nav[aria-label="Primary Navigation"] { padding: 0; & ul { list-style: none; width: 100%; display: flex; flex-direction: row; justify-content: start; align-items: start; gap: 30px; padding: 0; & li { margin: 0; } & ul li { list-style: none; } } }

Child Item

ISI Fighter Shamima Begum Not allowed to return to the UK

Eric Cartman

whatever about their management of other scenarios, the UK got this one spot on.

https://www.bbc.com/news/uk-56209007

we should learn from them and never have allowed Lisa Smyth to return here.

Islamic terrorism has no place in europe.

Find more posts tagged with

Quick Links

Comments

GT89

Eric Cartman wrote: »

we should learn from them and never have allowed Lisa Smyth to return here.

And Halawa

Eric Cartman

GT89 wrote: »

And Halawa

That muslim brotherhood radical should never have been allowed return, let him peddle his hate in egypt not here

[Deleted User]

Eric Cartman wrote: »

Leaving terrorists like Begum stateless is not something thats going to concern me too much,

She has to face the consequences of her actions and should apply for asylum etc in some muslim country

Or in Holland where her husband lives.

[Deleted User]

GT89 wrote: »

And Halawa

What ever happened to the sisters' husband.
IIRC there were some issues with his entry to the country

[Deleted User]

Deleted User wrote: »

Or in Holland where her husband lives.

So her husband returns to The Netherlands but Shamima doesn't return to Britain?

[Deleted User]

Deleted User wrote: »

So her husband returns to The Netherlands but Shamima doesn't return to Britain?

On further research, it would appear that he’s still in prison in Syria.

Eric Cartman

https://www.mirror.co.uk/news/uk-news/nonsensical-shamima-begum-ruling-says-23574061

Heres a terrorism apologist hatchet piece from the mirror , trying to say its ‘racism’ to not allow begum back.
Looking up the author theres a pattern to her agenda..

biko

She could try for Sweden instead

A programme to rehabilitate former Isis fighters and other extremists with housing, employment, education and financial support is being trialled in Sweden.

https://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/europe/sweden-isis-fighters-city-lund-returning-jihadis-housing-job-education-benefits-reintegration-propgramme-a7371266.html

listermint

Eric Cartman wrote: »

Leaving terrorists like Begum stateless is not something thats going to concern me too much,

She has to face the consequences of her actions and should apply for asylum etc in some muslim country

How would you handle a terrorist that was living here and their states decides to remove their sole citizenship.

Genuine question I've seen no realistic proposal to that question. Since this is what you think is such a fantastic idea.

There isn't a no state country you can ship them off to.

Eric Cartman

listermint wrote: »

How would you handle a terrorist that was living here and their states decides to remove their sole citizenship.

Genuine question I've seen no realistic proposal to that question. Since this is what you think is such a fantastic idea.

There isn't a no state country you can ship them off to.

Ideally have an agreement with a country in which human right and prisoners rights are lacking and send them there for the rest of their days, but in reality we’d probably have to stomach the insane cost of putting them in our comfy prisons, thankfully in this instance the terrorist is not in europe and we have a chance to keep her out

TomTomTim

Eric Cartman wrote: »

https://www.mirror.co.uk/news/uk-news/nonsensical-shamima-begum-ruling-says-23574061

Heres a terrorism apologist hatchet piece from the mirror , trying to say its ‘racism’ to not allow begum back.
Looking up the author theres a pattern to her agenda..

She's simply a Pakistani Muslim woman defending another Pakistani Muslim woman. Your not meant to point out these tribalistic biases, but they exist, and are one of the biggest issues of the modern world.

[Deleted User]

Eric Cartman wrote: »

Leaving terrorists like Begum stateless is not something thats going to concern me too much,

She has to face the consequences of her actions and should apply for asylum etc in some muslim country

Me neither, but that's not the point though. There are always legal implications beyond the specific case

DeadHand

British prisons are a notorious hotbed for Islamists to convert and radicalise. Hence, even imprisoning Begum upon her reentry carries its own dangers.

