Shamima Begum - misogyny at its finest?

[Schmoana]

Just saw the interview on GMB. It has struck me for a long time that there are hundreds of male ISIS fighters who are British citizens who have been allowed back and prosecuted where appropriate, even without grooming being a factor, and having been directly involved in killing. It’s hardly even reported. But this one woman has been vilified by the British people and British media, and made the figurehead of all that is wrong with ISIS. Her British citizenship has been stripped for populism.

Why is this one woman being held to different standards? What is the difference here between her and the hundreds of men who have been accepted back?

@PlanDeRaccordement

It is unfair for Bangladesh to take responsibility for a conflict that the USA and Britain spearheaded.

I really do not understand how you can link the Iraqi war to ISIS. But hey ho, even if you want to do that. Is it not true that the Iraqi war started with Iraq’s invasion of Kuwait? And that as an ally of Kuwait, the US and Allies came to their defence at the behest of the United Nations? So, in sum, the Iraqi war would not have happened, if it weren’t for them invading Kuwait. Therefore, to my mind Iraq was the cause of any radicalisation stemming from the Iraqi war.

To say the US/U.K. were responsible for ISIS is like saying that the U.K./France were responsible for Nazis because fighting WWI against Germany then “radicalised” Germans into Nazis.

Er, what? What does this have to do with Kuwait ? Who created the Sykes Pico agreement ? Who divided the arab world on artificial lines with no consideration for ethic differences ? who supported Sadam with gassing the kurds ? who enabled his brutal persecution of the majority Shia communities ? who sold WMD to him ? who invaded Iraq on a fabricated pretext ? who tortured the Iraqi prisioners and radicalised the entire country ? who killed 100k people on a LIE? The 7th century I hear you say. Sure, sure - now go to sleep.

I thought you believed there were no WMD in Iraq? Now you are saying that US or someone sold them WMD? Can you try and be consistent.

It has everything to do with Kuwait, Iraq invaded Kuwait. That started the Iraqi war.

I can see not taking responsibility for your mess is a recurrent theme with your likes.
How is any of this my mess? I was a child in China when the Iraq War happened. Can we talk history without stooping to personal insults?

who tortured the Iraqi prisioners and radicalised the entire country ?

Although an Iraqi is credited as founder of ISIS, Iraq is not even in top ten of the countries from which ISIS fighters came from. So it’s exaggeration to say all Iraq was radicalised.

The country with the most ISIS fighters was Turkey. So tell me what was done to Turkey to radicalise them? Their application to the EU not move along fast enough? Please tell me how radicalisation was forced on all those Turkish citizens.

@PlanDeRaccordement

I thought you believed there were no WMD in Iraq? Now you are saying that US or someone sold them WMD? Can you try and be consistent.

It has everything to do with Kuwait, Iraq invaded Kuwait. That started the Iraqi war.

I can see not taking responsibility for your mess is a recurrent theme with your likes.
How is any of this my mess? I was a child in China when the Iraq War happened. Can we talk history without stooping to personal insults?

English isn't your first language, that's the first problem. Yes, I knew it! Those pesky Kuwuitis were the grandstanders all along. Makes perfect sense. What's Bill Gates up to these days ?

Yes, the west sold them chemical weapons in the 80s, remember ? so they could gas and kill thousands of kurds, all with Aunty Sam's approval.

@PlanDeRaccordement

who tortured the Iraqi prisioners and radicalised the entire country ?

Although an Iraqi is credited as founder of ISIS, Iraq is not even in top ten of the countries from which ISIS fighters came from. So it’s exaggeration to say all Iraq was radicalised.

The country with the most ISIS fighters was Turkey. So tell me what was done to Turkey to radicalise them? Their application to the EU not move along fast enough? Please tell me how radicalisation was forced on all those Turkish citizens.

