# Now that Daesh is done for what do with them?



## Deleted-479522 (Feb 15, 2019)

Deleted


----------



## RaptorDMG (Feb 15, 2019)

Fragcula said:


> In recent UK news is a perfect example (https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-47260916) this girl headed out to Syria to join them and now wants back in to the UK.
> 
> She is pregnant and wants to take advantage of our NHS and welfare to raise her kid (this is an open admission of her's) and she is unrepentant (she "doesn't regret" what she did).
> 
> My 2 cents, GitMo is too good for this woman and she should be left to rot in Syria where she would hopefully stand trial and receive the death penalty while still pregnant.


She should be told you went and joined a terrorist organization and we should not take her back or take her back on the agreement of life imprisonment.

I think we should repeal the citizenship of anyone who willingly joined a terrorist organization.


----------



## DCG (Feb 15, 2019)

My two cents have been unchanged.

They decided to join an foreign nation and fought for them (and yes, I'm counting woman and children under that too) against yet another foreign nation.
They don't have any claim any more on the citizenship of their previous nation.

They fought, they lost.


----------



## Deleted-479522 (Feb 15, 2019)

Deleted


----------



## RaptorDMG (Feb 15, 2019)

Fragcula said:


> Life in prison will be much better than the refugee camp (which she should not have been allowed into since she contributed to displacing those people).
> 
> I fear she is going to get off well with this.


Better she rots behind bars or stays abroad than spreading IS propaganda or committing terrorist acts herself in the UK


----------



## Deleted-479522 (Feb 15, 2019)

Deleted


----------



## RaptorDMG (Feb 15, 2019)

Fragcula said:


> True.
> 
> Although people already get radicalised in prison so she would be a danger to others in prison and UK in general if she comes over.
> 
> Is the deathpenalty still on the cards for being a traitor in the UK?


Not any more


----------



## notimp (Feb 16, 2019)

RaptorDMG said:


> or take her back on the agreement of life imprisonment


For what? Joining an organization?

Same argument kills, in regards to revoking citizenship.  

Insert:

"No, but terrorists!"
"Idiot. Terrorists is just another name for freedom fighters you dont agree with politically, even if a certain person might not have engaged in terrorist acts."
"But terrorists!"
"Here is a US sponsored 'Terrorist school' in Eriwan (capital of armenia) (link goes to RT)."
https://www.rt.com/news/451372-camp-yerevan-protests-us-money/
"But not real terrorists."
"The US created the mujahideen to fight the russians though."
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_Cyclone
"But pregnant terrorist women on welfare!!11!"
"With children that shouldnt be held responsible for their parents actions."
"But they'll have brown skin color!"
--Lost for words---

I tell you, you guys are prime "outrage bait" for yellow paper headlines sometime... 

Here is how this works in reality. She gets back (of course - family, citizenship). She gets on a terrorist watchlist. The end.

Precrime also is very strong in this forum. Especially if you can enact it on women.

Guys...

Even if they have been 'indoctrinated' (what ever that means), that stuff can be broken by society, perspectives, integration. If you are afraid of "lone wolf sleeper cells" - at least they dont have atom bombs..  On some level having a religious, political nutcase steal a motor truck and drive it into a group of people is the price you pay for having invaded countries for their natural resources for centuries. Then you have mass congregations by the 10.000s mourning the loss of your own - and everything is fine again, because you just demonstrated, that the terrorism part of the nutcases actionplan didn't work - and that your society was stronger.

Have the security services deal with 'the returners' thats their job. And if one of them actually mounts a terror attack in his home country - that resides on about the level of 'hey, people die every day' politically. At least at the moment, where this hasnt gotten out of hand (real intention of terror), actually not even in the slightest.

If more people still die yearly being stung by bees, than of terror attacks - I think you are all fine.

And thats the place for the statement that more people died from the cleanup work of 9/11 than in the actual terror attack, thanks to no proper organization, no medical information, and a questionable building code (hazardous materials). But they were heroes. Oh, stfu.


----------



## Deleted-479522 (Feb 16, 2019)

Deleted


----------



## notimp (Feb 16, 2019)

The UK has to protest, if shes still a citizen. Citizenship you gain shortly after birth, and is not something that can be discarded easily. Also I dont think, there is a crime on earth, that can cost you citizenship (because usually no other country then wants you either, and all of a sudden, no one knows what to do with you) - so eh...

What crime should "supporting terrorism actively" be? Is another question, because terrorism itself has such a flimsy definition that I find it hard to actually grasp it in a legal sense. Maybe the US has those laws, I don't know. Could be.

In the country (countries rather), she was in - aiding IS probably wasnt a crime either. Surely not - when IS was in power. And even then, if she didnt participate in military action, under most war legislations, she would have been a civilian?

Next issue - once she crosses those states borders, all crimes - even if potentially comitted - are irrelevant. If the country she enters doesnt have legal extradition programs, with the country she has commited crimes in. Thats kinda how law works.

If you are thinking about concepts like international criminal law (f.e. Nurnberg trials - see: https://museums.nuernberg.de/memori...uremberg/birth-of-international-criminal-law/ ), I dont think thats applicable either.

"But she should.."

On what basis? Morals?  For what crimes? Aiding and embedding a 'concept'? 

