You don't need to be an 'investor' to invest in Singletrack: 6 days left: 95% of target - Find out more
But we’ll done for mentioning brexit anyway, I feel it was what was missing from this thread – every thread discussing contentious issues should deviate away from the subject and blame brexit.
But that's OK, because "for balance" we'll always have you leaping up to defend it and tell us that other causal factors may be available.
we’ll always have you leaping up to defend it
And yet that is exactly what I don't bother doing - I get incessantly criticized for not doing so.
The same here on this thread. I have pointed out that Shamima Begum being stripped of her citizenship has bugger all to do with brexit, it happened when the UK was still in the EU, citizenship deprivation has been happening for years, and currently happens in several EU member states.
I have no desire to 'leap to defend brexit' or discuss the pros and cons of EU membership. It has **** all to do with the subject matter.
And congratulations for missing the point completely Ernie. Perhaps the sarcasm in my post was a bit too nuanced?
Yeah far too subtle for me. I hadn't realised that you were being sarcastic and pointing out that Shamima Begum's case had nothing to do with brexit.
But in how many of those cases did the person being stripped of citizenship NOT have dual citizenship? My understanding is that under international law it is illegal to leave a person stateless as the U.K. shamim a
^^^ This.
My understanding is that under international law it is illegal to leave a person stateless as the U.K. shamim a
It is, unfortunately it has been upheld by the Supreme Court as they claimed that she had the right of Bangladeshi citizenship. That might have been the case but she hasn't now, she would have needed to apply before she was 21 years old.
Yeah far too subtle for me. I hadn’t realised that you were being sarcastic and pointing out that Shamima Begum’s case had nothing to do with brexit.
her case doesn’t (obviously?) - but I think the governments response does, particularly from a government/party/supporter base that was so frustrated at not being able to extradite Abu Hamza, and who have been leaning heavily on blatantly populist themes throughout the leave campaign. To admit that they can’t just disown begum because it would violate international law probably brought them all out in hives, and would probably be quite confronting for their supporter base. I thought that was pretty clear from my post, but maybe not.
Do I think she should have her citizenship re-instated and let straight back in? No
So this above, completely and utterly contradicts your other point below
Do I think she should come to the UK and face trial? For what?
Why was her citizen ship removed? Because she committed some crimes against the UK as a UK citizen.
If you accept that removal of citizen ship is an appropriate response to the crimes she committed, you first have to try her for those crimes, as a brit, and innocent until proven guilty, that means bringing here home and trying her.
You can't have one without the other.
As an aside:
Removal of citizen ship is a barbaric act which should never happen, it only happened because she is "not the right colour and not from here." (My quotes because some people cannot seem to get over this.) Which is in fact bollocks, she was born here and has natural rights here. Imagine if they did this to Sarah Smith born in Barnsley???
It’s you that’s bringing skin colour into it. Why are people always banging on about ‘brown people’ on this forum lately. It’s bloody embarrassing.
Maybe in a few years when we’re at war with Russia, if Sally Smith from Barnsley leaves for Moscow to marry a captain in the Russian army then she can have her citizenship revoked too. Assuming she’s dual nationality Bangladeshi too so she’s not left stateless.
Isn’t her husband Dutch anyway? Would it not be easier to get into Holland?
Isn’t her husband Dutch anyway? Would it not be easier to get into Holland?
What a daft comment. She is British, it should be easy for her to get into the UK.
Her husband is held captive by Kurdish forces btw.
And if you think she wouldn't be treated differently if she had white skin and an Anglo-Saxon name you must be living in fantasy land.
Aye right, but she left for Islamic State. Is it the UK’s fault that that didn’t pan out as mad lols (who knew?).
If I left the UK to become a Thai but got bored of the humidity and happy endings and decided I wanted to be British again I’d have to apply at immigration or do what everyone else does and jump on a dingy. Why all the drama?
I really don’t think an Anglo Saxon name would make a difference btw. Class maybe.
