British IS schoolgirl 'wants to return home'

[maomao]

With all due respect it appears to me that my learned friend Athos has been playing the aforementioned game on this thread

On this thread? There's about another 20,000 posts I'd like m'lud to take into consideration.

 

[Athos]

Nor does Athos, like Boris Johnson he just likes dropping a phrase in here and there for the air of authority he thinks it provides

I don't; I didn't benefit from your education.

But it's the perfect shorthand for the dichotomy maomao was describing.

 

[maomao]

I'm afraid this is another example of you misunderstanding the point.

Well maybe it's an example of you missing the point. I wasn't discussing the court case. I don't know why else you would reference it other than that spurious appeals to legal authority are the basis of most of your posts.

 

[Pickman's model]

I don't; I didn't benefit from your education.

But it's the perfect shorthand for the dichotomy maomao was describing.

No indeed, if you had you never would have proffered a link with the evidentiary value in this matter of a turd. Oh, and I don't know what you think my education consisted of but you're utterly wrong if you think it gave me any knowledge of Latin

 

[Athos]

Well maybe it's an example of you missing the point. I wasn't discussing the court case. I don't know why else you would reference it other than that spurious appeals to legal authority are the basis of most of your posts.

It's often hard to understand what you are saying, as you flip-flop between commenting on the legal and moral position, as it suits you. In this instance, from the technicalities of legally renouncing citizenship to the rights and wrongs of what you call 'theoretical' and 'actual' citizenship.

 

[maomao]

It's often hard to understand what you are saying

I was commenting on your posting style and general dishonesty throughout. If you found it difficult to shoehorn parts of my posts into your limited areas of expertise that would seem to be your problem and not mine.

 

[Athos]

I was commenting on your posting style and general dishonesty throughout. If you found it difficult to shoehorn parts of my posts into your limited areas of expertise that would seem to be your problem and not mine.

You flit from one thing to another, as it suits you, desperately trying - unsuccessfully - to score points.

Your contributions to this thread have been to consistently get the law wrong, to make factual claims that you've been unable to support with any evidence, and to dishonestly mischaracterise others' positions.

 

[glitch hiker]

Given that most people, all of them perhaps, on this thread will feel zero impact of her return, what's the problem with it? My problem with it is that it feels like we would be saying that you can go off and fully support our enemies and then when that's no longer your thing then you can come back here and, possibly, begin recruiting more 15 year old girls for the ISIS nonces. I get that we would be sacrificing her if we did this and my god she has had a shit life since being there but I guess my concern lies with the future Shamimas.

I'm not seeing how allowing her, a clear victim of exploitation IMO, to return would create future Shamina's.

I would argue that, assuming she isn't being deliberately mendacious and doesn't herself have a scheme, she could work helping dissuade people from following in her footsteps. I think that would be immeasurably more beneficial

 

[maomao]

You flit from one thing to another, as it suits you, desperately trying - unsuccessfully - to score points.

Your contributions to this thread have been to consistently get the law wrong, to make factual claims that you've been unable to support with any evidence, and to dishonestly mischaracterise others' positions.

I'd rather be a bit scattergun but morally consistent than feign objectivity in order to provide backing for some of the repugnant views on this thread.

 

[Athos]

I'd rather be a bit scattergun but morally consistent than feign objectivity in order to provide backing for some of the repugnant views on this thread.

This is what you do. Rather than successfully argue with what I've actually said, you vaguely mischaracterise my position, notwithstanding that I've repeatedly explicitly said: I don't agree with this law; I don't agree with how the power was used in this case; and that I don't want to see her rot in limbo, or be strung up.

In fact, the only really signification differences between us are that: you seem convinced (despite having no evidence) that she was coerced, whereas I don't know what happened; you seem convinced (despite having no idea what the intelligence might say) that she'd not pose a risk of she returns to the UK, whereas I don't know; you seem to think the English courts have applied the law wrong (albeit you haven't been able to explain how), whereas I don't; and, you're wedded to the imperialist idea of 'British justice for British citizens', whereas I'd like a fair trial as near as possible to where she committed any alleged crimes.

