Urban75 Home About Offline BrixtonBuzz Contact

British IS schoolgirl 'wants to return home'

Isn't the claim that the UK became aware she'd gone to Syria, through intel shared by Canada, provided by the agent who helped her get there, after the fact? Is anybody suggesting the UK knew she was going to travel but chose not to stop her?
'Our very close ally's agent smuggled her and we've subsequently lied about this' is complicity after the fact.
 
'Our very close ally's agent smuggled her and we've subsequently lied about this' is complicity after the fact.
Hmmm, leaving aside the fact that it was a member ISIS - albeit one who was providing intelligence - rather than Canada who (allegedly) facilitated her travel, there's a significant difference between the UK knowing beforehand and choosing not to stop it versus knowing afterwards (when there was nothing it could do).
 
'Our very close ally's agent smuggled her and we've subsequently lied about this' is complicity after the fact.

So you think that the security services should have told everyone that IS were smuggling people into Syria and one of the smugglers was supplying the Canadians with secret information? Preposterous.
 
Sorry, but the idea that the country owes her anything because they may have been given information about other people who were smuggled into Syria, by ISIS, after they were smuggled, is ludicrous.
Where you're going wrong here is I think in terms of seeing this as a transactional relationship where there's a debit here and a credit there. She deserved as you would merit, a fair hearing in front of a court. The only danger she poses imo is of becoming a bore
 
Sorry, but the idea that the country owes her anything because they may have been given information about other people who were smuggled into Syria, by ISIS, after they were smuggled, is ludicrous.
Well that's at least closer to what I said. I'll give you that. You still wilfully miss the point.

But we're never going to agree on this.
 
Profiting from information supplied about things beyond your control doesn't make you complicit in those acts. Wilhelm Canaris supplied information to British security services throughout 1943 and 1944. That doesn't make the British government complicit in the Holocaust. What Sabir has alluded to there, is UK and Canadian involvement in the smuggling of Begum to IS, to the extent that her citizenship should be restored. He needs to show us what he alleges he knows.
That's what we have a system of tribunals and courts to hear
 
Where you're going wrong here is I think in terms of seeing this as a transactional relationship where there's a debit here and a credit there.

It's not me seeing it that way, it's LBJ.

She deserved as you would merit, a fair hearing in front of a court.

That's a different argument. The point he's arguing here is that she should be treated differently because the UK were given information about people smuggling by the Canadians, which somehow makes them complicit in her having been smuggled in the first place.
 
Last edited:
It's not me seeing it that way, it's LBJ.



That's a different argument. The point he's arguing here is that she should be treated differently because the UK were given information about people smuggling by the Canadians., which somehow makes them complicit in her having been smuggled in the first place.
I'd rather see liz truss as PM than lbj - she has more nous
 
The fact that she was a child when she left is a good enough reason for me.
fwiw my view on this is that it's messy. She was an adolescent, somewhere between child and adult, and imo, she exists in what Primo Levi would have called the grey zone wrt moral culpability. She doesn't get off for the terrible things she was actively complicit with (and by all accounts, she was a very enthusiastic participant), but at the same time she's also a victim - of groomers, of the men whom she actively helped, of a hypocritical UK government.

Sometimes things aren't simple black and white.
 
So you think that the security services should have told everyone that IS were smuggling people into Syria and one of the smugglers was supplying the Canadians with secret information? Preposterous.
You don't understand. There are only goodies and badies. Goodies are always good, in every thing they do all the time ever and badies (who can of course only be white middle or upper class men western men) are always bad in every thing they do. Obvs.
 
fwiw my view on this is that it's messy. She was an adolescent, somewhere between child and adult, and imo, she exists in what Primo Levi would have called the grey zone wrt moral culpability. She doesn't get off for the terrible things she was actively complicit with (and by all accounts, she was a very enthusiastic participant), but at the same time she's also a victim - of groomers, of the men whom she actively helped, of a hypocritical UK government.

Sometimes things aren't simple black and white.
Like t.j. hooker said, there's no black or white but a million shades of grey. And I don't think it's all accounts, really is it. Just the accounts you recall.
 
The fact that she was a child when she left is a good enough reason for me.
I didn't realise you were quite so racist and sexist. But given some of your posts it not a huge surprise.
 
You don't understand. There are only goodies and badies. Goodies are always good, in every thing they do all the time ever and badies (who can of course only be white middle or upper class men western men) are always bad in every thing they do. Obvs.
Either that, or Spy was saying something that I hadn't said and didn't think?

But you knock yourself out.
 
Either that, or Spy was saying something that I hadn't said and didn't think?

You've been banging-on about the UK government’s supposed complicity in Begum's smuggling, and suggesting that she's owed something by them because of it.

That seems to be your position in a nutshell and it's nonsense.
 
Last edited:
No it's not. believing that that young British Asian women aren't capable of making decisions in line with Begum's is both. we have been over this time and time again on this thread before.

It's got absolutely fuck-all to do with her race or gender. She is responsible for her decisions, but not in the same way as an adult.

My GF, who really hates Isis and what Shamima Begum did, says the same about her age making a difference. And given that my GF is a very intelligent and self-aware British Bangladeshi woman I pretty much think she knows what the fuck she's talking about.
 
No it's not. believing that that young British Asian women aren't capable of making decisions in line with Begum's is both. we have been over this time and time again on this thread before.
Believing a 15-year-old groomed as a younger teenager was a) a victim and b) not capable of the sort of informed decision-making deserving of a punishment that would not be meted out to people who are not of Asian heritage (permanent removal of citizenship/dumping in another country) is not racist or sexist. As a viewpoint it can be applied just as equally to boys and is not dependent on ethnicity (saying someone does deserve to have their citizenship removed on the other hand actually is dependent on ethnicity). You are free to think he's wrong but this is wind-up toss and you know it.
 
Last edited:
Believing a 15-year-old groomed as a younger teenager was a) a victim and b) not capable of the sort of informed decision-making that deserves a punishment that would not be meted out to people who are not of Asian heritage (permanent removal of citizenship/dumping in another country) is not racist or sexist. As a viewpoint it can be applied just as equally to boys and is not dependent on ethnicity. You are free to think he's wrong but this is wind-up toss and you know it.

Have we seen any compelling evidence that she was groomed?

Jack Letts was stripped of his British citizenship; he was not of Asian heritage.
 
Last edited:
Have we seen any compelling evidence that she was groomed?

Jack Letts was stripped of his British citizenship; he was not of Asian heritage.

She was 15 ffs, that's pretty compelling evidence in itself. There's a reason the UK marriage laws were changed recently to made marriage of under 18 year olds illegal. It's known she was talking with ADULTS about the IS ideology. That is grooming. Flipping eck, most 15 year olds aren't getting into weird cults, but they're generally not held to the same standards as adults, and rightly so. As with courts taking age into account for young adults, let alone kids.
 
Back
Top Bottom