Be a bit more astute won't ya ? When you are bombing them, killing them, blaming them for your criminality, throwing their religion under the bus, what do you expect ? Islam is a strong unifying force so naturally they will feel affinity towards them, especially when the grand narrative was a lie. Much like France and UK/USA during WW2. This is your strongest argument so far, well done!

Yes, the west sold them chemical weapons in the 80s, remember ? so they could gas and kill thousands of kurds, all with Aunty Sam's approval.

Actually it was a German company Karl Korb that sold Saddam components from which he made chemical weapons in multiple factories. The US condemned the Iraqi use of chemical weapons on the ethnic minority the Kurds, they did not condone or approve it. And their chemical weapons factories were among the first targets to be bombed at the start of the war. Even though Saddam tried to claim they were baby formula factories.

@PlanDeRaccordement

Yes, the west sold them chemical weapons in the 80s, remember ? so they could gas and kill thousands of kurds, all with Aunty Sam's approval.

Actually it was a German company Karl Korb that sold Saddam components from which he made chemical weapons in multiple factories. The US condemned the Iraqi use of chemical weapons on the ethnic minority the Kurds, they did not condone or approve it. And their chemical weapons factories were among the first targets to be bombed at the start of the war. Even though Saddam tried to claim they were baby formula factories.

God, this is getting tedious now. Why must I google for you? foreignpolicy.com/2013/08/26/exclusive-cia-files-prove-america-helped-saddam-as-he-gassed-iran/

@idkkkk
Your link doesn’t support your statement that
Yes, the west sold them chemical weapons in the 80s, remember ? so they could gas and kill thousands of kurds, all with Aunty Sam's approval.

First, it corroborates what I said, that Saddam created chemical weapons in country with components sold to him (not by the US.) So the West did not actually sell Iraq chemical weapons.

Secondly, the article is about the Iran-Iraq war, not the Iraq domestic chemical attacks on their ethnic minority, the Iraqi Kurds. Yes the US supported Iraq in its war with Iran with intelligence and satellite imagery. But they did not support Saddam gassing the civilian Kurds within Iraq which he later did.

I’m a bit mystified that you think the seller of arms is responsible for what the buyer does with them years or even decades later? For example, is China responsible for all the wars going on in Africa now as they are the leading arms exporter to Africa? Should we blame Kazakhstan and Canada for the Cold War between Russia and US because they supplied the uranium?

[quote PlanDeRaccordement]@idkkkk
Your link doesn’t support your statement that
Yes, the west sold them chemical weapons in the 80s, remember ? so they could gas and kill thousands of kurds, all with Aunty Sam's approval.

First, it corroborates what I said, that Saddam created chemical weapons in country with components sold to him (not by the US.) So the West did not actually sell Iraq chemical weapons.

Secondly, the article is about the Iran-Iraq war, not the Iraq domestic chemical attacks on their ethnic minority, the Iraqi Kurds. Yes the US supported Iraq in its war with Iran with intelligence and satellite imagery. But they did not support Saddam gassing the civilian Kurds within Iraq which he later did.

I’m a bit mystified that you think the seller of arms is responsible for what the buyer does with them years or even decades later? For example, is China responsible for all the wars going on in Africa now as they are the leading arms exporter to Africa? Should we blame Kazakhstan and Canada for the Cold War between Russia and US because they supplied the uranium?[/quote]
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/British_support_for_Iraq_during_the_Iran%E2%80%93Iraq_war

"In 1985 a £14m chlorine plant known as "Falluja 2", built by Uhde Ltd, a UK subsidiary of a German company, was given financial guarantees by the UK's Export Credits Guarantee Department despite official UK recognition of a "strong possibility" the plant would be used to make mustard gas.[22] The guarantees led to UK government payment of £300,000 to Uhde in 1990 after completion of the plant was interrupted by the first Persian Gulf War.[22] The plant was later highlighted by the US government as part of arguing for the legitimacy of the 2003 invasion of Iraq.[23]

Britain was said to have exported thiodiglycol (a mustard gas precursor) and thionyl chloride (a nerve gas precursor) to Iraq in 1988 and 1989."