Thats why all you really can do is say, ok this women probably has radical tendencies/believes, and probably has problems reintegrating into western society -- put her on a terror watch list, keep an eye on her. Which probably isnt fun either.

edit: Found a crime you can loose your citizenship over. 
https://www.nytimes.com/2017/02/13/world/australia/citizenship-isis-khaled-sharrouf.html


----------



## fatherjack (Feb 16, 2019)

the 'citizenship' is really the issue I think.
Have we already forgotten the genuine fear encountered as ISIS went from strength to strength as shown on our nightly news?
UK should have, at that time, allowed ANYONE to travel to join ISIS - on the proviso that they would surrender passport and 'citizenship'..... and be life banned from the country from then onwards
The wishy-washy liberal politics of my nation makes me sick - we hand passports out like free papers on the train.


----------



## notimp (Feb 16, 2019)

fatherjack said:


> UK should have, at that time, allowed ANYONE to travel to join ISIS - on the proviso that they would surrender passport and 'citizenship'..... and be life banned from the country from then onwards
> The wishy-washy liberal politics of my nation makes me sick


Thats kind of hard to do.  Think about it the following way. If you are a moron IS supporter and you leave your country to support IS, you probably do not state, that you'll support IS as your reason of entry in turkey, or wherever middle destination you book your flight to. 

You probably say holiday - and then go on to 'disappear' after you've landed.

Now lets say, you are "the liberal politics of the UK", its kind of hard to revoke someones citizenship based on "we dont know where they are - but they probably went to support IS" alone.

Think about what if this was you, and you were in turkey, and you've had amnesia, or something. And someone stole your papers. (Video game trope.  ) All of a sudden you get declared stateless as well...? Bad move.. . 

What you do instead is the following. Once such a person resurfaces again ("UK, I'm back - I had me amnesia in turkey for 5 years.") -- first and foremost, you question them extensively. And then you put them on a watchlist program - and monitor how their "reintegration" efforts go for the first couple of years.

Its actually hard to go out and do private investigations as a country - in another country (thats actually called spying..  ), and even harder, if we are talking about a conflict country to begin with.

The "she went there to support IS" bit, is actually a clickbait headline, and not much else, because no one will admit that freely, its actually very, VERY hard to prove that - and even if you could, that alone doesnt trip the threshhold of international criminal, or antiterror laws. Also you cant just "assume" in most of those cases, because thats not how law works ("damn liberals!"  )

At this point I would have to read on further, if its actually possible to revoke the citizenship because of international anti terror laws, if the person wasn't a dual citizen (as in the NYT article above) - because even that would strike me as odd...

Citizens of a certain country, always have the right to return to their country - btw. You cant take that away either.


----------



## Deleted-479522 (Feb 16, 2019)

Deleted


----------



## notimp (Feb 16, 2019)

She would be extradited, if she had commited a crime in the UK, and the UK had an extradition program with Syria or Iraq, which I don't think they have.

Countries not only have 'first dibs' on punishing people within their borders, if they have broken law - they are actually the only ones who normally can.

You are responsible for your wrongdoings in a certain country, to that country - and not your home country.

If the customs and laws in that country are 'odd' (dont litter chewing cum, or get your hand cut off) - countries usually intervene on the diplomatic level, and strike deals to get their citizens out (thats where the 'the UK has to protest' notion comes from). But those are not guaranteed as far as the result is concerned. 

And in these cases, most 'returners' return to their home countries out of their own volition. Thats actually the 'issue' because there is no way to prevent them from doing so.

Theres no such thing as punishing your citizens for having moved to another country and having 'helped' people there.

Before international criminal law, there wasnt even such a thing as 'punishing your citizens for having moved to another country and killing people there' - as this time document glaringly shows:

(Turn on english subtitles.

PLEASE dont watch if you arent prepared to see some _very_ disturbing content. This is basically a german documentary (DDR (east germany) propaganda film) about a west german colonel who went to africa to kill some people there in several civil wars.)

edit: Wiki for context: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Siegfried_Müller_(mercenary)


----------



## Deleted-479522 (Feb 16, 2019)

Deleted


----------



## notimp (Feb 16, 2019)

*short sarcastic laughing noise*

Nothing. The child is not responsible for its parents actions. Should the mother get welfare? Yes. Should she get UK level wellfare? Yes. If she's living in the UK. (Shes even a citizen.)

Those are the easy questions. 

Also, another good example for why morals and law should be separate. Also a good example for why there ought to be privacy.

If the people around her know what she has done, the women cant go to the bakery in the morning to get bread, without people spitting at her in their thoughts.

Now think about the child, as soon as it gets to school age. Fun.


----------



## Deleted-479522 (Feb 16, 2019)

Deleted


----------



## notimp (Feb 16, 2019)

Oh no...

(I know that there had to be a reason, why I dont read the primary source articles about the people in those cases. I don't want to have to care...  :/ )


----------



## Deleted-479522 (Feb 16, 2019)

Deleted


----------



## notimp (Feb 16, 2019)

Neh, just because they declared a state, she doesnt get automatic citizenship. 

And I don't think you can travel to many countries with an IS passport, so she probably didn't want to get one..


----------



## linuxares (Feb 16, 2019)

Well... let Peshmerga take care of them?


----------



## emigre (Feb 16, 2019)

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.


----------



## FAST6191 (Feb 16, 2019)

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.


----------



## Tigran (Feb 16, 2019)

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.


----------



## Clydefrosch (Feb 16, 2019)

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.


