British IS schoolgirl 'wants to return home'

[Athos]

For what reason? Is it relevant or important? No. You just want to say it was three kids, actually.

Yes, it is really relevant as one died after she was stripped of her British citizenship!

 

[ElizabethofYork]

As if you wouldn't have joined Daesh or the Hitler youth or the Contras or whatever in the right circumstances.

Your moral superiority is vacuous.

The right circumstances - I suppose you mean if you had no choice.

She had every choice.

 

[SpackleFrog]

The right circumstances - I suppose you mean if you had no choice.

She had every choice.

No, I don't mean in a situation where there was no choice.

 

[Spymaster]

As if you wouldn't have joined Daesh or the Hitler youth or the Contras or whatever in the right circumstances.

Your moral superiority is vacuous.

You fucking weirdo.

 

[littlebabyjesus]

She had a choice. You don't have to deny her agency here entirely. In fact, I don't excuse anything she's done. But that doesn't make this right. This isn't about whether or not she is a good person, or even whether or not she is someone who could be 'saved'. It's very simply about whether or not she should have her British citizenship taken away from her. This is the UK government acting like shits and creating a very damaging precedent with a dishonest argument.

 

[maomao]

She was groomed online when she was underage. Are 15 year old girls who get groomed by paedophiles responsible for their abuse? They have agency too don't they?

 

[tim]

shame we cannot kick Patel out of the country as well she is fair more dangerous than Begum

There's no justification for racist shit like this.

 

[Yossarian]

I'm a dual national and while I have no immediate plans to fight overseas to establish an Islamic caliphate, I definitely feel like this decision has downgraded my citizenship.

 

[SpackleFrog]

Form for what? You should back that up or retract and apologise. That you have to resort to this is pathetic.

Earlier in the thread there was a lot of innuendo thrown around about her breeding terror babies and deserving everything she got for sleeping with/marrying Daesh fighters until someone took it too far and said "the sl*t got what she deserved" and then everyone was a bit sheepish for a bit. You were involved in that weren't you? You have been part of the group of posters talking about her breeding?

Added to which I just think your posts are generally pretty reactionary.

Dunno what you're complaining about. It might be inconvenient to you but my opinions and conjecture are just #factz.

#FactzBantz

 

[Athos]

She had a choice. You don't have to deny her agency here entirely. In fact, I don't excuse anything she's done. But that doesn't make this right. This isn't about whether or not she is a good person, or even whether or not she is someone who could be 'saved'. It's very simply about whether or not she should have her British citizenship taken away from her. This is the UK government acting like shits and creating a very damaging precedent with a dishonest argument.

The government has been opportunistic, and, I suspect, motivated (at least in part) by populism. And, without knowing the intelligence, its hard to know the full extent of any that she poses. But I'm not sure how it's been dishonest about this?

 

[SpackleFrog]

would starting her to a rocket and firing her into the sun still have the racial element

Again, anyone wanting to suggest what Ax^ said is racist should either answer this question or leave it.

 

[SpackleFrog]

Yes, it is really relevant as one died after she was stripped of her British citizenship!

You've lost me there, why is that relevant?

 

[Ax^]

There's no justification for racist shit like this.

from my own point of view it was not about race just her being a horrible human being who more dangerous to the country that begam

both of them are just British to me
both radicalised just one in a refugee camp with her citizenship stripped and the other a member of the cabinet

take what you will from it

 

[Athos]

Earlier in the thread there was a lot of innuendo thrown around about her breeding terror babies and deserving everything she got for sleeping with/marrying Daesh fighters until someone took it too far and said "the sl*t got what she deserved" and then everyone was a bit sheepish for a bit. You were involved in that weren't you? You have been part of the group of posters talking about her breeding?

Added to which I just think your posts are generally pretty reactionary.

Dunno what you're complaining about. It might be inconvenient to you but my opinions and conjecture are just #factz.

#FactzBantz

No, you're wrong again. I didn't endorse the 'breeding factory' stuff; in fact I said it was crass.

It speaks to the paucity of your arguments that, rather than address my points, you have to resort to false slurs.

 

[SpackleFrog]

from my own point of view it was not about race just her being a horrible human being who more dangerous to the country that begam

both of them are just British to me
both radicalised just one in a refugee camp with her citizenship stripped and the other a member of the cabinet

take what you will from it

I think what we can take from it is that no one wants to make the argument that its racist to want to fire Patel into the sun but also nobody wants to say its fine to say you want to fire Patel into the sun just as long as you don't say you would like to see her kicked out of the country.

 

[Athos]

You've lost me there, why is that relevant?

Because the death of the third child could've been avoided but for the Home Secretary's decision. That must be relevant to a discussion about whether or not that decision was right!

 

[SpackleFrog]

No, you're wrong again. I didn't endorse the 'breeding factory' stuff; in fact I said it was crass.

It speaks to the paucity of your arguments that, rather than address my points, you have to resort to false slurs.

That's right, I remember. You were fine with it until that particular intervention and then you said it was crass. Not blatantly misogynistic mind, just crass because it was a little too obvious.

I'm getting good at this making facts out of conjecture thing aren't I?

 

[SpackleFrog]

.

 

[SpackleFrog]

Because the death of the third child could've been avoided but for the Home Secretary's decision. That must be relevant to a discussion about whether or not that decision was right!