An actual white woman islamic terrorist. sold her story to the sun. Seems to still have her UK citizenship
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Samantha_Lewthwaite
Both irrelevant as a: they’re both British as opposed to dual nationality so couldn’t have their citizenship revoked anyway. And b: one’s hiding in Kenya and doesn’t want to come back and the other is dead.
But top marks for attempting to make everything about racism.
If I left the UK to become a Thai but got bored of the humidity and happy endings and decided I wanted to be British again
I don't know what you are talking about. She has only ever been British. Going abroad doesn't automatically mean that you lose your nationality.
as opposed to dual nationality
Have you not read anything about this case? She does not have dual nationality and never has had. She could have applied for Bangladeshi nationality but she didn't. Why should she - she is British, having Bangladeshi nationality would have made no sense.
Furthermore her right to Bangladeshi nationality expired when she became 21 years old, Bangladesh has publicly stated that she won't be allowed Bangladeshi nationality.
She does not have dual nationality and the UK has made her stateless. A disgusting and shameful act which you would not expect from a civilised country.
Britian says that a 15 year old has no right to make legal decisions, and yet the British state can strip a 15 year old child of her citizenship if they feel that she has made the wrong decision.
But top marks for attempting to make everything about racism.
Slow hand clap for pretending that this tragic case has nothing to do with racism and bigotry.
Wot Ernie said!
Its obvious racism and islamophobia designed to play well in the right wing press and the tory party faithful
Its obvious racism and islamophobia designed to play well in the right wing press and the tory party faithful
I've not seen you all tirelessly campaigning for her return, which is surprising as you're all so seemingly disgusted by her circumstances. It's not new news
It's equally the usual left wing jizz fest to jump on a virtuous bandwagon now it's been rattled around in the press again. Isn't it?
I'm pretty sure the majority opinion in this thread is for her tonreturn and face whatever charges the crown sees fit, but don't let that get in your way. 🙂
I’ve not seen you all tirelessly campaigning for her return, which is surprising as you’re all so seemingly disgusted by her circumstances. It’s not new news
Because of course you are always out tirelessly campaigning for all those issues which you express strongly held veiws on here?
Although unless you follow TJ around I can't imagine how you would know what he does and doesn't do.
Because of course you are always out tirelessly campaigning for all those issues which you express strongly held veiws on here?
Although unless you follow TJ around I can’t imagine how you would know what he does and doesn’t do
Ok strawman....
What strongly held views do I express on here that I should be campaigning for to further my cause? It's mostly cynicism if you care to properly observe my interjections
I said 'all', it just happened to be Jeremy's post that I quoted
It’s mostly cynicism if you care to properly observe my interjections
Fair point. I probably don't properly observe your "interjections". I pick up drivel like this :
It’s equally the usual left wing jizz fest to jump on a virtuous bandwagon now it’s been rattled around in the press again. Isn’t it?
by simply scanning your posts, I don't feel they are really worthy of much more than that.
The need to insult does suggest a strong view about something but I am happy to accept that strong views might be a tad too profound for you 👍
It’s equally the usual left wing jizz fest to jump on a virtuous bandwagon now it’s been rattled around in the press again. Isn’t it?
egh? How is it “left wing” to want a member of a terrorist group to return to the uk to be tried and (if appropriate) prosecuted? That’s practically what every poster here is saying - and seems completely fair/logical.
Or is it now “left wing” to want the UK to comply with international law now? Or give somebody a trial before punishment is dispensed?
So what do you think of the case?
was the government right to remove her British citizenship without any kind of due process?
where do you sit on the “trafficked or terrorist” issue?
I think it's pretty widely accepted amongst the majority here that
1) she shouldn't have been made stateless
And
2) if there is a case to answer she should be allowed to return and undergo due process. If there isn't then the question is moot.
Sure, she made shit choices and she may not be likeable as a person for whatever reason you choose. But you can't choose who justice applies to on that, or any basis. Because once you do it's a dark road ahead.
I don't understand why this needs pointing out.
“this place is an echo-chamber” in 5, 4, 3……
by simply scanning your posts, I don’t feel they are really worthy of much more than that.