----------



## notimp (Feb 16, 2019)

FAST6191 said:


> no UK forces, diplomatic or military, would be dispatched to grab her


Gofundme anyone?  (Oh me and me sarcasm...  )


----------



## Deleted-479522 (Feb 16, 2019)

Deleted


----------



## notimp (Feb 16, 2019)

On the other hand an IS passport would be 'cool' I suppose... 
^sarcarsm

(Guilty of making assumptions.  )


----------



## Deleted-479522 (Feb 16, 2019)

Deleted


----------



## notimp (Feb 16, 2019)

The BBC article is actually pretty thorough about her options. Although its almost bordering on the verge of propaganda in a few places. 


> Can she return to the UK?
> 
> In the short term, no. The British government has no consular staff to help her in Syria. Ministers won't order personnel to risk their lives to help out someone who joined a banned terror group.


Thats the 'the UK will not intervene on her behalf' statement. Bad luck. 


> But suppose she got out of the refugee camp and crossed into Turkey. Could she just get on a flight home?
> 
> Almost certainly not. She may not have any travel documents - IS recruits were forced to hand over their passports and, in fact, some burnt them as a sign of their allegiance to the self-styled state.


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 Home Office is able to cancel passports to prevent people moving freely - this is a well-used counter-terrorism tactic to prevent fighters crossing borders. It's not known whether it has happened in this case.


The answer is no. But this is interesting. So basically cancel a passport (document), then draw out time to issue a new one... Clever... 


> The UK has the power to strip Ms Begum of her nationality. This seems unlikely because she was not a fighter.


As suggested before. Thats not going to happen.


> If she did reach a safe location, security chiefs in London could control any possible return through a Temporary Exclusion Order.
> 
> This controversial legal tool - which was used nine times in 2017 - bars a British citizen from returning home until they have agreed to investigation, monitoring and, if required, deradicalisation.


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.


----------



## Deleted-479522 (Feb 16, 2019)

Deleted


----------



## KingVamp (Feb 17, 2019)

Fragcula said:


> Otherwise they would do the world a favour to give her the death sentence ideally while still pregnant.


Why has no one questioned this, why are you out to get the baby too?


----------



## Deleted-479522 (Feb 17, 2019)

Deleted


----------



## notimp (Feb 17, 2019)

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.)


----------



## Deleted-479522 (Feb 17, 2019)

Deleted


----------



## notimp (Feb 17, 2019)

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.


----------



## Deleted-479522 (Feb 17, 2019)

Deleted


----------



## notimp (Feb 17, 2019)

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.


----------



## Deleted User (Feb 17, 2019)

Let them rot. They joined a terrorist organisation. Let them and their offspring die in those camps


----------



## notimp (Feb 18, 2019)

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.


----------



## notimp (Feb 20, 2019)

British government has withdrawn the british citizenship from that Shamima Begum girl/women. I'm officially shocked.
https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news...a-bit-shocked-that-uk-has-revoked-citizenship

Symbol politics over nothing...

In a sense also kicking people that already are down. But dont you worry britannia you are not reimporting a 'terrorist-supporter' whatever that means.

Laws used were probably anti terror legislation, didnt look it up. edit: Worse. Official argument is "for the safety of the country". I dont even believe it as Im writing this.


----------



## RaptorDMG (Feb 20, 2019)

notimp said:


> British government has withdrawn the british citizenship from that Shamima Begum girl/women. I'm officially shocked.
> https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news...a-bit-shocked-that-uk-has-revoked-citizenship
> 
> Symbol politics over nothing...
> ...


It was her choice to go and live in the Islamic state so she should be treated as a threat due to the fact that she could come back over here and carry out an attack or inspire others to do so and the fact that she appeared to act very entitled when interviewed going on about how we should feel sorry for her when she is the one who put herself in the situation.


----------



## notimp (Feb 20, 2019)

I know why 90% of the commenters on even leftist platforms are for this step and are showing "we against them" mentality.

I sincerely thought, that legal principals couldnt be bent to that extent, just because of whats basically a reverse PR stunt. Thats where the being shocked part comes from.

Girl went to IS country to support a questionable cause we dont agree with. Then gives an interview in which she calls a terror attack "retaliation" (hey, I've even partly done so - even though not directly, because I choose my words carefully there), now shes stateless? Doesnt make any sense to me.

Not even from the point of view of deterrence, because when do we expect the next terror organisation to recruit people off of youtube? I think those times are mostly over for a while. Thats the "senseless" part. Imho of course.


----------



## emigre (Feb 20, 2019)

notimp said:


> I know why 90% of the commenters on even leftist platforms are for this step and are showing "we against them" mentality.
> 
> I sincerely thought, that legal principals couldnt be bent to that extent, just because of whats basically a reverse PR stunt. Thats where the being shocked part comes from.
> 
> ...



Bangladesh has just said she's not a citizen and won't be allowed to enter the country. Sounds like this was complete bluster for Stupid Sav to be a big man. She's a British problem, it's up to Britain to deal with her. Bangladesh is a poor country already dealing with terrorism, they don't need a former colonial master dumping her on them.

For context, I have the same background as Begum, British born to Bangladeshi parents (my father, was a Brit citizen at the time of birth). I do not and have never had dual citizenship, I understand I am eligible under Jus Soil  but have never sought it, instead I stick with my British citizenship. What you do qualify for as someone of Bengali descent (not a citizen) is entering the country with no visa requirement. But that involves going to a consultae and getting a stamp in your passport.