The Kurd gassing happened during the Iran-Iraq war, shortly after the Iranians were gassed. You are right, they didn't sell him the bombs, they did worse, they built the damn factories for him!
You really don't have an argument here, I don't know why you're beating a dead horse.

The west was complicit, it turned a blind eye when he did use it, they helped him when it served their interests, they didn't punish him at the time, they sold him the materials and built factories that they knew would be used for chemical manufacturing.

Surprisingly, 10 years later he wants to sell oil in euros, and shortly thereafter the americans bomb him to oblivion - join the dots.

Again, what should “the West” have done? Refused to sell chemicals to Iraq because he might use them on his own people and not just in the Iran-Iraq war? Wouldn’t that have been considered a bit paranoid and racist? After all, there was no indication at the time that he’d use them for genocide.

And what do you mean the west “didn’t punish him”? I thought the invasion of Kuwait was the last straw of many violations and the resulting US invasion was punishment of Iraq by the west for the gassing of the Kurds among other things?

Are you now saying the US-Iraq war was actually justified because he did use chemical WMD on civilian populations? Because this all started with you saying the US-Iraq war was based on a lie:there were no WMD and was a completely unjustified interference from the west, which then created ISIS and so it’s the west’s “fault” that ISIS exists?

The whole Iran-Iraq war, 1st and 2nd Gilf Wars were very shady from a US/UK point of view, not to mention many other countries.
But even so....why does this mean the UK should take in a known terrorist 20 years later?
It doesn't - and as pointed out, the UK isn't unique in dealing with ISIS members in this way.

@PlanDeRaccordement

Again, what should “the West” have done? Refused to sell chemicals to Iraq because he might use them on his own people and not just in the Iran-Iraq war? Wouldn’t that have been considered a bit paranoid and racist? After all, there was no indication at the time that he’d use them for genocide.

And what do you mean the west “didn’t punish him”? I thought the invasion of Kuwait was the last straw of many violations and the resulting US invasion was punishment of Iraq by the west for the gassing of the Kurds among other things?

Are you now saying the US-Iraq war was actually justified because he did use chemical WMD on civilian populations? Because this all started with you saying the US-Iraq war was based on a lie:there were no WMD and was a completely unjustified interference from the west, which then created ISIS and so it’s the west’s “fault” that ISIS exists?

You're really good at jumping through loops, ever considered joining a circus ? First it was the "7th century's" fault, then the Kuwaitis, and now not selling them weapons knowing they will be used is "racist and paranoid", even though you are building the factory whilst he is using them. You do realise the use of chemical weapons in warfare was banned during the Geneva convention in the 1920s, right ?

My hunch was right, you are the type that creates a mess, and when called out, finds someone else to blame because you are too insecure to consider that you were ever wrong. How could you ever be wrong? Impossible, it's always someone else's fault with your types isn't it.

As for the rest of your groundbreaking questions, they are very simple to answer but clearly truth or a little pre-emptive research is not your thing, especially if it'll break that fragile ego.

Anyway, have you found the WMDs ? you do realise there is practically a consensus on this issue right ?
The UN weapons inspectors searched over 700 sites and found no evidence of ANY research or production of WMD in Iraq a few months before the 2003 Iraq war. Zero, zlitch, nada, nothing. The americans wanted that war, they were itching for conflict.

Iraq never had an issue with terrorism, or Islamism. It was only after the war that 100k new bin ladens were created. Bush wasn't a bright man, but calling these wars "crusades" is probably not a good idea either.

@deydododatdodontdeydo

The whole Iran-Iraq war, 1st and 2nd Gilf Wars were very shady from a US/UK point of view, not to mention many other countries. But even so....why does this mean the UK should take in a known terrorist 20 years later? It doesn't - and as pointed out, the UK isn't unique in dealing with ISIS members in this way.

