-
Friendly reminder: The politics section is a place where a lot of differing opinions are raised. You may not like what you read here but it is someone's opinion. As long as the debate is respectful you are free to debate freely. Also, the views and opinions expressed by forum members may not necessarily reflect those of GBAtemp. Messages that the staff consider offensive or inflammatory may be removed in line with existing forum terms and conditions.
- Joined
- Jan 28, 2009
- Messages
- 8,517
- Trophies
- 2
- Age
- 33
- Location
- London
- Website
- gbatemp.net
- XP
- 13,859
- Country
To go beyond the reactionary, Here are my 2 pence.
If she wants to come back then she actually can, unless the Government do something, there's not much legally anyone can do about it. She is a British Citizen regardless of any previously declared affiliation for the Islamic State as no reasonable nation recognised it. We (as in the UK) cannot strip her of citizenship as if IRCC based on UN agreements states cannot make someone stateless and in this case, Begum only has British citizenship. Ergo she's British and the child can inherit that British citizenship.
Honestly, imo, she should come back, the unborn child has done nothing wrong for that moral argument though I can't see how the child can be left with Begum, she's clearly not fit to raise a child. And with Begum? It's quite clear she will probably be in custody and investigated for crimes she has committed. Whilst I sympathetic to an extent in relation to her original grooming, a line has to be drawn in literally joining a death cult. With IS foreign fighters and supporters in general, I really think they need to be returned to their homes states for criminal proceedings. Syria is not in any state to do anything. She's trash but our trash and she should be dealing with her rather than putting the pressure on the likes of the SDF, who are our allies and aren't exactly swimming in resources.
If she wants to come back then she actually can, unless the Government do something, there's not much legally anyone can do about it. She is a British Citizen regardless of any previously declared affiliation for the Islamic State as no reasonable nation recognised it. We (as in the UK) cannot strip her of citizenship as if IRCC based on UN agreements states cannot make someone stateless and in this case, Begum only has British citizenship. Ergo she's British and the child can inherit that British citizenship.
Honestly, imo, she should come back, the unborn child has done nothing wrong for that moral argument though I can't see how the child can be left with Begum, she's clearly not fit to raise a child. And with Begum? It's quite clear she will probably be in custody and investigated for crimes she has committed. Whilst I sympathetic to an extent in relation to her original grooming, a line has to be drawn in literally joining a death cult. With IS foreign fighters and supporters in general, I really think they need to be returned to their homes states for criminal proceedings. Syria is not in any state to do anything. She's trash but our trash and she should be dealing with her rather than putting the pressure on the likes of the SDF, who are our allies and aren't exactly swimming in resources.
The BBC went into a bit more depth the other day about some of the things the government could do, and some further background
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-47240100
"legally a child" is a tricky one -- as best I can tell she was somewhat past the age of criminal responsibility at the time. I know grooming techniques can be powerful as anything but that does not account for me. Still it would potentially be a modifying factor.
A serious accounting for her actions would need to be had, and I presume her parents have already been watched and grilled. I very much doubt she would be deemed fit to raise the child though. If Syria, or wherever, decide to relinquish custody (I am sure they have bigger fish to fry) then some kind of return could be had.
I am not inclined to join some others in baying for blood I have very little sympathy here.
The BBC articles mentions no UK forces, diplomatic or military, would be dispatched to grab her. Regardless of what else happens that works for me.
I saw mention of stateless people earlier in the thread. Choice video there.
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-47240100
"legally a child" is a tricky one -- as best I can tell she was somewhat past the age of criminal responsibility at the time. I know grooming techniques can be powerful as anything but that does not account for me. Still it would potentially be a modifying factor.
A serious accounting for her actions would need to be had, and I presume her parents have already been watched and grilled. I very much doubt she would be deemed fit to raise the child though. If Syria, or wherever, decide to relinquish custody (I am sure they have bigger fish to fry) then some kind of return could be had.
I am not inclined to join some others in baying for blood I have very little sympathy here.
The BBC articles mentions no UK forces, diplomatic or military, would be dispatched to grab her. Regardless of what else happens that works for me.
I saw mention of stateless people earlier in the thread. Choice video there.
I have no other opinions on this particular thing, but I must remind people that one of USA's prime stories of "Heroics" is nothing but a cowardly act of terrorism and vandalism.
The Boston Tea Part.
The assholes even had to disguise themselves because they didn't want to take responsibility if shit went south.
The Boston Tea Part.