Ahhh, I see what you mean. But it wouldn't actually affect the decision would it? Because the decision isn't based on whether or not lives can be saved. Thats not how the law works. The decision is based on whether or not the UK govt had any obligation to the child not the risk to the child's life.

Thank you for reminding me that the decision could potentially have cost the life of an innocent child though, I had forgotten.

 

[Ax^]

I think what we can take from it is that no one wants to make the argument that its racist to want to fire Patel into the sun but also nobody wants to say its fine to say you want to fire Patel into the sun just as long as you don't say you would like to see her kicked out of the country.

not like Patel herself has rabidly supported deportations or even support legislation that would of stopped her own family for entering the country either

 

[Athos]

That's right, I remember. You were fine with it until that particular intervention and then you said it was crass. Not blatantly misogynistic mind, just crass because it was a little too obvious.

I'm getting good at this making facts out of conjecture thing aren't I?

Not really, no. Desperate stuff. I'm embarrassed for you.

On the facts v conjecture point. Are you really saying there's a serious chance she didn't know what IS was doing whilst living there?

There plenty of grounds on which to criticise this law, and the outcome of this case (as I have). But this is spectacularly weak.

 

[BobDavis]

Not read the whole thread so dunno if this point has been made already but the hypocrisy of the right wing media is alive & well here. Here is a girl 14/15 when she was groomed online & then went to Syria but she is responsible for her own actions & yet recall the premiership footballer a few years ago jailed for having sex with a 15 year old girl fan. He was vile pedo scum & the girl an innocent child groomed online.

Certainly the footballer should have been banged up & certainly this young woman should not be stripped of her citizenship on the dodgy grounds that she is eligible for citizenship of Pakistan when that country has made it clear they will not grant it or let her on their soil.

The young woman appeared unrepentant while being interviewed in the refugee camp but she can hardly slag off Isis in their own backyard.

 

[SpackleFrog]

not like Patel herself has rabidly supported deportations or even support legislation that would of stopped her own family for entering the country either

Now, see there I've got some sympathy if that's your point because obviously you're singling Patel out for criticism you wouldn't make of the rest of the Tories because she's the child of refugees. Im not saying its wrong but it doesn't sit totally comfortably with me. We can oppose the policies but I'm not sure about implicitly saying it is somehow worse that she supports these policies because she benefited from asylum herself.

 

[SpackleFrog]

Not really, no. Desperate stuff. I'm embarrassed for you.

On the facts v conjecture point. Are you really saying there's a serious chance she didn't know what IS was doing whilst living there?

There plenty of grounds on which to criticise this law, and the outcome of this case (as I have). But this is spectacularly weak.

My objection was to you claiming that you can know for certain that she is dangerous if you remember.

I don't really see what point you're making re her knowing what Daesh were doing while she was there, none of us know anything about what she thought when she was there. I like a bet so I'd happily bet she saw some very dark stuff and that she wished she'd never gone a few times, but I don't know that.

 

[Athos]

Ahhh, I see what you mean. But it wouldn't actually affect the decision would it? Because the decision isn't based on whether or not lives can be saved. Thats not how the law works. The decision is based on whether or not the UK govt had any obligation to the child not the risk to the child's life.

It might affect the decision, insofar as it does to the 'conducive to the public good' part of the statutory test.

In any event, any critique if the law ought to consider such unintended consequences.

Also, I'm not sure you understand how the law works.

 

[maomao]

you're singling Patel out for criticism you wouldn't make of the rest of the Tories because she's the child of refugees.

She's not the child of refugees. They left Uganda in the 60s well before Amin started expelling Asians.

 

[Athos]

My objection was to you claiming that you can know for certain that she is dangerous if you remember.

I don't really see what point you're making re her knowing what Daesh were doing while she was there, none of us know anything about what she thought when she was there. I like a bet so I'd happily bet she saw some very dark stuff and that she wished she'd never gone a few times, but I don't know that.

The point is that if you choose to join and remain a member of such an organisation in the full knowledge of its horrors, its hard to say that you don't present some level of risk. Albeit I accept that, without being party to the intelligence neither of us know the full extent of that risk. Such that the idea that she isn't a risk is a really poor basis for criticising the decision. I've criticised the law, but this is a weak ground on which do so, as are some of the other challenges people have raised on this thread e.g. those based on a misunderstanding of Bangladeshi law.

 

[Flavour]

The point is, Ax^ , that you should leave talk of kicking people out of countries to the far right and stop making excuses for it

 

[Ax^]

The point is, Ax^ , that you should leave talk of kicking people out of countries to the far right and stop making excuses for it

fair point Patel is still a horrible human being none the less

 

[maomao]

The point is that if you choose to join and remain a member of such an organisation in the full knowledge of its horrors, its hard to say that you don't present some level of risk. Albeit I accept that, without being party to the intelligence neither of us know the full extent of that risk. Such that the idea that she isn't a risk is a really poor basis for criticising the decision. I've criticised the law, but this is a weak ground on which do so, as are some of the other challenges people have raised on this thread e.g. those based on a misunderstanding of Bangladeshi law.

What if she'd been eleven rather than fifteen when it happened? If she hadn't turned and run away on her sixteenth birthday would it still have been a question of her agency?