than birth Muslims maybe because they don’t have a background of peaceful conexistance that most Muslims in the west have.

So how did that white British Canadian, Jack Letts, get targeted?

Or Khalid Masood a concert responsible for the Houses of Parliament attack.

Convert not concert

I can’t see the confusion. They were deemed fully accountable after psychological evaluation. However, they were children so the form their sentences took rightly reflected that. I, and many others were uncomfortable about their being tried in an adult court because, despite the aforementioned accountability, they were 10 years old.

Reading studies from the Henry Jackson Society seems to indicate that girls self radicalize by searching out videos and forums and matchmaker sites.

Then what is your objection to her being held accountable for any crimes she may have committed, in the country in which she committed them?

I really really get frustrated by people using ‘grooming’ as some sort of throwaway get out of jail card akin to brainwashing. It is not some sort of cover all excuse for anything, it never has been, even our own law has been very clear that it does not automatically excuse criminality.

Multiple white women who were initially groomed have been convicted of crimes committed when they themselves went on to groom and pimp other girls. They have received long jail terms and they were crimes far less serious than being in an organisation committing war crimes, genocide and crimes against humanity.

Secondly, it’s not clear that she was groomed in a criminal sense, and even if she was, it’s definitely not the extreme sort of grooming we have seen in grooming trials because:

Firstly and most importantly: With UK grooming scandals where police, social services, councils, the NHS and just about every other public body refused to help, ignored it, sometimes actively facilitated it and arrested the victims and their families if they complained. There is no suggestion that if Shamima or her family had asked for help that help would not have been actively forthcoming.

Secondly: grooming, legally, has to have a sexual element and be for the purpose of procuring sex with someone aged under 16. The person who had sex with her, her husband, had no contact with her until she arrived in Syria. We don’t know if they had sex while she was under 16 and her own account seems to make it likely they didn’t. ISIS used women for many purposes including nursing and keeping local women in line. By her own account she worked as a nurse for fighters for some time before being married. Plus groomers were more often than not female. It’s far from an open and shut case whether she was groomed in a legal sense.

Thirdly: When we think about the grooming that happened in the UK, many of the most important elements were missing in Shamima’s case. She has never claimed she was threatened or coerced by force or that her family or loved ones were threatened. She wasn’t in a situation where the people abusing her had the power to see her arrested and imprisoned, they did not have ‘dirt’ to blackmail her with. She did not believe she was in love or in a relationship with the person she spoke to. She wasn’t showered with gifts or made to feel endebted as far and she hasn’t made any claims that she was.

And all of these things - Shamima was always in a position where she had multiple routes open to her that could have stopped what was happening to her and she never did.

Plus Shamima was absolutely surrounded by media telling her how dangerous ISIS was and what awful crimes they were committing.

This wasn’t a 15 yo girl who thought she had a nice new boyfriend 19 yo boyfriend who bought her presents, took her out to nice places and treated her like a grown up who couldn’t understand why her friends and family can’t just be happy for her who suddenly realises the nice boyfriend has disappeared and she’s locked in a trap house being gang raped by fat middle aged men.

I think describing Shamima as ‘groomed’ deliberately ignores that Shamima really did know what she was getting into and was aware she was going to a war zone to live with terrorists who were committing war crimes. She wasn’t groomed in the sense that she was deceived and tricked into doing something she did not want to do. She could have stopped it at any time and actually went to a great deal of trouble to evade people who could have stopped it.

Finally, her son remained a British citizen and was free to come here. Here family wanted to send her lawyer to collect him and bring him back to the UK for treatment. Shamima told Sky News she would not let her son come to Britain unless she was allowed in too so the plan was halted. She used that child as a bargaining chip and the only reason he is dead is because his mother tried to use him as leverage to get into the UK rather than putting his health first.

She’s not comparable to Yazidi slaves who were kidnapped and held under lock and key in shackles, frequently terrorised by women just like Shamima.

Shamima has also got out alive while we know that the slaves are being murdered so no witnesses to the crimes are left behind.

I don’t know why people think that shouting ‘grooming’ means Shamima no longer bears any responsibility for herself or what she’s been involved in. It doesn’t.

The race card is pretty tired too given that Natalie Bracht (who is very much white) has had her UK citizenship stripped and Jack Letts is already part of an agreement the Canadians have with the Kurds that he’s going there and will be prosecuted there so we have no urgent need to strip his citizenship.

Her losing her citizenship is legal and completely online with binding undertakings made between the UK and Bangladesh last year. She’s going to Bangladesh and she’s going to jail in Bangladesh and it’s all legal and above board

“I don’t know why people think that shouting ‘grooming’ means Shamima no longer bears any responsibility for herself or what she’s been involved in. It doesn’t.“

Nobody, nobody has said this .

You’ve consistently used the term ‘grooming’ to try to blur the lines between Begum and genuine victims of grooming. Grooming and radicalisation are not the same thing.

@BejamNostalgia
There is no emoji for I applaud you!
Great comment, correct information and comprehensible. Great job!

Grooming and radicalisation are not the same thing

They have different results, but they are absolutely the same thing.

Manipulation of the mind of a child in order to make them do what you want.

Both disgusting, both damaging and evil.

Grooming and radicalisation are not the same thing

^*They have different results, but they are absolutely the same thing.

Manipulation of the mind of a child in order to make them do what you want.

Both disgusting, both damaging and evil.*^

Very true. Most of the people drawn into supporting ISIS are young and impressionable. This isn't to say that they're not responsible for their actions. But it is important to understand their reasons for being attracted to ISIS ideology in the first place.

Authorities should absolutely look into the whys and hows.

I don't see how that has any impact on SB though? She did what she did. She is responsible for her actions. Has Syria announced what the intention is?

It's crucially important to understand their reasons, because it can be used to prevent the radicalisation of others.

With due process, justice system and all, the information gained from those radicalised previously is surely the best way to protect others from being radicalised.

Bejam wrote an excellent post which included the facts which make radicalisation and grooming different. No one is saying that either is acceptable btw. There also appears to be a strong element of self radicalisation in Begum’s case, whereas victims of grooming don’t groom themselves

^They have different results, but they are absolutely the same thing.*

If they are absolutely the same thing names have different there would be one word to cover it. The fact is while sometimes there is an overlap and radicalisation may be achieved in the same way as grooming that is not always the case. SB may have been a child and obviously she was radicalised but but that doesn't mean she was groomed.

Manipulation of the mind of a child in order to make them do what you want.

So you think only children are radicalised?