The assholes even had to disguise themselves because they didn't want to take responsibility if shit went south.
Calling this 'they have decided to join blablabla' goes a little far, considering they used cult-cultivated manipulation tactics to get to the majority of western 'soldiers' and supporters that joined them.
also, calling daesh 'done for' is a little rich too. this is a decentralized 'organization' that's based mainly on ideology and revenge. with the way you guys proceeded in syria in the last two years (basically with absolute disregard for the population used as human shields) you've once more sown another generation that will be both subsceptible to an ideology giving them something to live for and a drive for revenge, so in the next 10 or so years, there will be another isis, likely even more radicalized.
this is all slightly more complex than you guys want to think about it.
also, calling daesh 'done for' is a little rich too. this is a decentralized 'organization' that's based mainly on ideology and revenge. with the way you guys proceeded in syria in the last two years (basically with absolute disregard for the population used as human shields) you've once more sown another generation that will be both subsceptible to an ideology giving them something to live for and a drive for revenge, so in the next 10 or so years, there will be another isis, likely even more radicalized.
this is all slightly more complex than you guys want to think about it.
The BBC article is actually pretty thorough about her options. Although its almost bordering on the verge of propaganda in a few places. 
(This sounds like something you use to keep someone out your secret services don't like.)
src: BBC article from above: https://www.bbc.com/news/uk-47240100
edit: The imagery is killer though. Here are three london teenagers switching planes on a turkish airport to go get themselves some dope arranged marriages in IS land:
facepalm is too small for this one.
Thats the 'the UK will not intervene on her behalf' statement. Bad luck.
The answer to this question is actually - yes. If she doesnt have a passport or papers, she could go to the british embassy in turkey and proclaim to have lost them.
The answer is no. But this is interesting. So basically cancel a passport (document), then draw out time to issue a new one... Clever...
As suggested before. Thats not going to happen.
Deradicalisation is a bait and switch there. That tool is not commonly used. And would certainly not be used for formerly 16 year old girls.
(This sounds like something you use to keep someone out your secret services don't like.)
src: BBC article from above: https://www.bbc.com/news/uk-47240100
edit: The imagery is killer though. Here are three london teenagers switching planes on a turkish airport to go get themselves some dope arranged marriages in IS land:
facepalm is too small for this one.
Last edited by notimp,
Why has no one questioned this, why are you out to get the baby too?
Actually...
Most western countries have birthrates that were declining for the past two decades. The bulk of babyboomers will retire around 2030 - at which point the job market will lack able hands quite significantly.
Also - this: https://www.theguardian.com/world/2016/mar/07/generation-y-pay-price-baby-boomer-pensions
So macroscopically (looking at the bigger picture) speaking, that argument is actually false. (For most western countries.)
Most western countries have birthrates that were declining for the past two decades. The bulk of babyboomers will retire around 2030 - at which point the job market will lack able hands quite significantly.
Also - this: https://www.theguardian.com/world/2016/mar/07/generation-y-pay-price-baby-boomer-pensions
So macroscopically (looking at the bigger picture) speaking, that argument is actually false.
(For most western countries.)Children grow older, become members of the working force. I also linked an article that basically tells you, that as a millenial you will never experience anything like the economic growth the baby boomer generation has experienced, and you will be effed even further, because when when that generatiuon goes into retirement you are supposed to pay for much more of them at a lower income level (pre and post tax).
If our age group had more people, this would "ease" those issues.
"Enough mouths to feed" is also not true from the standpoint, that most western governments would gladly pay for more children at the moment, because everybody sees the demographic challenges ahead.
Now that dooesnt mean, that our generation cant reduce the amount of people living in europe (currently we are doing that) its just that the shifts are challenging.
In the end stuff like this happens for example:
People who never experienced the economic growth or prosperity of babyboomers, should pay for more of them than they are as a whole in their age cohort, in amounts they are never supposed to get payed at that age on their own (lower income level).. While the babyboomers actively chose, not to have as many children on their own, to live better lives, to reach higher income levels (= have higher social mobility), so they (and a few inventions around contraception) caused the entire situation.
So millennials are effed on four levels here. Having more of us at the stage, when babyboomers retire, actually would ease the problem.
If our age group had more people, this would "ease" those issues.
"Enough mouths to feed" is also not true from the standpoint, that most western governments would gladly pay for more children at the moment, because everybody sees the demographic challenges ahead.
Now that dooesnt mean, that our generation cant reduce the amount of people living in europe (currently we are doing that) its just that the shifts are challenging.
