Not sure about the accuracy of the title of this thread. Is there any evidence that she was a "Fighter"?
"ISIS Bride" would be more accurate
you sure go to a lot of trouble to pretend you dont understand the simple point i made boggles
The Daily Telegraph reported that Begum had been an "enforcer" in IS's "morality police", and had tried to recruit other young women to join the jihadist group.[24] The report said that she was allowed to carry a Kalashnikov rifle and earned a reputation as a strict enforcer of IS's laws, such as dress codes for women. An anti-IS activist was also reported by The Daily Telegraph as saying that there were allegations of Begum stitching suicide bombs into explosive vests so they could not be removed without detonating.[25]
Shamima Begum - Wikipedia
depends on your source , some here would like to believe that she was forced to go there against her will and did nothing but plan her escape and quake in fear from her captors ,
others aren't so gullible
Telegraph?
Bozo's bendy banana lie spinner?
That comic is a sick joke, it had the second biggest liar in the known universe on its payroll and generating Tory fiction.
im sure you know the "real truth " though ....
No but I know better than to quote fiction peddlers as a reference. Bozo is now working for the Daily Mail, another source of fairy stories for the thinking challenged.
And some here would believe that those things should be adjudicated at a trial as other criminal activities are and that a (large) cohort of citizens should not be at risk of having their citizenship being stripped at the complete whim of a Home Secretary.
you could have followed the link and saw that it was a wiki page ,
as for challenging fairy stories' are we not allowed to challange Shamima's ? what with her massive motivation to lie and play down her crimes
On 22 February 2023, the Special Immigration Appeals Commission rejected her appeal against revocation of her British citizenship, which effectively prohibits her from entering the United Kingdom. Begum's lawyers said they would appeal the decision.[52][53] On 23 February 2024, the Court of Appeal unanimously rejected a further appeal from her against the commission's decision.[62]
seems a court made the call not a home secretary
this information isnt hard to find ,you know
If she is a criminal, then she is most definitely a British criminal and Syria should be allowed to deport her there. I'm not against her being punished, I just don't get why people think it is acceptable for Syria or Bangladesh to be punished by having to be responsible for her, for the rest of her life. They didn't cause this problem.
The Telegraph was quoted as a source.
That's more than sufficient.
If Wiki was quoted and I was concerned about the detail, I would have followed up. I would not follow up a reference toe the Telegraph, Express, Mail, Murdochs crud , the Dandy or Beano.
Challenge the woman all you want. I don't know if you are aware of how the press works in the UK, but for the last decade or so media interviews are not very searching if it reveals anything outside what the government is comfortable with.
In the last year the BBC has actually begun to ask questions and not let every statement by unchecked, but they are rare in that respect and it is recent.
There are few papers I trust in England and even those tend to be a tad biased according to the reporter producing the article.
I always second source anything I consider important and no longer use the BBC as a serious news source.
The HS made the call, the court deferred to them as they give wide latitude to invocations of National Security.
The court affirmed the decision, they did not make it.
My gods the horror of Begum facing consequences for her decisions.
But what consequences, who decides what the consequences are?
If the woman is British up to the point of having her citizenship taken, why does the justice that is the right of all British citizens not apply?
Does the Magna Carta have an "except Begum" clause?
ultimately no not legally as isis is not a state but a terrorist group therefore cannot have real laws.
Wasn't she given to a very nice Dutch guy,, even if she was 15.
This very nice guy quickly got her up the duff, as they do round there.
Utopia !!!
isis is not a state so it's rules and laws are not legal and are therefore irrelevant.
Not in her mind view or her family, who are fairly strict on the religion.
which is what we are asking for.
as it is, britain has let her away with whatever she did, she is not facing any consequences.
the surviving victims of isis on the other hand are being abused, hence facing consequences they don't deserve, for something they didn't do.
doesn't matter, the law says otherwise.
You don't get out much do you?
Nice guys get the female of the species "up the duff" all over the planet.
You might say it's an occupational hazard of being female.
Did your dad not explain :-)
And here was me thinking that the Rule of Law was supposed to mean something in our civilisation.
She has faced no trial for her actions, and what hearings have happened about her citizenship have happened without her as the UK is apparently terrified of a young woman stepping foot on their soil. We do not allow government ministers to decide sentences for crime on a whim, so why allow them remove citizenship so? Especially given they are making her stateless against international law. Not that the UK cares much for such things these days.
"A young woman"
You'd swear this happened because she took a wrong turn on her way to Pennys FFS.
It's hard to blame the Tories for being afraid of women. Braverman and Patel have convinced them that the human female is an aggressive non indigenous species although Truss has calmed the party slightly by emphasising a softer side that the similarities to decayed lettuce some offshoots of the sex portray.
What, pray tell, is it you think she would do if given what should be her constitutional right to defend herself while being under guard the entire time? No one is denying she has committed a crime, but she is, in essence, facing extra-judicial punishment for it.
But apparently as soon as we just don't like someone its fine to strip them of all their rights. That definitely won't come back to bite anyone else ever.
I think you’re rather oversimplifying it and I suspect on purpose.
I mean surely you know well enough she’s not just some “young woman” who had her citizenship revoked because the UK government “didn’t like her” and these are just poor faith arguments.
I mean she left the UK to join ISIS why the hell would they want her back?
That still doesn’t mean U.K. rules apply: the age of consent in Syria is 15.
So no laws broken in that respect. If we were all expected to obey the laws of our own country when we travel abroad, imagine the mess that would be! American students couldn’t have a drink in Ireland until they reached 21!
I am not oversimplfying anything. What risk does she pose if allowed back, under arrest, to the UK to face trial? That is what we are talking about here. The government is claiming a national security risk so great that she can not be afforded her normal rights.
I am entirely cognizant of what she has done but to suggest that it is worthy of the UK brazenly breaking international law is something that needs to be supported by some demonstrable fact.
There is a reason we don't allow police to torture murder suspects too.
Also, I 100% stand by the opinion that the government did this for purely domestic political reasons which is gross apart from anything else.
As usual, the people only too happy to shout 'Send them back where they came from' after a foreign national commits a crime do a complete about turn when it's countries in the middle east who want to send the likes of Begum or Lisa Smith back where they came from.
They both should have been tried where they committed their crimes, sentenced and buried.
![Photo of [Deleted User]](https://w9.vanillicon.com/v2/925678a10b2fdb0546d802550390a10f.svg)
