Sign in to follow this  
Followers 0

Shamima Begum.. IS Teenage Defector wants to return

245 posts in this topic

6 minutes ago, kiplette said:

Why is it bitter? She is a UK problem, and the UK should have to deal with her. Whether she wants to or not, that is what should happen.

 

I meant bitter for the British authorities who were too rash with their decision before thinking everything through. 

3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
23 hours ago, Eupathic Impulse said:

 

Bangladesh, as I understand it, does not agree that she ever had Bangladeshi citizenship.  If she has a legal right to it, she may have to sue in a Bangladeshi court. Until then, she would be stateless.

 

I would actually tend to agree with Bangladesh on that.  Having citizenship and having the right to citizenship isn't the same thing.  If she or her parents had registered her for citizenship, there would be paperwork and there would be no doubt that she has it. In the current situation, if she were to not request it before the age of 21, she will have missed the boat on it and that does not mean that she was a citizen until age 21 and lost her citizenship but rather that she never had it.  IMO she can't be or have been a citizen if the Bangladesh authorities didn't even know about her existence. 

 

As for still having the right to it and being able to request it now and having that request approved or denied it a different matter.  It doesn't seem likely at this point though that she will request it.  If she did, like you said, she might have to go to court if they refuse but I think it's more likely that she will not request it because it's really UK citizenship she wants and her chances of getting it back are better if she's stateless.

 

In another case, US authorities seem to have decided that this woman is not a US citizen although she was born in the US and held a US passport.  They are not even saying that they stripped her of citizenship, just that she never had it.

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 2/21/2019, 12:03:24, Maarsch said:

Is the father still Dutch? They've been revoking citizenship of people that have traveled to Syria. The husband is currently on the terrorist watchlist.

 

I don't think citizenship revocation applies to people like Yago Riedijk (the child's father). His ancestry is not precisely clear from the media but he appears, to be from a middle-class Dutch family, likely a citizen from both sides with no other citizenship. Unlike his wife, he has been accused of specific crimes and faces prison, and he is a prisoner of SDF currently. So you could say that this situation is not only of British making, but also of Dutch making.

 

But actually, I don't believe in that sort of collective responsibility, except that Syria should not have to shoulder this burden.  But this isn't specifically a Dutch problem, a British problem, a Western problem, a problem with Islam or Muslims as such, etc.  Militant movements are attractive to a certain sort of young person, because they offer something to believe in beyond the self, and beyond saccharine altruism.  Extremists movements offer something that I guess a lot of TTers abhor and can't imagine wanting: the very comfort of arbitrary, rigid, top-down control, which gives life meaning in a world of too many choices.  For some people, if everything is possible, nothing is meaningful.  Under ISIS, under white supremacists, under weird suicide cults, what you are told to do gives life meaning, without that meaning being squeezed out like lemon juice by the vice of empty, liberal reason. Where the crisis itself in the Middle East came from is one story -- why Yago Riedijk and Shamima Begum would want to live that way is another.

3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 2/23/2019, 12:44:52, Eupathic Impulse said:

 

I don't think citizenship revocation applies to people like Yago Riedijk (the child's father). His ancestry is not precisely clear from the media but he appears, to be from a middle-class Dutch family, likely a citizen from both sides with no other citizenship.

 

With a name like Riedijk . . . yeah.

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

On 2/24/2019, 3:34:48, Maarsch said:

With a name like Riedijk . . . yeah.

 

The Netherlands were a major colonial power, so you never know how those names spread or who his mother or grandmothers might be.

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
9 minutes ago, Anna66 said:

She should not be allowed to return. It is terrible what she did.

 

What about the 400 or more who have returned.  Why is she different?

1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Well since we actually created ISIS in the first place as we did create the Ikhwan who created Saudi Arabia (see Saudi Arabia: an ISIS which made it on Zero Hedge),  our intel services pretty much know the names of who ISIS actually are, also their weapon systems which came from Libya originally, I think we need to bring her home and put her in a safe house until she gives the info on where and when her compatriots will next meet. Then we drop one of these beauties on them:

 

 

 

That little beauty is a Mobile Ordnance Aerial Blast, or MOAB, colloquially known as a Mother of All bombs, dropped in Afghanistan in 2017. The Us has for years asked Pakistan to stop supporting the Taleban and they ignored it, so the Us dropped this and wiped out 300 Taleban in one go. The bomb penetrates the ground to 200 feet, so their tunnels were useless. It weighs 10,000 kg. I have witnessed a 500kg blast on the Army base from several miles away (it shakes your computer in your office) so that must have been a scorcher. 

 

 

 

 

 

 

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

So.. A game changer...

 

She has lost the 3rd child to  pneumonia ... 