But more importantly, why should Bangladesh pick up after the UK ? Why should Bangladesh have to pay the price for our criminality ? Was Bangladesh meddling in Iraq's affairs for decades ? Were they the ones who created this ethnic mess/conflict that is spanning now for over a century ? Did they invade Iraq on a fabricated pretext ? Did they pitch the sunnis against the shia ? Did they create this threat ? Were they the duplicitous ones ? And if you want to violate this principle, then what is stopping anyone else from doing the same to you? It's implications extend far beyond politics e.g. why should men care about women's issues ? They're not women, it's not their responsibility. If a man want's to be toxic then women just need to accept it. You are setting a dangerous precedent here.

But more importantly, why should Bangladesh pick up after the UK ? Why should Bangladesh have to pay the price for our criminality ? Was Bangladesh meddling in Iraq's affairs for decades ? Were they the ones who created this ethnic mess/conflict that is spanning now for over a century ? Did they invade Iraq on a fabricated pretext ? Did they pitch the sunnis against the shia ? Did they create this threat ? Were they the duplicitous ones ?
And if you want to violate this principle, then what is stopping anyone else from doing the same to you? It's implications extend far beyond politics e.g. why should men care about women's issues ? They're not women, it's not their responsibility. If a man want's to be toxic then women just need to accept it.
You are setting a dangerous precedent here.

Who says Bangladesh should have to pick up after the UK?
What criminality?
You can blame the UK's meddling in Iran/Iraq for her radicalisation and joining ISIS, but it's pure conjecture - no court would accept that as cause.
What principle is being violated exactly?
I think you are setting a dangerous precedent by applying your direct and simplisitic cause and effect to an extremely complex situation.

@idkkkk
You are not answering my questions. You have stated that Iraq’s chemical weapons were WMD and yet simultaneously are saying there were no WMD. By the way, WMD is a term that includes chemical, biological and nuclear weapons. So it is clear that Saddam did indeed have WMD as the death toll can testify to. The US/U.K./Germany individually sold pesticides which are dual use and can be used to manufacture chemical weapons. Yet you seem to think that the US/U.K./Germany should have known Saddam was going to use the pesticides to make mustard gas instead of kill insects eating his crops. You are right the Geneva Protocol did ban the use of chemical weapons and Iraq did indeed sign that Protocol swearing they would not use them. You seem to want to blame “the west” for Saddams actions, denying him agency and “the west” superhuman mind reading powers (wherever the west is, like it is some huge monolith when it consists of many nations).

You seem to think that the seller of weapons or components of weapons is responsible if those weapons are not used defensively but offensively and for genocide. Yet you only blame “the west” when Iraq was also supplied weapons of war by China and Soviet Union at various times during the 1980-2000s.

Iraq never had an issue with terrorism, or Islamism. It was only after the war that 100k new bin ladens were created. By “the war” I assume you mean after the 2nd Persian Gulf War when Iraq was invaded and occupied, with the US occupation then “radicalising” formerly peaceful Iraqis. That’s the narrative you’ve been peddling and it is not true.

Iraqi President Saddam Hussein provided bases, training camps, and other support to terrorist groups fighting the governments of neighboring Turkey and Iran, as well as to Palestinian terror groups. Iraq has helped the Iranian dissident group Mujahadeen-e-Khalq, the Kurdistan Workers’ Party, a separatist organization fighting the Turkish government, and several far-left Palestinian splinter groups that oppose peace with Israel. Before the 2003 war, the CIA cited Iraq’s increased support for such organizations as reason to believe that Baghdad’s links to terror could continue to increase. The support Iraq provided included safe haven, training, and financial support. In violation of international law, Iraq has also sheltered specific terrorists wanted by other countries, reportedly including:
-Palestine Liberation Front leader Abu Abbas, who was responsible for the 1985 hijacking of the Achille Laurocruise ship in the Mediterranean.
-Two Saudis who hijacked a Saudi Arabian Airlines flight to Baghdad in 2000.
-Abdul Rahman Yasin, who is on the FBI’s "most wanted terrorists" list for his alleged role in the 1993 World Trade Center bombing.