Basically, it sounds like the Home Office has gone for headlines and fucked up. Again.


----------



## RaptorDMG (Feb 20, 2019)

emigre said:


> Bangladesh has just said she's not a citizen and won't be allowed to enter the country. Sounds like this was complete bluster for Stupid Sav to be a big man. She's a British problem, it's up to Britain to deal with her. Bangladesh is a poor country already dealing with terrorism, they don't need a former colonial master dumping her on them.
> 
> For context, I have the same background as Begum, British born to Bangladeshi parents (my father, was a Brit citizen at the time of birth). I do not and have never had dual citizenship, I understand I am eligible under Jus Soil  but have never sought it, instead I stick with my British citizenship. What you do qualify for as someone of Bengali descent (not a citizen) is entering the country with no visa requirement. But that involves going to a consultae and getting a stamp in your passport.
> 
> Basically, it sounds like the Home Office has gone for headlines and fucked up. Again.


I believe being eligible for citizenship elsewhere is enough to satify the requirements for taking away her citizenship


----------



## emigre (Feb 20, 2019)

RaptorDMG said:


> I believe being eligible for citizenship elsewhere is enough to satify the requirements for taking away her citizenship



Except for the fact, she won't get Bengali citizenship.  Bangladesh has made it pretty clear, they're not going to take her and quite frankly why should they? Bangladesh will not grant citizenship because Javid wants to be a big man. Governments can't make people stateless, it breaks international law.  The UK Government have lost two similarish cases involving two individuals of Bengali heritage in stripping citizenship recently. I'm not an expert in legal matters but it's really hard to see this standing up in a court of law. No matter what way I look at this, she's British and ultimately our problem. I don't think fondly of this woman but you can't just abandon the rule of law.  That key aspect is what seperates separate she likes of IS.

EDIT: It turns out the Bengali government only found out due to the media coverage, seriously what the fuck is wrong with the Home Office?


----------



## RaptorDMG (Feb 20, 2019)

emigre said:


> Except for the fact, she won't get Bengali citizenship.  Bangladesh has made it pretty clear, they're not going to take her and quite frankly why should they? Bangladesh will not grant citizenship because Javid wants to be a big man. Governments can't make people stateless, it breaks international law.  The UK Government have lost two similarish cases involving two individuals of Bengali heritage in stripping citizenship recently. I'm not an expert in legal matters but it's really hard to see this standing up in a court of law. No matter what way I look at this, she's British and ultimately our problem. I don't think fondly of this woman but you can't just abandon the rule of law.  That key aspect is what seperates separate she likes of IS.
> 
> EDIT: It turns out the Bengali government only found out due to the media coverage, seriously what the fuck is wrong with the Home Office?


There's also the arguement she could get Dutch citizenship but I doubt they would recognise her marriage and her husband's likely to be executed for being a member of IS anyway


----------



## emigre (Feb 20, 2019)

RaptorDMG said:


> There's also the arguement she could get Dutch citizenship but I doubt they would recognise her marriage and her husband's likely to be executed for being a member of IS anyway



I've heard that argument, it's a dumb argument.  She would have only had an Islamic Marriage which I strongly doubt is legally recognised in the Netherlands. Islamic marriages have zero legal standing in the West. Plus it was in the Islamic state which no one recognised as an actual state.

At the end of the day, she's British. I completely understand why people don't want to accept that but the law is the law.


----------



## PrettyFly (Feb 20, 2019)

A lot of hat eating in here.

She has been stripped of British Nationality and up to the age of 21 she has automatic Bangladeshi nationality.

B-E-A-Utiful.

The only regret is that the home secretary did not pull the trigger before the mare gave birth.

It will be a shame if Bangladesh shirk their responsibility towards her and make her stateless since they still have the death penalty.

Ideally Syria and Iraq should be allowed try and punish her and id they do not execute her Bangladesh should then get it's turn to consider execution.

Ultimately she denounced her citizenship when she joined daesh anywho.


----------



## notimp (Feb 20, 2019)

She did not. You have to pay a fee to denounce your citizenship.  And you have to do that yourself. (By filling out forms.)

Lets get this clear. Mass murderers, serial rapists, war criminals, ... all still citizens of their respective countries.

Girl who went abroad to support IS, and ended up with a child and a warped mind in a refugee camp - not a citizen of her country anymore.

Because (and reasoning is important in the field of law) - she's a threat to the safety of the country? *Ehm*. What?

But lots of hat eating, yes. Never thought, that that could happen.

Apparently some politician wanted to gain some likes on facebook, or something. Its that kind of logic..  All very popular. But makes no sense from a legal standpoint.


----------



## PrettyFly (Feb 21, 2019)

notimp said:


> She did not. You have to pay a fee to denounce your citizenship.  And you have to do that yourself. (By filling out forms.)
> 
> Lets get this clear. Mass murderers, serial rapists, war criminals, ... all still citizens of their respective countries.
> 
> ...



Bottom line she is a Bangladeshi national and the UK therefore is fully in its rights to strip her of her citizenship.

Your comparison to prisoners is weak. Treason has always been considered a crime without peer.

And what she did was Treason.

Bangladesh ought to consider changing it's law if it's unhappy with the situation.


----------



## Deleted User (Feb 21, 2019)

If she supports IS, then her child should be taken into state care and she should be thrown into a rehab or a non muslim populated jail.