Yet here you are engaging. You feel that you can challenge what I say with contempt, yet merely scan because my opinions aren't worthy?
Sounds about right
The need to insult does suggest a strong view about something but I am happy to accept that strong views might be a tad too profound for you 👍
So calling out a left wing virtue signalling huddle because a long standing human rights issue has all of a sudden become topical again is insulting, but screaming racist at any other opinion is just fine and dandy? Of course it is, it's STW
JFC.
calling out a left wing virtue signalling
You keep banging on about this being a left-wing issue and whilst I fully accept that justice is an issue which tends to preoccupy left-wingers it is not as clear cut as you make it out to be .
David Davis is a very senior Tory who is firmly on the right-wing of the Tory Party. This is what he has had to say on the issue:
"Disappointing verdict in the Supreme Court. Regardless of what individuals like Shamima Begum have done, the UK cannot simply wash our hands of Brits in the Syrian camps. The correct approach would be to return them to the UK to answer for their crimes."
https://www.hull****/news/hull-east-yorkshire-news/david-davis-wades-shamima-begum-5052911
Every one of Enrielynch posts on this page have taken the words right out of my mouth. 100% agree.
You keep banging on about this being a left-wing issue
Primarily because this is a lefty hand wringing echo chamber*.......
And this is where the current discussion is happening
*There you go, just for you batfink 😉
Ahhhhhh I see.
Because you think STW is full of lefttards, whatever the majority view is here, that then automatically becomes your new definition of left wing? Regardless of what is actually said?
and because we are saying things that meet your new definition of left wing, it further reinforces your opinion that we are all “left wing”?
He’s got us skewered! How could we possibly hope to compete with such a towering intellect!
This thread was a one sided political shouting match way before I got involved
There wasn't much shouting going on before you joined... self reflection not a strong point is it?
before I got involved
It is hard to fathom what your contribution to this thread is, beyond a general attack on what you perceive to be the left.
As someone who occasionally goes against the STW consensus I generally keep my wick dry for those times when I feel that I have an actual point to make, and of which I feel quite strongly about.
According to you, you don't feel strongly about anything , despite wading onto this thread to have a general pop at everyone. You also don't seem to have any idea what point you are trying to make, as your constant contradictions show.
You appear not to think that Shamima Begum has committed any crimes, as this comment by you suggests:
Do I think she should come to the UK and face trial? For what?
So you don't appear to know what crimes she might have committed and yet according to you she shouldn't be allowed back into the country of her birth.
Have you any concept of how ridiculous that is?
But you can’t choose who justice applies to on that, or any basis. Because once you do it’s a dark road ahead
Removing rights from one person who "deserved it" removes them from everyone - including yourself.
Hurrah, I got the quote thing to work!
I find I'm a stinking hypocrite on this subject. On one hand I have no issues with UK members of ISIS catching a high explosive munition or two whilst their going about their psychotic business.
Having seen their handiwork up close and the brutality of their ideology, morally I can settle that with my conscience.
But, when they decide being part of a murderous death cult isn't for them, or they’ve surrended like the cowards they are, them I'm all for legal process being applied without fear or favour.
I'm also with a few posters here, might seem okay to remove certain rights from people because in that moment it's universally agreed they're wrong un's, but who knows when that tide turns and the same exception in law is applied to others deemed problematic.
The decision to render her stateless was for political expediency. Not national security or justice.
It's a ****s trick and one that elected officials should not have the power to do in isolation.
In no way a hypocrite there - yes, when they are an active threat to life, they face the full consequences, but when they step back from that, the normal rule of law applies..
Given your experiences, I find your attitude honest, self-aware and just.
I find I’m a stinking hypocrite on this subject.
I think that’s probably how most people feel about it tbh.
That’s the thing with principles innit - you don’t get to pick and choose when to apply them
Furthermore her right to Bangladeshi nationality expired when she became 21 years old, Bangladesh has publicly stated that she won’t be allowed Bangladeshi nationality.
Given that she had a legal right to Bangladeshi citizenship they should we not all be ranting at Bangladesh for not following international law and accepting her right to citizenship or is it ok for them not to want her?