This woman willingly went to extraordinary efforts to join the Islamic State and participated enthusiastically in it. She remains unrepentant as regards both her own actions and that of the Islamic State.

Begum forfeited her right to the British citizenship when she joined the professed enemies of the British state and nation.

The British are right to endeavor to keep her out, hopefully they can continue to do so. They have a tragic number of Islamists operating within their homeland as it is.

biko

She could try for Dutch citizenship via her husband Yago Riedijk.
He is a Dutch convert to Islam and is thought to have surrendered to a group of Syrian fighters.

end of the road

John Doe1 wrote: »

Common sense prevails.

Islam is an incredibly toxic force in the world, unlike Christanity and other major religions, the vast majority of followers believe the Quar'an to be the actual word of God and actively encourages followers to proselytise.

There is no debate with the lessons taught it in, you follow or you are a non-person.

Individuals muslims (mostly the more middle class) can be intelligent, seemingly liberal in attitude and good tax-paying citizens but taken as a group, they are illiberal in the extreme and follow values anathema to western liberal thought going back to Ancient Greece.

Make no mistake, there are many muslims who might seem moderate to their non-muslim friends and co-workers who silently supported ISIS and this woman.

islam is no different to any of the other religions, anyone who actually believes in a religion believes the holy book of that religion is thee word of god, and that one must spread the word of god to the people, and that there is no debate on that fact.
why that is a surprise to anyone is beyond me.
lets not mix up allacart catholicism with actual belief in religion.
certainly islamic and other extremism are problems and governments need to get a grip on it.

Nqp15hhu wrote: »

Good. Don’t want her in my country.

sure, but it's unlikely she would be going to northern ireland, and she certainly won't be going to the ROI.
she will be going back to england where she belongs eventually, so you won't have to worry about her, she will be the problem of the westminster government.

riffmongous wrote: »

I'm surprised the UK don't see the danger for themselves here, if some other country decided to strip the citizenship of say anyone who fled and applied for asylum in the UK, there would be no way to deport failed applications anymore. There are good reasons legal reasons why you don't revoke citizenship, take them back and lock them up.

that's it in a nut shell, and you can bet those supporting what happened here would be up in arms over that if it was to happen.
they would be right, but they will refuse to see that they actually supported bringing about this situation.
remember, the british government and a lot of it's supporters operate on the basis of british exceptionalism, they think that no other country would dare do the same thing and strip a citizen of their citizenship so they won't have to take them back, i'm sure they might find out that they are wrong some day.

Eric Cartman wrote: »

Leaving terrorists like Begum stateless is not something thats going to concern me too much,

She has to face the consequences of her actions and should apply for asylum etc in some muslim country

it should concern you, if she escapes from the camps, which is eventually likely as either those in charge of the camps will get sick of having to manage them, or assad decides enough is enough, you can be guaranteed she will be at risk of getting into a number of different countries, either undetected and likely without documentation.
she is a massive security risk right now, much more so compared to being back home in britain where she will be a security risk, but not on a world scale and certainly britain would have to actually deal with her.
the consequences for her actions is to be locked up back in her home country of england and she should absolutely face those, as it is she is free and is facing no consequences.
why should she apply for assylum in a muslim country where she has no place?
she is british and belongs to britain, the rest of us do not want her and won't be taking her and syria won't be keeping her long term.

Deleted User wrote: »

Or in Holland where her husband lives.

she's not from holland and wasn't born there, so they aren't taking her either quite rightly.
no i'm afraid she is a british problem and britain will eventually have to grow up and face up to their responsibilities, especially the fact they didn't bother implementing travel banns and more vetting of people traveling to turkey and other areas where people eventually traveled to syria from.