----------



## dimmidice (Feb 21, 2019)

Why do i have the feeling in 20 years there'll be a movie made about this cunt? It'll be controversial and it'll paint her in a nice light.

Stripping her citizenry won't last. It'll get reversed in court i'm sure. But it buys them some time i suppose. Just get her back to UK,  give the baby to the grandparents and throw her ass in jail.


----------



## notimp (Feb 21, 2019)

PrettyFly said:


> Bottom line she is a Bangladeshi national and the UK therefore is fully in its rights to strip her of her citizenship.
> 
> Your comparison to prisoners is weak. Treason has always been considered a crime without peer.
> 
> ...


And the BS starts to continue.

Don't mix feelings with facts and we are fine.

I don't know if she had a double citizenship, I didnt look it up. The "fully in its right" legislation that was used was anti terror legislation. She wasn't a terrorist. And anti-terror legislation is bordering on "card blanche" (do what you like) to begin with. So eff that - in principal.

Also no one can commit treason against a state as a normal citizen, without any affiliation or contact to any state institution. No one swore an oath there, you are granted citizenship as a right from birth (/shortly thereafter).

Legally she was stripped of her citizenship, because of a completely made up 'immediate threat' that supposedly she was posing to the country.

Thats used to basically sidestep legal proceedings. Thats unjust. Plain and simple.

If people start lying about dangers, to get more legislative powers, thats an issue.

If you are a german by any chance - you could watch last weeks Anne Will, where Heiko Maas - describes the exact practice for cases like these in the EU. You bring them back on humanitarian grounds, If they have children. They are costly cases - because you have to question them extensively and put under surveillance, but you do it anyway. Because you are bound to laws.

Whoever decided this show trial outcome to be able to go on in Britain was a populist and nothing else. Two days later the americans, had the exact same show trial with a different women. Questions?

Source: https://www.theguardian.com/world/2019/feb/20/isis-us-woman-alabama-no-return-mike-pompeo


----------



## PrettyFly (Feb 21, 2019)

notimp said:


> And the BS starts to continue.
> 
> Don't mix feelings with facts and we are fine.
> 
> ...


None the legislation simply states home sec has authority to strip nationality if contusive to public good if it won't make her stateless.

She is not stateless and it's in public good.

Case closed.


----------



## notimp (Feb 21, 2019)

I call BS, there is no law, that can strip s/o of citizenship for "the public good".

Thats just the case to win an argument by replacing all the bad sounding words of "bent law for a PR meassure" with ones that sound like a mellow spring evening.

Eff  "for the public good you will loose your citizenship", laws are more precise than that. That women was declared a terrorist just to strip her of her citizenship. When stripping terrorists citizenships even was invented as an exemption to every law on the book in the first place.

As soon as you declare anyone a terrorist he is "out of the law" basically (german word: vogelfrei) thats what its all about.

Call a person a name - and suddenly they loose all their rights. Society loves that kind of stuff. It took centuries to make them give it up.


----------



## dimmidice (Feb 21, 2019)

@notimp (quoting isnt working)

A:. How was she not a terrorist? IS is a terrorist organization. You join that group ergo you're a terrorist.
B:  Why would civilians not be able to commit treason? Got any sources for that? Cause i'm pretty sure conspiring to kill the queen (for example) would be considered treason. Joining an enemy group that's attacked the UK wouldn't be a stretch either.


PrettyFly said:


> None the legislation simply states home sec has authority to strip nationality if contusive to public good if it won't make her stateless.
> 
> She is not stateless and it's in public good.
> 
> Case closed.


She doesn't necessarily have bangladeshi citizenship though? Bangladesh says she's not welcome, and i've not read anywhere she actually has bangladeshi citizenship. At best i've read she may have the right to citizenship there. But having the right to have something isn't the same as having it.



notimp said:


> I call BS, there is no law, that can strip s/o of citizenship for "the public good".
> 
> Thats just the case to win an argument by replacing all the bad sounding words of "bent law for a PR meassure" with ones that sound like a mellow spring evening.
> 
> ...


This is what he's referring too.

"It is understood the home secretary is relying on section 40(2) of the British Nationality Act 1981 to strip Begum of her passport. It says he can “by order deprive a person of a citizenship status if the Secretary of State is satisfied that deprivation is conducive to the public good”, and if they have behaved in a way that “is seriously prejudicial to the vital interests of the United Kingdom”."


----------



## notimp (Feb 21, 2019)

dimmidice said:


> A:. How was she not a terrorist? IS is a terrorist organization. You join that group ergo you're a terrorist.


People really ought to stop watching Disney movies (Star Wars...). Or - actually.

Han Solo was a terrorist, right? So as soon as he affiliated with the resistance, he should have lost his citizenship in Coruscant? Died in a refugee camp? Probably as soon as he met that Skywalker dude - he was affiliated with him as well...

What crime is affiliation with an organization? How many years are on it? Why do you loose citizenship over it. How do you prove it? Do you ask the neighbors? When does it start? When you get your IS membership card? When you talk to them?

It isnt even a crime. Thats the thing. Law used said "remove citizenship, because of immanent danger to home country", not because thats "a legal consequence for affiliating with a terror group".

You see the beginning, you see the end. You missed the middle part, where people bent the law to make this work somehow.

Judge people by their actions, not by their affiliations. Thats what law is about.