Given that she had a legal right to Bangladeshi citizenship they should we not all be ranting at Bangladesh for not following international law and accepting her right to citizenship or is it ok for them not to want her?
Bangladesh may also be acting like ****s, but at the time of the offences where it is alleged she commited offences under the terrorism act, she was a UK citizen. So it's not unreasonable to expect that she would be subject to the legal process of this nation.
If I'm honest I couldn't give two shits about Bangladesh amd what they chose to do. As a nation their legal system and processes have no bearing on my life unless i choose to visit. I care more about how we prevent nutjobs going off to murder or support the murder of people and how we appropriately and legally deal with those who return.
I care more about how we prevent nutjobs going off to murder or support the murder of people and how we appropriately and legally deal with those who return.
One solution that might work as a deterrent is to make sure they arent able to return
Citation needed.
I read that in two ways: Either make sure they are dead, or strip them of citizenship. I am not sure which you are suggesting, but neither of them will stop the problem of motivated/brainwashed people leaving the UK and going off to fight against something they believe is wrong.
One thing stripping citizenship (and killing to some extent) does is remove any option of returning to a normal life if they decide that what they are doing is wrong, false or has been a mistake. Paraphrasing Sun Tsu here, but always leave your enemy one way out. If you don't then they fight like they have nothing left to live for.
I am in no way saying that people that have gone off to fight with the Taliban should be welcomed back with open arms and a pat on the back, but I am saying that they should be subject to the law of the land, fairly and without bias.
FWIW, I think she should have her citizenship restored so that she can come back and can contest any charges that are made against her.
Given that she had a legal right to Bangladeshi citizenship they should we not all be ranting
They dispute that and really its irrelevant. I am primarily concerned about the rules of our country and that we deal with people in a fair and legal way. If she has committed a crime then lets imprison her but the removal of citizenship on the whim of a home secretary should be rather concerning to everyone.
As a side note I cant really blame the Bangladesh government for not being overly keen bearing in mind she was born and raised here. For us to shrug our shoulders and go "your problem now" is dubious in itself.
I will leave any ranting though about the legal right or not of her to Bangladeshi citizenship to Bangladeshi citizens/potential citizens by birth.
should we not all be ranting at Bangladesh for not following international law and accepting her right to citizenship
Why do you believe that Bangladesh isn't following international law in accepting her right to citizenship?
I don't know of any international law which forces countries to accept as citizens people who weren't born there.
What is absolutely certain is that Shamima Begum was a British born UK citizen.
This has bugger all to do with Bangladesh, and quite why Bangladesh should accept a British citizen who you appear to be accusing of terrorism I find hard to fathom.
Pretty sure that SIAC recognised she would likely be killed if she went to Bangladesh, even as they rubber-stamped the HO removing her British citizenship. I hope that the way to beat extremism is not to replicate it.
Why do you believe that Bangladesh isn’t following international law in accepting her right to citizenship?
I dont see a great deal of difference between the UK government removing her citizenship and Bangladesh saying they would deny her application out o dh and when she was young enough to be entitled to citizenship. Both countries are washing their hands of responsibility for her decision to join a terrorist group
She has never even been to bangladesh IIRC. Why should a third country take her?
Bangladesh don't have any respondsibility for that.
Both countries are washing their hands of responsibility for her decision to join a terrorist group
I would suggest one of those countries is rather more justified, what with her never having lived there, but again it is mostly irrelevant.
I am rather less fussed about what Bangladesh does or doesnt do because I am not a citizen of that country.
I do care more about the UK because I live here and I assume you do as well (if you are Bangladeshi then go ahead and rant about their actions).
I dont want our home secretaries being able to remove citizenship at will. Maybe have it with a proper legal process with a jury and then it as a possible punishment (even then I think I would be opposed outside of cases where citizenship was gained by fraud but willing to be convinced otherwise) but not as a ministers choice to be deployed as a political tool.
It should perhaps be pointed out that one of the reasons why Shamima Begum was stripped of her citizenship might have been precisely to stop her being prosecuted in a UK court.