Eric Cartman

end of the road wrote: »

islam is no different to any of the other religions, anyone who actually believes in a religion believes the holy book of that religion is thee word of god, and that one must spread the word of god to the people, and that there is no debate on that fact.
why that is a surprise to anyone is beyond me.
lets not mix up allacart catholicism with actual belief in religion.
certainly islamic and other extremism are problems and governments need to get a grip on it.

sure, but it's unlikely she would be going to northern ireland, and she certainly won't be going to the ROI.
she will be going back to england where she belongs eventually, so you won't have to worry about her, she will be the problem of the westminster government.

that's it in a nut shell, and you can bet those supporting what happened here would be up in arms over that if it was to happen.
they would be right, but they will refuse to see that they actually supported bringing about this situation.
remember, the british government and a lot of it's supporters operate on the basis of british exceptionalism, they think that no other country would dare do the same thing and strip a citizen of their citizenship so they won't have to take them back, i'm sure they might find out that they are wrong some day.

it should concern you, if she escapes from the camps, which is eventually likely as either those in charge of the camps will get sick of having to manage them, or assad decides enough is enough, you can be guaranteed she will be at risk of getting into a number of different countries, either undetected and likely without documentation.
she is a massive security risk right now, much more so compared to being back home in britain where she will be a security risk, but not on a world scale and certainly britain would have to actually deal with her.
the consequences for her actions is to be locked up back in her home country of england and she should absolutely face those, as it is she is free and is facing no consequences.
why should she apply for assylum in a muslim country where she has no place?
she is british and belongs to britain, the rest of us do not want her and won't be taking her and syria won't be keeping her long term.

she's not from holland and wasn't born there, so they aren't taking her either quite rightly.
no i'm afraid she is a british problem and britain will eventually have to grow up and face up to their responsibilities, especially the fact they didn't bother implementing travel banns and more vetting of people traveling to turkey and other areas where people eventually traveled to syria from.

With your posts about supporting the IRA and your over use of the word british, Im getting the opinion that your posts are arguing in bad faith , that you see Begum as just as much a threat as the rest of us but only defend her because you want britain to have to suffer her, not out of any concern of actual citizenship etc.. its just ‘getting one over on the brits’

CtevenSrowder

Eric Cartman wrote: »

With your posts about supporting the IRA and your over use of the word british, Im getting the opinion that your posts are arguing in bad faith , that you see Begum as just as much a threat as the rest of us but only defend her because you want britain to have to suffer her, not out of any concern of actual citizenship etc.. its just ‘getting one over on the brits’

Supports international law but also supports the Ra, couldn't make it up.

end of the road

Eric Cartman wrote: »

https://www.mirror.co.uk/news/uk-news/nonsensical-shamima-begum-ruling-says-23574061

Heres a terrorism apologist hatchet piece from the mirror , trying to say its ‘racism’ to not allow begum back.
Looking up the author theres a pattern to her agenda..

no terrorism appollogism in that article.
and the belief that racism is involved in this is probably not unreasonable actually.

biko wrote: »

She could try for Sweden instead

https://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/europe/sweden-isis-fighters-city-lund-returning-jihadis-housing-job-education-benefits-reintegration-propgramme-a7371266.html

she isn't swedish so that is off the table.

Eric Cartman wrote: »

Ideally have an agreement with a country in which human right and prisoners rights are lacking and send them there for the rest of their days, but in reality we’d probably have to stomach the insane cost of putting them in our comfy prisons, thankfully in this instance the terrorist is not in europe and we have a chance to keep her out

well no, realistically any chance of keeping her out of europe is only going to be temporary.

Gatling

end of the road wrote: »

well no, realistically any chance of keeping her out of europe is only going to be temporary.

It's working so far ...

They still have other options to deal with her permanently along with others of her ilk

end of the road

DeadHand wrote: »

British prisons are a notorious hotbed for Islamists to convert and radicalise. Hence, even imprisoning Begum upon her reentry carries its own dangers.

This woman willingly went to extraordinary efforts to join the Islamic State and participated enthusiastically in it. She remains unrepentant as regards both her own actions and that of the Islamic State.

Begum forfeited her right to the British citizenship when she joined the professed enemies of the British state and nation.