In the end stuff like this happens for example:
People who never experienced the economic growth or prosperity of babyboomers, should pay for more of them than they are as a whole in their age cohort, in amounts they are never supposed to get payed at that age on their own (lower income level).. While the babyboomers actively chose, not to have as many children on their own, to live better lives, to reach higher income levels (= have higher social mobility), so they (and a few inventions around contraception) caused the entire situation.
So millennials are effed on four levels here. Having more of us at the stage, when babyboomers retire, actually would ease the problem.
Last edited by notimp,
Because children can be trained better. (Language skills, future fields of work, that might not be what people currently were trained for.)
Also they are "easier" on societies in terms of them not revolting against f.e. work migration - which they already have been.
The issue really is the slope though. So currently the job markets are comparatively stacked - but that will change in 2030. Rapid declines are always challenging.
Also they are "easier" on societies in terms of them not revolting against f.e. work migration - which they already have been.
The issue really is the slope though. So currently the job markets are comparatively stacked - but that will change in 2030. Rapid declines are always challenging.
Let them rot. They joined a terrorist organisation. Let them and their offspring die in those camps
Americans really have to get over the "terrorism" as the boogey man concept. They already have done stuff insane enough because of it. We dont need this to continue.
The problematic fact is, that IS was created out of the remnants of the iraqi army and leadership structures. Again something the americans are responsible for. IS instituted religious conservativism and terror in a region thats already famous for beheading people publicly, in arenas on sundays - well at least in nearby regions your presidents love to visit. And the concept of modern day suicide bombers was also invented in the region (iran afair), because of the power mismatch that comes with having modern western war gear on one side - and not much of the likes on the other.
The wars were fought over resources and profits for companies in the developed world. They've killed hundreds of thousands.
And now americans and UK citizens want to play moral beacons deciding on if people should die in refugee camps, based on their affiliation with a concept basically invented by a former president of the US.
The war on terror is something that never can end - not even in principal. Its the first self perpetuating never ending war in history. The boogey man (thanks neocons, thanks chicago school) will newer go away - because all you need is someone in a black or white scarf covering their faces, and some audio tapes from some remote cave areas - apparently to send in another 1000 troups into any country you like.
The mujahideen were basically fostered and armed by the americans. Dont forget that either.
I mean at what point do we talk about the wests responsibility in the area.
IS did some youtube marketing that apparently captured some young peoples believes. I see the same happening (although on an entirely different level) in this forum every day. You guys never care to look up references or read up on stuff, catch some facts - you always go by the emotional bait.
So why are you now in favor of a former 16 year old an their entirely innocent offspring dying in a refugee camp somewhere in the region?
Because they took of for a religious group promising to fight the righteous religious war, thats part of their religious texts and drove local politics for centuries, and fox news showed you all those beheading clips, although not quite - which are disgusting to your sensibilities (and mine), so now those are the enemy and terrorists.
They've already established a state for a while. How do you do "terrorism" in your own state? (Hint you dont.) The term is stupid.
And as a result you've learned nothing. You still basically despise peole based on televised stories and invented concepts, you care frack all about the west actually being responsible on many levels for this happening. You make unborn children responsible for their parents actions, then you publicly announce who should die in refugee camps, because you are unwilling to take in refugees from war ridden countries.
Americans are idiots. As a bunch. They've been the military protectorate/empire of the world for decades. They've never even conceptualized what they are causing by their actions.
They currently try to overthrow south american countries again. But all of that is liberation of course - and no one even opens up a thread for that in here. Of course they arent the terrorists. They never are.
Even if they have their politicians show up to hold speeches in the ukraine on the maidan, even if they sponsored "overthrow your dictator" schools in both egypt and armenia.
Even if the current president (/dictator) of egypt comes from another american military leadership academy - you dont care, you dont know any of that stuff.
You just want to play ignorant meets emotionally righteous. Now whos the fundamentalist.
PS: Like this post, because you've already liked SH*T like, let a mother and their unborn child die in a refugee camp.
--------------------- MERGED ---------------------------
I can look up the name of the fuck up american hardliner, that managed to alienate all of the iraqi leadership structure apart from one religious fraction in three days after the end of the last invasion.
He didnt give a fuck. He was directly responsible for birthing IS as a result. I've blocked out his name. But I can look it up again.
edit: Didn't look up his name, but here is at least an article for reference:
http://time.com/3900753/isis-iraq-syria-army-united-states-military/
This was an american decision. Made by a religious political hardliner that shouldnt even have been sent by your powers to be to the region much less given political leadership over anything. Your fault. Many people died and got displaced because of it.