Society loves to judge people by affiliation, law usually is prevented to do so. They judge people for their actions. Have a whole catalogue for it.


----------



## dimmidice (Feb 21, 2019)

notimp said:


> People really ought to stop watching Disney movies (Star Wars...). Or - actually.
> 
> Han Solo was a terrorist, right? So as soon as he affiliated with the resistance, he should have lost his citizenship in Coruscant? Died in a refugee camp? Probably as soon as he met that Skywalker dude - he was affiliated with him as well...
> 
> ...


Wow your argumentative skills are bollocks. You need to get real. If you join a terrorist group yes you're a terrorist. Actually just gonna block you because based on this post you're clearly a nutter.


----------



## notimp (Feb 21, 2019)

Apparently this is US law for "aiding terrorists" (as in materially doing so by providing material support, financial services or resources):
https://blogs.findlaw.com/blotter/2...rged-with-if-you-get-caught-joining-isis.html

People that do so get a trial, and can be convicted for up to 15 years of prison.

Question: Where did that girls/womens trial take place?

Oh, yeah - there was none...

Did she forfit the rights of a formal proceeding as well?

Here is a metapher to make it extremely simple.

UK called wolf. Citizens applauded. Some poor shmuck was ostracized. (Or ostracized themselves, by "could have seen it coming, that we'd change the law on them".)

Dont forget, that you all are cheering for no one to get the chance of a fair trial at all.

--------------------- MERGED ---------------------------

Next step. Somehow get Trump affiliated with aiding a terror organization. Strip him of his citizenship. Looses presidency. No impeachment trials needed.

Hey, this trialless "danger, danger" you have to lose your citizenship by association game seems fun, once you get the hang of it...

--------------------- MERGED ---------------------------

Next step, put Venezuela on state sponsored terror list.
https://www.foxnews.com/politics/tr...ating-venezuela-as-state-sponsor-of-terrorism

Repeat with people aiding them.

Hey - that game is fun.

And you are a terrorist, and you are a terrorist, and you are a terrorist.  (Spoken in an Oprah cadence..  )

--------------------- MERGED ---------------------------



dimmidice said:


> Wow your argumentative skills are bollocks. You need to get real. If you join a terrorist group yes you're a terrorist. Actually just gonna block you because based on this post you're clearly a nutter.


And if you eat fruitloops you become fresh and fruity?

Did she commit terror? No.

Did she show around her IS membership card? No.

Whats her crime? And I mean something you can even potentially prove. Not just something that has manifasted in your mind, because a blond bomb on TV said IS five times, while showing her picture.

I mean what else do you want to hear?

In the US case, every article is full of "will be legally challenged."
In Germany the foreign minister basically said - "legally, you take them back" two days ago.
The UK managed to paint their women into a corner thats reserved for imminent threats.

You still go with your feelings of - yes I'd let her die in a camp though?

Read the freaking articles. Not just the headlines.

Hows that for arguing skills.

--------------------- MERGED ---------------------------

But, but that blonde women on TV told me, she was joining IS! And how does she know? Was she there at the time?

Or do we now take passports from women with child in refugee camps based on all the concepts of. "He said, she said?"

Maybe their social media profiles?

Get a clue.

--------------------- MERGED ---------------------------

Oh I've forgot, in the british case the british security minister said so himself, before the PR stunt.

https://www.independent.co.uk/news/...ndon-bethnal-green-syria-terror-a8778821.html

Need more?


----------



## Subtle Demise (Feb 21, 2019)

notimp said:


> Apparently this is US law for "aiding terrorists" (as in materially doing so by providing material support, financial services or resources):
> https://blogs.findlaw.com/blotter/2...rged-with-if-you-get-caught-joining-isis.html
> 
> People that do so get a trial, and can be convicted for up to 15 years of prison.
> ...


I appreciate what you're trying to do, and I agree with you, but it's hopeless. The UK (and Europe in general) is more of a police state than even the USA, and everyone there likes it that way. As long as their government isn't targeting them, makes them feel safe and cozy with a camera on every street corner. Doesn't matter that in 10 years there will be a black market for butter knives in England.

As for what happens to people aiding terrorism in the US, under Bush Jr's Patriot Act and Obama's NDAA, you can be held indefinitely without due process on the mere suspicion of terrorism, so she wouldn't have fared much better here.


----------



## notimp (Feb 21, 2019)

I'm just holding high some legal principals thats all.

The flipside of the story is, that you couldnt really prosecute her, because whatever she did, if she did something, is outside of UK legislation.

But to just take peoples citizenships away based on how "high profile" their story got in the media, to score some popularity points with your voters, is a little iffy.

Not a very sound legal practice.

I dont care if people are cheering for it, I dont care if its morally right or not (other things western interests did for the region werent either), I just dont want for this to become a new normal.

Do you know what her families legal options are at the moment? To file a complaint in front of a secret court.

Do you know how that makes me feel?


----------



## FAST6191 (Feb 21, 2019)

notimp said:


> The flipside of the story is, that you couldnt really prosecute her, because whatever she did, if she did something, is outside of UK legislation.


I don't know the specifics here but there are plenty of places with laws governing their citizens regardless of where they are in the world. Usually they are paedophilia related, or national service/military service related, but I could see something like this (US phrasing but "giving Aid and Comfort to the Enemy") being up there with those.