This article is from 2015, just a few months after Shamima Begum left for Syria, it is well worth a read:
Al-Rasheed's case garnered international attention when it was discovered he was responsible for smuggling Shamima Begum, 15, Amira Abase, 15, and Kadiza Sultana, 16 - three British teenagers who left their London homes in early February to join DAESH.
The girls' case had epitomized how a small population of youth in European countries are being brainwashed to join the militant group, which rose to prominence after capturing several regions in Syria and Iraq.
Footage from a hidden camera released by Turkish media had shown al-Rasheed speaking to the three girls, giving them instructions on how to travel to Syria.
More importantly, it was revealed that al-Rasheed, at least according to his statement to police, was working for the Canadian intelligence service.
Canada is a member of Fives Eyes. You can be absolutely certain that Canada shares all its intelligence on matters relating to ISIS with the UK, ESPECIALLY intelligence which directly involves UK citizens.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Five_Eyes
Allowing Shamima Begum to return to the UK could be very embarrassing indeed to the UK/Five Eyes as the manner she was groomed and sent to Syria would undoubtedly be offered as evidence if she was prosecuted in a UK court.
In which case how much better to make certain that she either dies or never returns to the UK. Her other two companions are already dead.
It should also be remembered that the UK is actively involved in attempting to overthrow the Syrian government. Consequently the UK government was quite supportive of ISIS until ISIS started operations in Iraq - in contrast the UK government supports the government of Iraq.
The whole mess surrounding Islamic extremism, terrorism, and wars, has at its root cause Western interference. Many of those most wanted on terrorism charges were once backed, financed, and trained, by Western governments, the most obvious example being Osama bin Laden, although I believe it might also have been the case with Abu Hamza who was mentioned on the previous page.
I dont want our home secretaries being able to remove citizenship at will. Maybe have it with a proper legal process with a jury and then it as a possible punishment
But the highest court in the land has ruled that removing her citizenship was legal and no further consideration should be given until it is shown its safe for the UK if she re enters the country. So the full proper UK legal process has been followed and decision reached. You might not agree with that decision, fair enough, but the law has been followed
Errmmm - apart from its a clear breach of international law and of the UKs treaty obligations
Actually not the highest court albeit the ECHR is not in this land.
You might not agree with that decision, fair enough, but the law has been followed
And yet there you are accusing Bangladesh of breaking international law without providing a shred of evidence.
In the case of the UK there is reasonable grounds to assume a miscarriage of justice imo. Miscarriages of justice aren't overturned by saying "You might not agree with that decision, fair enough, but the law has been followed".
They are overturned by not accepting the court's decision.
One solution that might work as a deterrent is to make sure they arent able to return
Ie, make it someone else's problem (assuming you're not suggesting murdering her).
Turn that around. Say we have a terrorist in the UK who is a Bangladeshi national. We want to send her home to face trial but Bangladesh is refusing to accept her.
Do you still think "making sure they aren't able to return" is a great approach? You can't have it both ways.
You might not agree with that decision, fair enough, but the law has been followed
I never said it hadnt so not sure why you brought it up?
Now do you think its a good thing that a minister can revoke citizenship?
Or would it be better that if we were going to do it then have it done in court in the same way that other punishments are decided.
No it wouldn't be better if citizenship was revoked by a court.
The overwhelming majority of people on this forum cannot have their citizenship revoked by anyone
And yet somehow the UK judicial system manages to cope perfectly well should they commit a crime.
Why should it be different for the daughter of an immigrant?
Racism and bigotry goes to the very heart of this case and letting the courts decide who deserves a fair trial and who doesn't deserve a fair trial is not the solution.
If a UK citizen commits treason, or actively incites violence, or commits acts of terrorism, then the law can deal with them perfectly well,
Shamima Begum should be treated in EXACTLY the same way as someone whose parents and grandparents were born in the UK.
No ifs and buts.
No it wouldn’t be better if citizenship was revoked by a court.
I was just wondering if that would help them see why people have problems with the current situation.