But more importantly, why should Bangladesh pick up after the UK ?
Bangladesh won’t be. They’re not repatriating any of their ISIS members either. I don’t know how many times I have to repeat this.

Was Bangladesh meddling in Iraq's affairs for decades
No, but surprised you think disarming a dictator who was using chemical WMD for genocide is “meddling”. Should we have left Saddam to just get on with massacring the Kurds? Supporting terrorists and funding terror attacks? I suppose fighting the Nazis would count as “meddling” in Germany’s affairs too.

And if you want to violate this principle, then what is stopping anyone else from doing the same to you?
What principle is that then? Don’t meddle with genocidal dictators that support worldwide terrorism?

By 2019, at least 100 citizens had accepted the offer — with mixed success. As of 2018, there were at least 30 known cases of recidivism, with Tajiks re-joining the Islamic State.

So a third of them rejoin ISIS? Possibly more actually, as the number of repatriated didn't reach 100 until a year later.

Defo the type of people we want to be reintroducing to our society.

@deydododatdodontdeydo

*But more importantly, why should Bangladesh pick up after the UK ? Why should Bangladesh have to pay the price for our criminality ? Was Bangladesh meddling in Iraq's affairs for decades ? Were they the ones who created this ethnic mess/conflict that is spanning now for over a century ? Did they invade Iraq on a fabricated pretext ? Did they pitch the sunnis against the shia ? Did they create this threat ? Were they the duplicitous ones ? And if you want to violate this principle, then what is stopping anyone else from doing the same to you? It's implications extend far beyond politics e.g. why should men care about women's issues ? They're not women, it's not their responsibility. If a man want's to be toxic then women just need to accept it. You are setting a dangerous precedent here.*

Who says Bangladesh should have to pick up after the UK?
What criminality?
You can blame the UK's meddling in Iran/Iraq for her radicalisation and joining ISIS, but it's pure conjecture - no court would accept that as cause.
What principle is being violated exactly?
I think you are setting a dangerous precedent by applying your direct and simplisitic cause and effect to an extremely complex situation.

I think it's pretty clear who is being a simpleton here. The fact that you've not rebuttaled any of the pointers but just projected the questions back at me simply asserts your insincerity. Should that come as a surprise though ? we are dealing with the anglish overall.

International law anyone ? You can't leave individuals stateless, and since the UK has rescinded her status, she now falls under the jurisdiction of Bangladesh if any future agreements are to be made, they are going to have to foot the bill. I hope you don't think the world end's in 5 years - looking ahead, we cannot expect the Kurds to be taking care of our rubbish for the next 50 years. Although you need principles and consistency to consider that.

[quote PlanDeRaccordement]@idkkkk
You are not answering my questions. You have stated that Iraq’s chemical weapons were WMD and yet simultaneously are saying there were no WMD. By the way, WMD is a term that includes chemical, biological and nuclear weapons. So it is clear that Saddam did indeed have WMD as the death toll can testify to. The US/U.K./Germany individually sold pesticides which are dual use and can be used to manufacture chemical weapons. Yet you seem to think that the US/U.K./Germany should have known Saddam was going to use the pesticides to make mustard gas instead of kill insects eating his crops. You are right the Geneva Protocol did ban the use of chemical weapons and Iraq did indeed sign that Protocol swearing they would not use them. You seem to want to blame “the west” for Saddams actions, denying him agency and “the west” superhuman mind reading powers (wherever the west is, like it is some huge monolith when it consists of many nations).

You seem to think that the seller of weapons or components of weapons is responsible if those weapons are not used defensively but offensively and for genocide. Yet you only blame “the west” when Iraq was also supplied weapons of war by China and Soviet Union at various times during the 1980-2000s.