Anyway I think this ruling is a bit of a reach. While I would have been content for them to not lift a finger in retrieving her this seems like a step too far, even without her being made stateless as a result. I am not as bothered by the lack of a trial (a tacit admission, no attempt to offer any mitigation, no apparent repentance...) but would have preferred something, even a good proxy type setup.


----------



## notimp (Feb 21, 2019)

Thank you. That was new to me.

Here is a wiki that has most of the applications (at least for some countries) listed:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Extraterritorial_jurisdiction

There arent many, but terrorism is amongst them. So I was wrong in that regard.


----------



## notimp (Feb 27, 2019)

Interview with the defense lawyer in the US "stripped of citizenship" case:


----------



## PrettyFly (Feb 27, 2019)

notimp said:


> Interview with the defense lawyer in the US "stripped of citizenship" case:



I agree that Britain needs to have the balls to effect the decisions it makes.

But we are hog tied by brexit and maintaining international reputation after it.

Ideally she would be accepted and disappear into psychiatric containment


----------



## notimp (Feb 28, 2019)

She is actually the US copycat case..  Also, nothing against the british. (Not in principle.  )


----------



## kaputnik (Feb 28, 2019)

As for the Swedish citizens, I hope the government do what they always do in difficult political questions; appoint an investigation, remitting the question back and forth between all involved authorities in absurdity, producing running meters of documentation, but no final decision or conclusion. Meanwhile, the terrorists rot away in some hopeless prison far away from here :>

Edit: since we got full freedom of association here, it's not illegal to support or be a member of a terrorist organization. Once they're brought back, they'll be free and never see justice, since it'll be near impossible to prove and prosecute any specific crimes they committed back there.

In my opinion, it's best if they're left where they are, not only because they deserve whatever punishment they get there, but also the purely egotistical reason that I want as few of that kind of people as possible in my vicinity...


----------



## Saiyan Lusitano (Mar 3, 2019)

If you join some organization then you're well aware of the consequences and you're responsible if you get rejected/blocked from entering a country. Playing the victim card doesn't work too well anymore.

"Done" you say? Till they need it again.


----------



## notimp (Mar 3, 2019)

Is it so hard to see, that the consequences were never "you are blocked from entering your country"? As in "unheard of". For a crime thats supposed to be "joining something". Whatever thats supposed to mean. (I dont think joining anything is a crime... Lets see.. what would be the most outrageous example? Joing Putins elite guard. Not a crime. Joining Saddams Elite slingshot batallion. Not a crime. Joining some warlords organization in Afghanistan. Not a crime. Joining a group of people taking airplane training lessons to do another 9/11. Not a crime. (Not if you arent actively becoming an accomplice.) Lets say you get to know what they are planning, and dont tell anyone. If thats all you are doing you would be treated as a "accessory after fact" with a max sentence of one year in prison (roughly). And thats law being enacted in your own country.

Most crimes you did in other countries, you arent even liable for in  your own country. Ever. (Extradition programs are most often the closest thing.)

We have established, that "terrorism" is an exception. (Extraterritoritorial law), but thats for terrorism. As in committing the act. Or aiding to commit the act. Not for joining the organization.

And even if you did terrorism, and extraterritoral law goes into effect, you still will be sentenced in country - you dont loose citizenship.

The only way they possibly can delay you entry to your home country is "immanent danger" and they probably cant even strip your citicenship for that.

In the US case the responsible department did it by suddenly telling everyone, she was never a citizen legally - although she was.

In the UK case they did it by arguing that Shamima Begum was eligable for a citizenship in Bangladesh. So basically a case, where Britain claims "dual citizenship". And then revokes one.

None of that is "the consequences you face for joining - anything" - Its just a PR move that apparently is supposed to send a message - although it is unclear what message that would be..  (Dont become a dual citizen? Dont get effed over by the legal department acting probably illegally?)

Look at the French Foreign Legion (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/French_Foreign_Legion) which is basically an army for hire for anyone who wants to join. Even to fight against their own country. They offer citizenship to any soldier that gets injured in battle. But not before.  So that would have been an extremely bad model, if as soon as people from conflict countries (as in in conflict with the french) joined, they would have lost their citizenship. They didn't. 

But now because of one word (Terror) that all is supposed to change. In reality it isnt anyway. The cases we have seen are legal overreaches and specific legal feints to be able to very publically make those cases. But its never how thats normally supposed to work. Its just populistic politics. "Look at this one case where we act in accordande with public morals! (- but propably against the law). Isolated cases. Other than for effect, it means nothing.


----------



## notimp (Mar 3, 2019)

This is how you do it legally. Curiously even shown in the example of Shamima Begums husband (the 'terrorist' she married).


> The Dutch husband of Shamima Begum, the teenager who fled the UK to join Isis, has said he wants to return to the Netherlands with his wife and newborn son.
> 
> Speaking to the BBC, Yago Riedijk, 27, said he rejected Islamic State, who reportedly tortured him on suspicion of being a Dutch spy.
> 
> He admitted to fighting for Isis and may face a six-year jail sentence if he returns to the Netherlands.


src: https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news...husband-wants-to-take-teenager-to-netherlands

Look at this part closely: He admitted to fighting for Isis

She didn't, because she probably never did. She was a fighters wife for all we know. But she is the one loosing citizenship. Yeah, right.


----------



## PrettyFly (Mar 8, 2019)

notimp said:


> This is how you do it legally. Curiously even shown in the example of Shamima Begums husband (the 'terrorist' she married).
> 
> src: https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news...husband-wants-to-take-teenager-to-netherlands
> 
> ...