 

Now the qustion remains... Should she be allowed back to the UK... should she learn to stop making children ( Isnt the loss of 3 children enough hurt to put one off child birth for ever?)

 

 

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

All the while she was over there, I guess she didn't have a lot of choice Piggy.

 

2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

That is very sad. Of course the spin will be that if they had been in the UK, the infant would have had better health care.

1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Well, without the child, there is no reason to allow her in. If she becomes pregnant again in the refugee camp then she will be no different from the other pregnant refugees - apart from her past of course. We have already revoked her citizenship, her Dutch husband wants her to live with him in Holland so really we shouldn't waste any more time on her.

 

@fraufruit It is sad but I think she wanted to come back because of the health care. Let's face it, the UK gave her parents and family a far more comfortable life than they could have hoped for in Bangladesh. She was educated by the UK, given healthcare by the UK, had access to all sorts of things that would have been banned by ISIS, treated as an equal citizen by the UK and then she turns her back on the system that gave her so much and so many opportunuties. She made her bed so she can lie in it.

2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
17 minutes ago, French bean said:

 

@fraufruit It is sad but I think she wanted to come back because of the health care. Let's face it, the UK gave her parents and family a far more comfortable life than they could have hoped for in Bangladesh.

 

FF knows that

 

On 2/18/2019, 1:31:40, fraufruit said:

 

Full Monty dole.

 

The interesting thing is that even the people who want her "back" in the uk want to see her imprisoned so it seems the only real question is who we think should pay for her jail time.

 

On 2/21/2019, 9:04:11, MadAxeMurderer said:

Would you prefer if he kept the dog chained in his yard (in prison in the UK) or let it free in the woods (in Syria).

 

I'm not saying bring her back to UK out of compassion but out of responsibility.

 

On 2/21/2019, 9:08:49, theGman said:

This. That's all it is.

 

On 2/21/2019, 12:42:47, kiplette said:

This.

 

Best solution considering what has been said here seems to be she gets sent to bangladesh, and the uk agrees to pay for her life imprisonment there.  Its a win win win.  

2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
46 minutes ago, SpiderPig said:

So.. A game changer...

 

She has lost the 3rd child to  pneumonia ... 

 

Now the qustion remains... Should she be allowed back to the UK... should she learn to stop making children ( Isnt the loss of 3 children enough hurt to put one off child birth for ever?)

 

I actually think that the UK revoking her citizenship was iffy because they rendered her stateless and they are not supposed to do that.  As for Bangladeshi citizenship, she doesn't have it and never did because she / her parents never registered her.  She could apply for it based on her mother but since she was never in Bangladesh to begin with, why is she their problem?  She was raised in the UK, she went to school in the UK.  As far as I can see, she's a UK problem.

 

As for having more kids after losing kids, I don't think they had contraceptives readily available in the kalifat and even if they did, it's probably against their religion to use them.

 

17 minutes ago, French bean said:

Well, without the child, there is no reason to allow her in. If she becomes pregnant again in the refugee camp then she will be no different from the other pregnant refugees - apart from her past of course. We have already revoked her citizenship, her Dutch husband wants her to live with him in Holland so really we shouldn't waste any more time on her.

 

So I don't really think that her Dutch husband has control over whether she will be allowed to live with him in Holland.  Their authorities have not revoked his citizenship but they have stated they are not going to help him return and if he returns on his own, he may be imprisoned.  As any other citizen, he could apply to sponsor his wife, however, there is a bit of a problem.  Before his wife is allowed to immigrate, she will have to have background checks.  Unfortunately, she's a terrorist, so it's fairly unlikely that she will pass.  Hence he can not sponsor her.

3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 28.2.2019, 19:46:12, snowingagain said:

 

What about the 400 or more who have returned.  Why is she different?

 

None of them should have been able to.

 

2 hours ago, SpiderPig said:

So.. A game changer...

 

She has lost the 3rd child to  pneumonia ... 

 

Now the qustion remains... Should she be allowed back to the UK... should she learn to stop making children ( Isnt the loss of 3 children enough hurt to put one off child birth for ever?)

 

 

 

Terrible how the innocent children always suffer. Absolutely tragic. Life is unfair.

1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

This is awful. So the extremists are now attacking the refugees in the camps for not accepting their doctrine.

 

https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-6789425/Guards-forced-isolate-foreign-ISIS-women-Syrian-camp-attacked-occupants.html

 

We should not let them return, and if the authorities have to let them return then they should face trial for high treason. These people are dangerous.

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Bangladesh has rejected her...

 

But her father has just been interviewed on the Beeb... He is clearly Bangladeshi and still living in Bangladesh... Why doesnt he take is daughter in?

 

 

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!


Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.


Sign In Now
Sign in to follow this  
Followers 0