 

[maomao]

This is what you do. Rather than successfully argue with what I've actually said, you vaguely mischaracterise my position, notwithstanding that I've repeatedly explicitly said: I don't agree with this law; I don't agree with how the power was used in this case; and that I don't want to see her rot in limbo, or be strung up.

In fact, the only really signification differences between us are that: you seem convinced (despite having no evidence) that she was coerced, whereas I don't know what happened; you seem convinced (despite having no idea what the intelligence might say) that she'd not pose a risk of she returns to the UK, whereas I don't know; you seem to think the English courts have applied the law wrong (albeit you haven't been able to explain how), whereas I don't; and, you're wedded to the imperialist idea of 'British justice for British citizens', whereas I'd like a fair trial as near as possible to where she committed any alleged crimes.

You've entirely misrepresented my position there btw.

I don't expect her to be returned to the UK and have said so several times. I don't think she should be prevented from returning but I haven't commented on the level of risk she would pose if she does make her own way back. I certainly don't think the army should be sent to fetch her as I believe the armed forces should be disbanded permanently and that the UK have no business being in the region in a military capacity. I've also, earlier in the thread, said she should be tried locally, though I've personally (not on the thread) reexamined that in light of Kurdish requests for European countries to repatriate their citizens (possibly as they're not as keen on committing genocide as half the posters on this thread).

I have complained about the racist UK state and their use of a racist law and I have complained about the violent and repugnant rhetoric directed at a young woman whom it seems likely was groomed as a child into something that has ruined her life as well as ending those of her children.

 

[Pickman's model]

This is what you do. Rather than successfully argue with what I've actually said, you vaguely mischaracterise my position, notwithstanding that I've repeatedly explicitly said: I don't agree with this law; I don't agree with how the power was used in this case; and that I don't want to see her rot in limbo, or be strung up.

In fact, the only really signification differences between us are that: you seem convinced (despite having no evidence) that she was coerced, whereas I don't know what happened; you seem convinced (despite having no idea what the intelligence might say) that she'd not pose a risk of she returns to the UK, whereas I don't know; you seem to think the English courts have applied the law wrong (albeit you haven't been able to explain how), whereas I don't; and, you're wedded to the imperialist idea of 'British justice for British citizens', whereas I'd like a fair trial as near as possible to where she committed any alleged crimes.

Whoa there. Committed any alleged crimes? Rather perjorative. Trying her before she faces a court. I hope you meant as near as possible to where she allegedly committed any crimes.

 

[Athos]

You've entirely misrepresented my position there btw.

I don't expect her to be returned to the UK and have said so several times. I don't think she should be prevented from returning but I haven't commented on the level of risk she would pose if she does make her own way back. I certainly don't think the army should be sent to fetch her as I believe the armed forces should be disbanded permanently and that the UK have no business being in the region in a military capacity. I've also, earlier in the thread, said she should be tried locally, though I've personally (not on the thread) reexamined that in light of Kurdish requests for European countries to repatriate their citizens (possibly as they're not as keen on committing genocide as half the posters on this thread).

I have complained about the racist UK state and their use of a racist law and I have complained about the violent and repugnant rhetoric directed at a young woman whom it seems likely was groomed as a child into something that has ruined her life as well as ending those of her children.

If I have misrepresented you I apologise (I do find it hard to follow what you're saying at times).

But, if your position is as quoted, then what are we arguing about? Our positions aren't that far apart.

 

[Athos]

Whoa there. Committed any alleged crimes? Rather perjorative. Trying her before she faces a court. I hope you meant as near as possible to where she allegedly committed any crimes.

I'll happily go with your wording, since there's no material difference.

 

[maomao]

If I have misrepresented you I apologise (I do find it hard to follow what you're saying at times).

But, if your position is as quoted, then what are we arguing about? Our positions aren't that far apart.

Because by prioritising correcting minor legal errors over the moral issues at stake you provide cover and a defence for the vile fantasists who want her strung or blown up.

 

[Pickman's model]

I'll happily go with your wording, since there's no material difference.

Have you so soon forgotten your post about her being a murderer? Her being part of a gang of murderers? No allegedly there

 

[Athos]

Because by prioritising correcting minor legal errors over the moral issues at stake you provide cover and a defense for the vile fantasists who want her strung or blown up.