Iraq never had an issue with terrorism, or Islamism. It was only after the war that 100k new bin ladens were created. By “the war” I assume you mean after the 2nd Persian Gulf War when Iraq was invaded and occupied, with the US occupation then “radicalising” formerly peaceful Iraqis. That’s the narrative you’ve been peddling and it is not true.

Iraqi President Saddam Hussein provided bases, training camps, and other support to terrorist groups fighting the governments of neighboring Turkey and Iran, as well as to Palestinian terror groups. Iraq has helped the Iranian dissident group Mujahadeen-e-Khalq, the Kurdistan Workers’ Party, a separatist organization fighting the Turkish government, and several far-left Palestinian splinter groups that oppose peace with Israel. Before the 2003 war, the CIA cited Iraq’s increased support for such organizations as reason to believe that Baghdad’s links to terror could continue to increase. The support Iraq provided included safe haven, training, and financial support. In violation of international law, Iraq has also sheltered specific terrorists wanted by other countries, reportedly including:
-Palestine Liberation Front leader Abu Abbas, who was responsible for the 1985 hijacking of the Achille Laurocruise ship in the Mediterranean.
-Two Saudis who hijacked a Saudi Arabian Airlines flight to Baghdad in 2000.
-Abdul Rahman Yasin, who is on the FBI’s "most wanted terrorists" list for his alleged role in the 1993 World Trade Center bombing.[/quote]
God, I've seen some nuts over the years, but you really do take the biscuit. The only logical conclusion I can deduce is that you must be a troll. It's christmas in 3 months, I'll get santa to run a few sorties - we need to get to the bottom of this. Maybe you can be his/her/it's reindeer? You could use a whip or two. ;)

I think it's pretty clear who is being a simpleton here. The fact that you've not rebuttaled any of the pointers but just projected the questions back at me simply asserts your insincerity. Should that come as a surprise though ? we are dealing with the anglish overall.

Well aren't you unpleasant, not to mention a bit thick.
Who tf are the anglish? Sounds like you have deep hatred against them.
I won't respond to the rest of your post because you seem angry, deluded and clueless.

@deydododatdodontdeydo

I think it's pretty clear who is being a simpleton here. The fact that you've not rebuttaled any of the pointers but just projected the questions back at me simply asserts your insincerity. Should that come as a surprise though ? we are dealing with the anglish overall.

Well aren't you unpleasant, not to mention a bit thick.
Who tf are the anglish? Sounds like you have deep hatred against them.
I won't respond to the rest of your post because you seem angry, deluded and clueless.

Firing blanks again are we. Going around the world, killing, maiming, lying, cheating, looting, imposing, what more do you expect? And then taking zero responsibility and shuffling your crap onto other peoples doorstep, expecting them to just "deal with it". But the moment you get even a whiff of your own medicine, Brexit!!! kick em out!!!

I really don't care about Ms. Begum, people like this need the full force of the law and even the death penalty wouldn't suffice for their crimes. But throwing it onto someone else's door, despicable.

Apparently though, I'm unpleasant for calling you out on your BS. Ok boomer.

Oh dear, you really are projecting now aren't you.
You know very little about me or my opinions, my my nationality even, or cultural heritage.. You're dead wrong on my brexit opinions for example.
Go be angry with someone else.

@deydododatdodontdeydo

Oh dear, you really are projecting now aren't you. You know very little about me or my opinions, my my nationality even, or cultural heritage.. You're dead wrong on my brexit opinions for example. Go be angry with someone else.

What's there to project? you can't even fight your corner. Now you're being super vague and gaslighting. The fact you don't take responsibility and put the burden and blame onto others is very telling. It gives me an inkling into the type of person you are. These issues expose a principled person from a lecherous selfish nut.

You are projecting, because you are angry at someone (English boomer?) and directing your hate for them at me, whilst knowing nothing about me.
I also haven't put the burden of blame on others.

Apparently though, I'm unpleasant for calling you out on your BS. Ok boomer

You've really lost the argument if you have to resort to that.