AIBU to ask if we can have a sensible discussion here about Shamima Begum?

[StephenBelafonte]

I just don't understand the hostility towards her by the british government. Surely as a 15 year old she was radicalised and brainwashed.

I genuinely don't understand why the government is so harsh towards her. Unless they know something we don't. I feel so sorry for her.

I never said she was owed anything. At the end of the day she is a British problem. Born, raised, educated and radicalised in Britain. We have no right to foist responsibility of her onto another country, legally or morally.

At the end of the day she is a British problem. Born, raised, educated and radicalised in Britain. We have no right to foist responsibility of her onto another country, legally or morally.

A million times this

,You have to do a phenonomal amount of mental gymnastics to claim the UK does not have a legal, moral and financial obligation to take her back and do what it takes to rehabilitate her or keep others safe from her in the event she is unable to be rehabilitated.'

The UK has no legal responsibility for SB (her citizenship was revoked). U.K. has moral and legal responsibility to protect its own citizens from terrorists. There is definitely no financial responsibility over SB or any terrorists.

I don’t understand the reasoning behind bringing her back here. Plenty of people are punished overseas for crimes committed overseas.

The UK has no legal responsibility for SB (her citizenship was revoked)

Illegally. You cannot make a person stateless. It is illegal. Nor should we fight for a precedent to be set.

[quote HermioneMakepeace]@Gwynfluff she has not shown any remorse and still supports the regime. How can you say she is low risk? The meatball sub quote plus the western clothing is her way of manipulating people. It’s obviously worked on you. How naive you are.[/quote]
@HermioneMakepeace The irony of your name Just a quick google shows that she just turned 21. She was radicalised as a younger teenager and also stripped of her citizenship in 2019 when she was still a teenager. She should be tried in the country she was radicalised in. She shouldn’t have been allowed to leave the country in the first place if she was such a threat.

Why? Joining a terrorist organisation is a criminal offence in the UK.

Even if she were tried here I don’t suppose she’d be in prison for long. Once released her life would be a round of tv & radio appearances, Hello and I’m a Celebrity get me out of here.

She should be tried in the country she was radicalised in

Why? It seems highly likely she was radicalised online anyway.

I think she is our problem she was born and bred here and although personally I would prefer her to never come back . I do believe she has the right to return and to serve time in prison here if that is deemed necessary. She does seem to be treated differently from other people who have been apart of dreadful crimes

Nobody knows what threat she would pose if she was allowed to return, so we can't risk letting her back here. It's very interesting that whenever people talk about her they always use words like "groomed", "naive" and "brainwashed" but would never speak about a young male terrorist in the same way. People always seem to interpret women as victims or accessories to the brutality Isis has committed, marginalising female actions when compared to those of men.

The role of women in jihadism has been played down and misrepresented for many years and people need to realise that there are genuinely evil and extremely manipulative women out there. I don't understand why people say she deserves a fair trial or has the right to come back to the UK - she deserves absolutely nothing from us and lost any rights when she boarded that plane.

Does anyone remember Samantha Lewthwaite? Joined the "cause" at 17. Police gave her the benefit of the doubt and she is now on the run with over 400 deaths under her belt, and apparently has four children she vows to raise as terrorists.

@Gemma2019 Actually I would use the words “groomed”, “naive” and “brainwashed” whether they are male or female if they’re young teenagers. Wouldn’t anyone?

She wasn't made stateless technically but Pakistan don't want her either

Pakistan? I wonder why you think she’s from Pakistan?

She wasn't made stateless technically but Pakistan don't want her either

A) it wasn’t Pakistan. Look it up.

B) she never had citizenship from the country in question, only the option to apply, which wasn’t guaranteed and was then revoked. She’d never stepped foot in the place.

I’d love to know how the Brits would react if another country tried to wriggle out of their responsibilities to difficult citizens by claiming they ‘could’ claim British citizenship, despite never having even visited this country.

@Theunamedcat

She wasn't made stateless technically but Pakistan don't want her either

It’s the same non arguments every time on these threads - thinly veiled jingoism, using faux concern about atrocities against people in Syria to argue that SB should remain stateless in Syria.

Pakistan SimonJT - it’s where the brown people are from, do keep up.

www.thehindubusinessline.com/news/world/2-pakistani-origin-isis-brides-lose-british-citizenship-report/article26486714.ece

Sorry I got my isis brides mixed up

Well that is understandable, after all us brown people all clearly look the same.

And still the assertions that it's because she's brown. Not everything is about race, it's about what she's done. If she was white, black, ted or blue the dilemma and arguments would still be the same. Not acceptable for a PP to get her country of heritage wrong, but it doesn't mean this is about her colour.

It’s the same non arguments every time on these threads - thinly veiled jingoism, using faux concern about atrocities against people in Syria to argue that SB should remain stateless in Syria.

You can’t just blithely dismiss everyone’s compassion for the Syrian as “faux”.

Can’t you see that the government might be making a point here to discourage others, whilst knowing that they’ll ultimately probably lose this case? They know that the deradicalisation methods we currently have aren’t terribly effective, so they’re making sure that there are a handful of high profile cases that deter intending jihadis. They knew perfectly well all along that Jack Letts case was different from SB’s case, but they obviously think there is some deterrent value in pursuing this. I don’t trust this government but I do trust our security services to a large extent so I’m inclined to think an extra year or two for SB in a camp will do more good than harm overall.

It is frustrating that her case seems to be taking up so many more keystrokes than the plight of all the Syrian refugees put together.

I have far more compassion for the poor desperate people in Syria than for this woman who was part of the regime that has destroyed so many people’s lives. I don’t care what colour she is. It’s what she’s done that is appalling.

@GoLightlyontheEarth

I have far more compassion for the poor desperate people in Syria than for this woman who was part of the regime that has destroyed so many people’s lives. I don’t care what colour she is. It’s what she’s done that is appalling.

So do I, but it’s “faux” apparently. It’s beyond belief to me that anyone could defend someone who’s chosen to be part of a regime that revels in committing some of the worst atrocities of this century.

You’ve got to be a special kind of blinkered to consider all the atrocities we have all watched and read about over the past 7-8 years and decide that being more concerned for Syrian survivors and refugees than for jihadi adherents to the so-called “caliphate” is a sign of racism, jingoism and insincerity.

Did you not hear anything about the regime, the unspeakable atrocities and the bombing?