They're not minor, they're often fundamental. And it's a bit far fetched to say that me correcting blatant mistakes about the law is providing cover for a position with which I've explicitly disagreed. I don't think it does anyone any favors to advance (or turn a blind eye to) fallacious arguments on her behalf.

 

[Athos]

Have you so soon forgotten your post about her being a murderer? Her being part of a gang of murderers? No allegedly there

I don't think I said she's a murderer, though ISIS (which she joined) is a murderous regime.

 

[strung out]

For that it's with, I think maomao is making some of the most sense on this thread, particularly over the last few pages. I admire and agree with his moral consistency throughout.

 

[maomao]

which I've explicitly disagreed

I haven't seen you explicitly disagree with them. Just some faux fence sitting. Perhaps you could provide links to some posts where you've done this.

 

[Pickman's model]

I don't think I said she's a murderer, though ISIS (which she joined) is a murderous regime.

You said she joined a gang of murderers. And what characterises the members of a gang of murderers is er that they're murderers.

 

[Athos]

I haven't seen you explicitly disagree with them. Just some faux fence sitting. Perhaps you could provide links to some posts where you've done this.

For instance, I linked to some of them below this quote.

I'm not doing that, though. I've said previously that this wasn't my preferred outcome, and criticised the government's actions (see below). (That's not altered by me pointing out that much of the criticism is factually and legally weak.)

 

[Athos]

You said she joined a gang of murderers. And what characterises the members of a gang of murderers is er that they're murderers.

Oh come on, this is a pathetic level of nit-picking, even by your low standards. Are you seriously objecting to the characterisation of ISIS as murders?

 

[maomao]

For instance, I linked to some of them below this quote.

That's awfully thin gruel and deals solely with the court case. I suppose it's okay to have a hobby horse but you shouldn't ride it all over unrelated arguments. There are several themes worthy of discussing here but you seem solely interested in the legality of the British state's role in it about which I give very few fucks indeed.

 

[Athos]

That's awfully thin gruel and deals solely with the court case. I suppose it's okay to have a hobby horse but you shouldn't ride it all over unrelated arguments. There are several themes worthy of discussing here but you seem solely interested in the legality of the British state's role in it about which I give very few fucks indeed.

It doesn't deal solely with the court case at all. My criticism of the law is that it creates two-tier citizenship - that's a moral and pragmatic issue.

 

[Pickman's model]

Oh come on, this is a pathetic level of nit-picking, even by your low standards. Are you seriously objecting to the characterisation of ISIS as murders?

Yeh this is hardly the first time on this thread you turn out not to mean what you've said. Like that bit about criticising the law which turned out to mean correcting what other people had said. Nit-picking to you, of course. I'd be surprised if you tried to undermine it any other way.

 

[Athos]

Yeh this is hardly the first time on this thread you turn out not to mean what you've said. Like that bit about criticising the law which turned out to mean correcting what other people had said. Nit-picking to you, of course. I'd be surprised if you tried to undermine it any other way.

I do mean what I said: ISIS are murderers. It's you who seems to take issue with that for no better reason than petty point-scoring.

And I've quite clearly said it's a bad law.

 

[maomao]

And I've quite clearly said it's a bad law.

So why are the majority (or at least a plurality) of your posts on this thread defending the law as used? Correcting people's misunderstandings of the law might provide you with feelings of otherwise unobtainable self-worth but when you keep doing it and don't post about much else, that's what you're going to be judged by.

 

[Pickman's model]

I do mean what I said: ISIS are murderers. It's you who seems to take issue with that for no better reason than petty point-scoring.

And I've quite clearly said it's a bad law.

And you said she joined Isis, ergo... I haven't said daesh aren't murderers

 

[Athos]

So why are the majority (or at least a plurality) of your posts on this thread defending the law as used?

Correcting spurious claims that the law wasn't properly applied isn't defending the content of that law. And it's important because: first, its a dead end in terms of her pursuing her case; and, secondly, is mischaracterises this case as an anomaly of application rather than something the law specifically allows.