Urban75 Home About Offline BrixtonBuzz Contact

British IS schoolgirl 'wants to return home'

See, the running away at 15 to make a radically new life in a political/religious project in a new country is an adventure - it would have been exciting to plan it and exciting to do it. A year later however it's no longer an adventure, it's a no longer exciting japes, it's something you've really committed to.

If she'd got there and three weeks later said 'shit, I think i've really fucked up here...' then my attitude would be very different.
tbh this is kind of how I take her own comment that she's not that silly 15 year old any more.
 
As a Londoner I'm more likely to be killed by a tree than by a Jihadi terrorist, even a 19 year old one pushing a pram
Is that an actual stat or made up bollocks? The thing is with suicide bombers is they have to pretty shit at it to get a second chance.
 
See, the running away at 15 to make a radically new life in a political/religious project in a new country is an adventure - it would have been exciting to plan it and exciting to do it. A year later however it's no longer an adventure, it's a no longer exciting japes, it's something you've really committed to.

If she'd got there and three weeks later said 'shit, I think i've really fucked up here...' then my attitude would be very different.
However, 4 years later ... "my side are losing, I want to go home"
 
Yet you couldn’t give a fuck about her unborn.

No that was me, I give next-to-no-fucks for her unborn as it's currently not a separate living thing to her. Probably won't give too much more of a fuck when she/he has been born. Probably totally heartless but there you go.
 
To be fair, there are probably quite a few destitute kids scattered around the world who are entitled to a British passport, not to mention all the rest. Not sure why this particular tragedy is supposed to pull particularly on LynnDoyleCooper 's heartstrings.

Indeed. And there isn't a child about yet. She's a pregnant woman.
 
I don't wish her child any harm, but I see no reason to care about his or her fate any more than that of millions of other children, simply because his or her mother has a British passport.
As a general point of principle, I would hope that countries would look out for their citizens when they get into trouble abroad, even if they have done terrible things. As the world is set up today, to be stateless, which is what both she and her child would be if the UK abandoned them, is a rather hopeless state to be in. As a former IS person, I can't think that she has anywhere else to go right now. And I take Spymaster's point on that - it is only now, as IS fails, that she seeks to come home - but that's not a reason not to help her/them. Rather it is a reason not necessarily to be too lenient with her when she does come back.
 
...to be stateless, which is what both she and her child would be if the UK abandoned them, is a rather hopeless state to be in.

That is nowhere near the situation we're in now. She's a UK citizen and that's not being withdrawn, not sure it can be legally either. All that has been said is they're not going to do anything to sort her mess out at the moment.
 
As a general point of principle, I would hope that countries would look out for their citizens when they get into trouble abroad, even if they have done terrible things. As the world is set up today, to be stateless, which is what both she and her child would be if the UK abandoned them, is a rather hopeless state to be in. As a former IS person, I can't think that she has anywhere else to go right now. And I take Spymaster's point on that - it is only now, as IS fails, that she seeks to come home - but that's not a reason not to help her/them. Rather it is a reason not necessarily to be too lenient with her when she does come back.

I'm not the British state. I owe her nothing, and have very little sympathy for her situation.
 
That is nowhere near the situation we're in now. She's a UK citizen and that's not being withdrawn, not sure it can be legally either. All that has been said is they're not going to do anything to sort her mess out at the moment.
It amounts to the same thing if she doesn't have travel documents. And given that she travelled on her sister's passport, we can assume that she does not have travel documents.

So the question there is how much should she be helped...
 
It amounts to the same thing if she doesn't have travel documents. And given that she travelled on her sister's passport, we can assume that she does not have travel documents.

No it really doesn't at all. If I go abroad and lose my passport in no way am I anything approaching Stateless.
 
Sorry if I missed this, but how did her other two children die and how was the story verified?

According to the press, illness (compounded by a lack of medical supplies) and malnutrition. We don't know the details, but it's possible that their deaths could have been avoided but for her commitment to IS.
 
I'm not entirely indifferent to her unborn, i'm just not indifferent to other people either.

I'm not indifferent to the lives of those who would be tasked with going into Syria to get her/the child/both.

I'm not indifferent to the lives and fears of those who had no choice about having her housed in their street.

I'm not indifferent to the fears of the other parents at the child's school, all of whom would know - while they queue up to get their kids - that this woman regards their lives, and those of their children, as a sin against God: and one to be addressed by true believers like her.