As above I dont agree with the removal of citizenship outside of when someone only got it due to a fraudulent application. So not applicable here. I could possibly be persuaded as to why it needs extending but havent seen any good arguments yet.
The irony is (for those who like to see it purely as left v right) that Shamima Begum could not have been stripped of her citizenship during the time of Margret Thatcher's premiership.
Shamima Begum has been denied her citizenship as the result of changes made in the wake of 9/11 by Tony Blair and his Home Secretary David Blunkett who decided to pander to the tabloids and a new surge in islamophobia.
https://irr.org.uk/article/deprivation-of-citizenship-by-stealth/
When David Blunkett informed Abu Hamza of the decision to deprive him of his British citizenship in April 2003, there hadn’t been a similar situation since the case of William Joyce, aka Lord Haw-Haw, in the aftermath of the Second World War, after his prosecution for treason for broadcasting for the Nazis.
After 1983, the only basis on which you could be deprived of British citizenship under the 1981 British Nationality Act was if you had obtained it by fraud, false representation or concealment of a material fact. If you were born British, you could not be deprived of citizenship. That is no longer the case.
I would suggest one of those countries is rather more justified, what with her never having lived there, but again it is mostly irrelevant.
I would argue the other country is more justified as she left to join the Islamic State, which is kind of traitory.
What would the response be if the boot was on the other foot and the government of Bangladesh revoked her citizenship because she was entitled to UK citizenship?
Well, they didn't did they. You snooze you looze 😁
Joyce was born in the US and brought up in Ireland. Was he ever a Brit? Hamza was Egyptian and only British by marriage, Begum was born here. I do think it's a mistake to get too consumed by the technicalities, governments do want they want.
The term 'traitor' seems to being banded about but is that really viable ?. The Portland spy ring were actively giving info to the Russians, and while they received 15 years in prison, at a time when the death penalty was still in being, they if anyone could be classed as traitor, given one of who was a naval attache`
This is more political than anything.
Personally I can't see that she's guilty of anything other than belonging to a terrorist organization. Certainly an individual cannot be held responsible for the actions of others, so whatever atrocity isis committed, she as an individual is not guilty of it.
To be fair, I'm not sure treason is appropriate. She wasn't working against UK interests or the Crown directly, and the Terrorism Act is a little more clear cut for acts in this arena, hence why it was enacted.
Personally I can’t see that she’s guilty of anything other than belonging to a terrorist organization.
Me neither. And who cares anyway. She gave this country and the western way of life the finger and ****ed off to join IS. Now she wants to come back which frankly is taking the piss. She seemed in good health in the BBC doc and is in an Islamic country (Syria) so she's alright. If it discourages others from doing it then it's worth it. So what if it's 'political'. So what if the dual nationality thing doesn't stand up to scrutiny. I don't really care if the government broke every international law in the book to get it done. What's the point in bringing her back to 'face justice'? For what? Why bother? If she wants to come to the UK that badly she can jump on a dingy like everyone else. No problem with that. Just as long as it's known that she's not bloody welcome.
I don’t really care if the government broke every international law in the book to get it done.
Just this once or can they ignore any others if deemed expeditious?
Case by case basis.
If she wants to come to the UK that badly she can jump on a dingy like everyone else.
You have obviously given up any attempt to engage in rational debate Jambo.
Not entirely surprising I guess bearing in mind how weak your argument is.
Case by case basis.
What could go wrong....
What could go wrong….
He could reproduce...
No argument is being put forward. I don't seek to convince you that I AM RIGHT.
It's merely an emotional response. The way I see things in the absence of reams of court papers. I don't really care that much about it all. Just making conversation.
I suppose if it were an argument it would be summed up as thus: IS were shitheads and if you're mates with them then I think you're a dick and you can do one.
And who cares anyway. She gave this country and the western way of life the finger and **** off to join IS. Now she wants to come back which frankly is taking the piss.
Well I suppose that's one way to look at things.
I tend to see it as her current position ultimately being the result of failures by various agencies within the UK. Hence she is the UK's responsibility.