The British are right to endeavor to keep her out, hopefully they can continue to do so. They have a tragic number of Islamists operating within their homeland as it is.

agreed, radicalisation in prison is something britain seems to refuse to deal with, probably because it would require them paying for it.
she did not forfit her right to british citizenship as given she is british born and making someone stateless is illegal, and given the absolute dangers otherwise that would be brought about, it is not possible to forfit a right to citizenship unless one is actually a citizen of another country by birth.
the british are wrong to put the rest of the world at great risk and they must be either forced to rethink or other countries should just refuse to take back citizens which britain wish to deport until britain grow up.
britain has the amount of islamic extremism it does because it does not want to pay for anything, it does not want to provide funding and resources to the various authorities and programs and it does not wish to get to grips with any of it's many, many issues.

biko wrote: »

She could try for Dutch citizenship via her husband Yago Riedijk.
He is a Dutch convert to Islam and is thought to have surrendered to a group of Syrian fighters.

again she's not dutch and isn't going to be, holland isn't going to take her, so trying for dutch citizenship is a waste of time.
she is ultimately british and there is no way of getting around that fact, there is no country which she can be palmed off on and no country will be bullied into taking her.
she is the rubbish of britain and their problem.

Eric Cartman wrote: »

With your posts about supporting the IRA and your over use of the word british, Im getting the opinion that your posts are arguing in bad faith , that you see Begum as just as much a threat as the rest of us but only defend her because you want britain to have to suffer her, not out of any concern of actual citizenship etc.. its just ‘getting one over on the brits’

i want the brits to suffer her because she is theirs and theirs alone, it's not up to other countries to have to deal with her or other british isis fighters, and absolutely the dangerous situation of other countries playing the same game as britain is a major issue that must not be allowed to take hold.
how in gods name do you come to the conclusion that i see her as being as much of a threat as the rest of us? it is that sort of nonsense that is arguing in bad faith.
i don't know about you but i'm certainly no threat to anyone and i assume that is the case for most people, begum on the other hand is most certainly a threat but a threat that has everything in place back in her home country to prevent against.

CtevenSrowder wrote: »

Supports international law but also supports the Ra, couldn't make it up.

both aren't mutually exclusive, it is possible to recognise why and how the resergence of the IRA came about and also support international law, something the british were in breach of a plenty in relation to northern ireland both before and during the troubles.

DeadHand

end of the road wrote: »

britain has the amount of islamic extremism it does because it does not want to pay for anything, it does not want to provide funding and resources to the various authorities and programs and it does not wish to get to grips with any of it's many, many issues.

No, Britain has the the amount of of Islamic extremism it does because it allowed a transformative level of mass immigration from Islamic nations over the last few decades.

Elmer Blooker

So how were hundreds if not thousands of unaccompanied minors (basically children) such as Shamina Begum allowed into Turkey without a parent/guardian and manage to cross an international border into Syria with no questions asked?

DelaneysMule

I wonder if this would have happened if her name was Eleanor and she was from an affluent area of the UK.

Gatling

Elmer Blooker wrote: »

So how were hundreds if not thousands of unaccompanied minors

Maybe ask Arthur the Russian ambulance driver (Isis member) who wants to come to Ireland

Rodney Bathgate

Gatling wrote: »

It's working so far ...

They still have other options to deal with her permanently along with others of her ilk

Hellfire missile.

Rodney Bathgate

DelaneysMule wrote: »

I wonder if this would have happened if her name was Eleanor and she was from an affluent area of the UK.

Eleanor probably wouldn’t have committed treason.

Gatling

Rodney Bathgate wrote: »

Hellfire missile.

Waste of an expensive missile , the SaS and various other special forces are still very active in the area a 9mm round is much cheaper

punisher5112

How could anyone in their right mind actually be behind such a vile excuse of a human being....

Even the insane know in most cases right from wrong

Rodney Bathgate

punisher5112 wrote: »

How could anyone in their right mind actually be behind such a vile excuse of a human being....

Even the insane know in most cases right from wrong

She doesn’t even show any remorse. There are ‘useful idiots’ to defend anything these days, a very obvious ‘anti-British’ slant to it also.

jam_mac_jam

DelaneysMule wrote: »

I wonder if this would have happened if her name was Eleanor and she was from an affluent area of the UK.

Jack Letts also lost his citizenship. Duel Canadian citizen.