I'm not indifferent to the good that the resources spent on her immediate safety, her de-radicalisation, her endless surveillance (a team of 30 watchers, all on between £25k and £40k) would do elsewhere.

It's about balancing and weighing competing risks and outcomes - and being grown-up enough to accept that sometimes a positive outcome has too high a price, and that some of the positive outcomes you would like to achieve are mutually incompatible, so you have to choose the one you feel most strongly about while ditching the others.
 
You are if the British consulate tells you to go away.

<sigh> No, you're not. Go and have a read about what being Stateless and having no citizenship means. It's far from just your embassy telling you to get stuffed when you ask for help.
 
As a general point of principle, I would hope that countries would look out for their citizens when they get into trouble abroad, even if they have done terrible things. As the world is set up today, to be stateless, which is what both she and her child would be if the UK abandoned them, is a rather hopeless state to be in. As a former IS person, I can't think that she has anywhere else to go right now. And I take Spymaster's point on that - it is only now, as IS fails, that she seeks to come home - but that's not a reason not to help her/them. Rather it is a reason not necessarily to be too lenient with her when she does come back.


Thinking back to the reasons someone like this young woman and her friends ended up in the Daesh/IS cult...is the argument that they were simply seduced with being the brides of murdering fundamentalists who just happened to think that was the way to go? Or can some of this actually be put into context in terms of what young people like them would have been told and believed was/is the arguments for such?

Fucking hell. Shock and awe...but clearly unimpressed, for example.

Her unborn child. I imagine she wondered about the value of the lives and children of others before she committed to what she did. How many do we count? How many have been mentioned on this thread?
 
Is that an actual stat or made up bollocks? The thing is with suicide bombers is they have to pretty shit at it to get a second chance.

I can think of at least two vague acquaintances killed in tree related incidents and none in terror attacks.
About 14 people have been killed in London inJihadi attacks over the last decade. Google shows a fair few people die every year because they drive into a tree, fall out of one, or are crushed by one falling upon them.


The main point is though whilst terrorist attacks make the headlines, they're very low down on the list of real urban dangers.
 
I'm not entirely indifferent to her unborn, i'm just not indifferent to other people either.

I'm not indifferent to the lives of those who would be tasked with going into Syria to get her/the child/both.

I'm not indifferent to the lives and fears of those who had no choice about having her housed in their street.

I'm not indifferent to the fears of the other parents at the child's school, all of whom would know - while they queue up to get their kids - that this woman regards their lives, and those of their children, as a sin against God: and one to be addressed by true believers like her.

I'm not indifferent to the good that the resources spent on her immediate safety, her de-radicalisation, her endless surveillance (a team of 30 watchers, all on between £25k and £40k) would do elsewhere.

It's about balancing and weighing competing risks and outcomes - and being grown-up enough to accept that sometimes a positive outcome has too high a price, and that some of the positive outcomes you would like to achieve are mutually incompatible, so you have to choose the one you feel most strongly about while ditching the others.
There is an additional consideration, and that is a simple principle. I'm not necessarily advocating someone risking their life to save her (she scarcely deserves it), but if at some point there is a chance to bring her back to the UK safely - which involves getting money to her, for instance, which consulates do do in exceptional circumstances - that principle would kick in: she is a problem, but she is our problem, so you bring her back here regardless of other consequences. Ditching or being flexible with that principle itself has dangerous consequences.
 
I can think of at least two vague acquaintances killed in tree related incidents and none in terror attacks.
About 14 people have been killed in London inJihadi attacks over the last decade. Google shows a fair few people die every year because they drive into a tree, fall out of one, or are crushed by one falling upon them.


The main point is though whilst terrorist attacks make the headlines, they're very low down on the list of real urban dangers.

That's a flawed way of thinking about risk. You could have said the same in the early days of the rise of Nazism.
 
I can think of at least two vague acquaintances killed in tree related incidents and none in terror attacks.
About 14 people have been killed in London inJihadi attacks over the last decade. Google shows a fair few people die every year because they drive into a tree, fall out of one, or are crushed by one falling upon them.

The main point is though whilst terrorist attacks make the headlines, they're very low down on the list of real urban dangers.

So only what happens in London (or the UK) is important in understanding the totality of possible risk and consequences?

Do you think you might not be in possession of many of the facts about this topic?
 
Back
Top Bottom