Also - just to give you a formal notice, in the proxy war over Syria, russia won, and the US interests lost. Again. Now you are sabotaging diplomacy efforts in the region, to keep everyone guessing. But you are not the terrorists. You never are. Its always the other f*ckers, the ones with less military equipment.
The problematic fact is, that IS was created out of the remnants of the iraqi army and leadership structures. Again something the americans are responsible for. IS instituted religious conservativism and terror in a region thats already famous for beheading people publicly, in arenas on sundays - well at least in nearby regions your presidents love to visit. And the concept of modern day suicide bombers was also invented in the region (iran afair), because of the power mismatch that comes with having modern western war gear on one side - and not much of the likes on the other.
The wars were fought over resources and profits for companies in the developed world. They've killed hundreds of thousands.
And now americans and UK citizens want to play moral beacons deciding on if people should die in refugee camps, based on their affiliation with a concept basically invented by a former president of the US.
The war on terror is something that never can end - not even in principal. Its the first self perpetuating never ending war in history. The boogey man (thanks neocons, thanks chicago school) will newer go away - because all you need is someone in a black or white scarf covering their faces, and some audio tapes from some remote cave areas - apparently to send in another 1000 troups into any country you like.
The mujahideen were basically fostered and armed by the americans. Dont forget that either.
I mean at what point do we talk about the wests responsibility in the area.
IS did some youtube marketing that apparently captured some young peoples believes. I see the same happening (although on an entirely different level) in this forum every day. You guys never care to look up references or read up on stuff, catch some facts - you always go by the emotional bait.
So why are you now in favor of a former 16 year old an their entirely innocent offspring dying in a refugee camp somewhere in the region?
Because they took of for a religious group promising to fight the righteous religious war, thats part of their religious texts and drove local politics for centuries, and fox news showed you all those beheading clips, although not quite - which are disgusting to your sensibilities (and mine), so now those are the enemy and terrorists.
They've already established a state for a while. How do you do "terrorism" in your own state? (Hint you dont.) The term is stupid.
And as a result you've learned nothing. You still basically despise peole based on televised stories and invented concepts, you care frack all about the west actually being responsible on many levels for this happening. You make unborn children responsible for their parents actions, then you publicly announce who should die in refugee camps, because you are unwilling to take in refugees from war ridden countries.
Americans are idiots. As a bunch. They've been the military protectorate/empire of the world for decades. They've never even conceptualized what they are causing by their actions.
They currently try to overthrow south american countries again. But all of that is liberation of course - and no one even opens up a thread for that in here. Of course they arent the terrorists. They never are.
Even if they have their politicians show up to hold speeches in the ukraine on the maidan, even if they sponsored "overthrow your dictator" schools in both egypt and armenia.
Even if the current president (/dictator) of egypt comes from another american military leadership academy - you dont care, you dont know any of that stuff.
You just want to play ignorant meets emotionally righteous. Now whos the fundamentalist.
PS: Like this post, because you've already liked SH*T like, let a mother and their unborn child die in a refugee camp.
--------------------- MERGED ---------------------------
I can look up the name of the fuck up american hardliner, that managed to alienate all of the iraqi leadership structure apart from one religious fraction in three days after the end of the last invasion.
He didnt give a fuck. He was directly responsible for birthing IS as a result. I've blocked out his name. But I can look it up again.
edit: Didn't look up his name, but here is at least an article for reference:
http://time.com/3900753/isis-iraq-syria-army-united-states-military/
This was an american decision. Made by a religious political hardliner that shouldnt even have been sent by your powers to be to the region much less given political leadership over anything. Your fault. Many people died and got displaced because of it.
Also - just to give you a formal notice, in the proxy war over Syria, russia won, and the US interests lost. Again. Now you are sabotaging diplomacy efforts in the region, to keep everyone guessing. But you are not the terrorists. You never are. Its always the other f*ckers, the ones with less military equipment.
Last edited by notimp,
Similar threads
-
Psionic Roshambo
-
AncientBoi
-
Xdqwerty
what are you looking at? -
RetroNerdGamer
-
@
Psionic Roshambo:
Olivio is a brand of artificial butter here it's commercials featured an actor named Fabio who was on TV and book covers lol "sex symbol"+1
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
[constantly]