IIRC she was apparently being groomed from the age of about 13(?) So in my book it wasn't a sudden 'oops' one night and a 15 year old girl with full agency slipped off to live her terrorist dream. She was Brainwashed, trafficked and gifted to some fundamentalist nutbar. A handful of years later she's spent her formative years being further brainwashed and living in war zones, she's given birth to and lost children of her own and now ended up in a refugee camp.
Had she just been groomed and trafficked within the UK we'd be discussing how heavily to punish her abusers and which safeguarding body ballsed up, not how to wash our hands of her because conveniently she ended up outside our borders...
The simple truth is teenagers are dickheads, I definitely was at 15 and so was Shamima Begun. The major difference is there were enough barriers for a white, middle-class boy like me to prevent my inherent stupidity from landing me in the kind of irreversible life ruining situation she did.
I've got kids now, not far off the age she was when ISIS went to work on her, the idea of some bastard weedling their way into their brains, installing death cult ideology and coaching them on how to evade authorities and travel across borders so they can be abused and probably killed is frankly terrifying. As is the lack of empathy and understanding some people on here display at times...
Lets be clear as well, if she ever makes it back to these shores, she's going straight into a cell, she's going to face terror charges and at least a decade behind bars. Hopefully during that time our wonderful penal system can try to de-radicalise her and undo some of the damage caused by the state's earlier failures. But a return to the UK isn't a cushy option for her now, if she ends up as a functioning member of UK society by the age of 35, if at all, it would be a miracle.
It’s merely an emotional response.
What are you, 15 or something?
IS were shitheads and if you’re mates with them then I think you’re a dick and you can do one.
IIRC she was 15 years old at the time, I dunno how many 15yos you know, but they are mostly prone to doing stupid things, and easily lead.
She was a minor, as in not an adult who can make her own choices.
Yet she was able to find the cash to buy a plane ticket to a country that’s not the easiest to travel to. Get on the plane as an unaccompanied minor and travel there. That’s all sounds very planned and deliberate and not a silly teenage spur of the moment thing.
I don’t really understand why so many people seem keen to have someone who is known to have terrorist sympathies and a hate for this country want to welcome her back with open arms
Yet she was able to find the cash to buy a plane ticket to a country that’s not the easiest to travel to. Get on the plane as an unaccompanied minor and travel there. That’s all sounds very planned and deliberate and not a silly teenage sort of the moment thing
If you stopped and thought about it you would realise that you are in fact pointing out how implausible that is.
She was a naive child who had led a very sheltered life in the company of women and brought up to believe that her role was to obey.
You obviously didn't bother to read the link I posted earlier but it gives an insight of how she probably ended up is Syria:
<span style="font-family: Roboto, 'Helvetica Neue', Arial, 'Noto Sans', sans-serif, -apple-system, BlinkMacSystemFont, 'Segoe UI', 'Apple Color Emoji', 'Segoe UI Emoji', 'Segoe UI Symbol', 'Noto Color Emoji'; font-size: 16px; background-color: #eeeeee;">If she wants to come to the UK that badly she can jump on a dingy like everyone else. No problem with that. Just as long as it’s known that she’s not bloody welcome.</span>
You were in Liverpool last night, weren't you.
For your edit:
I don’t really understand why so many people seem keen to have someone who is known to have terrorist sympathies and a hate for this country want to welcome her back with open arms
Can you explain how wanting her to face the consequences of any crimes she might possibly have committed is the same as "to want to welcome her back with open arms"?
Can you also perhaps explain why she should be treated completely differently to someone whose parents were both born in the UK? Because you know that is exactly what you are saying.
Obviously you believe that British born citizens whose parents were born overseas are second class British with less rights.
Are there other disadvantages do you believe that British citizens born to foreign parents should face?
Edit: Can you also explain this as well please?
a hate for this country
What is that based on? Anyone who leaves the UK proves that they hate it? Anyone who commits a crime proves that they hate the UK?
Or does this only apply to black and brown Brits?
I don’t really care if the government broke every international law
Sounds like you might have more in common with ISIS than you think