Oh snap, another one bites the dust.

Her latest baby and last tie to Britain just died.


----------



## notimp (Mar 9, 2019)

*audible deep breath*


----------



## PrettyFly (Mar 9, 2019)

notimp said:


> *audible deep breath*



If there is a god she clearly is not on his good side...


----------



## notimp (Mar 9, 2019)

Hitchens has answered this question once and for all a few years ago. 


The good part of the argument starts at 3:20 minutes in.


----------



## PrettyFly (Mar 9, 2019)

notimp said:


> Hitchens has answered this question once and for all a few years ago.
> 
> 
> The good part of the argument starts at 3:20 minutes in.




He was truly a great thinker of our time. His last book was some how funny and depressing at the same time.

But you seem to be thinking concretely about an abstract turn of phrase.

Maybe I should rephrase it then.

She is reaping what she sowed. 

Or even

Karma bitch.


----------



## notimp (Mar 9, 2019)

Karma doesnt exist. 

Also you seem to be a believer of original sin and reincarnation, because there also was a newborn involved.

Now I'm toying... 

He was a truly great thinker. Agreed.


----------



## PrettyFly (Mar 9, 2019)

notimp said:


> Karma doesnt exist.
> 
> Also you seem to be a believer of original sin and reincarnation, because there also was a newborn involved.
> 
> ...



Nah, Karma does exist, it's just purely psychosocial.

People who are mean to others begin to feel that others are mean to them.

Those who slight others begin to feel slighted. 

That is Karma, You reap what you sow and what goes around comes around all in one.

At it's core it's just projection and the inevitable result of the way our peers critically appraise us.

For example the office worker who is a bitch to everyone and believes that she has to be because offices are all about bitching and politics. Can share an office with a productive worker who goes home to his kids and has no idea what she's on about.


----------



## notimp (Mar 9, 2019)

PrettyFly said:


> People who are mean to others begin to feel that others are mean to them.
> 
> Those who slight others begin to feel slighted.


Not that directly, but over multiple actor relationships.

This visualization explains it adeptly:
https://ncase.me/trust/

(Its also the best visualization for a social concept I've found on the internet so far.)

Also direct reciprocity is broken. Nowadays ("Quick question to my twitter followers..") more than ever. Which is why:

"People who are helpful(/subservant) to others , begin to feel abused without getting anything in return" is more and more a thing as well.

Altruism has its boundaries... 

(Which is why I sometimes engage in badmouthing and guilttripping others out of online communities - when the "hey quick question, could you make me a video" folks (hi > question > bye > nevertobeseen) are getting a bit extensive - numbers wise... 

In smaller groups, where people tend to know each other by (nick) name, its different, and I tend to agree. 

Karma (in your usage) is not a "direct feedback" for someones actions, like the Karma concept implies.

Karma (in todays youtuber parlance) is "smile a lot, then people will like you, then you get more stuff for free" - meaning this can be played.

Karma makes it sound so... Balanced...  Without society having to work on it.  )


----------



## PrettyFly (Mar 9, 2019)

notimp said:


> Not that directly, but over multiple actor relationships.
> 
> This visualization explains it adeptly:
> https://ncase.me/trust/
> ...



Again this is rather concrete thinking, it's an abstract concept.

In this case a woman fled her reasonably free existence to support an foreign invasion into the Levant to oppress it's people. Causing death, sickness and the displacement of innocent people she never gave a thought to.

The outcome for her has been the sickness and death of all 3 of her children. Her displacement. She truly has felt the suffering of innocents as she has allegedly watched her three newborns die.

That m'lad is karma on a grand scale.

It's also true that people who smile are happier than those who do so less.

That m'boy is karma on a small scale.


----------



## notimp (Mar 9, 2019)

I might tell you something that might be news to you, but smiling is a sign of happiness. 

Now enter a study that "proves that". Now enter causality not clear to the researchers. Now all of a sudden people are telling other people to smile more, so they can be more happy.

Here is the issue I have with that. For some reason I'm actually rather empathic, and maybe a bit above average, when it comes to reading facial expressions.

I can identify a fake smile pretty much while in sleep, with my eyes closed, and the light turned off (thats not concrete thinking (allegory, metaphor, ...). And it gives me a small punch in the gut everytime I see people trying to employ their fake smile to match the occasion.

So phrases that start like:

- Smile and the world will smile at you
or
- Do good to people and the world will be good to you

to me sound like lies, that sell well. Self help books. Cheap marketing tricks. Auto suggestion, that tricks the body into producing a reaction that holds for 20 minutes top.

The entire "fake it until you make it" ethos is something thats so far removed from my personal sensibilities, that I will never agree to it, just on the surface level - because of some cheap rethorical trick, that make it sound like there is some logic behind it. There is not.

Fake your life better, and "believe in a higher power" Call it Karma, I call it the cheapest thing to make this drama sound like it was predetermined - it was not. A british politician killed a child here. For the sake of getting some facebook likes. Thats not karma either. Thats life.

And now we take a deep breath, and move on... 

(Concept of Karma or religion is needed for people to deal with those difficult situations - because they need to shortcut their logic to segment an issue, they cant deal with - positively - any other way. Its there to get people through difficult situations.

We dont need it for a *haha* moment, because a child has died, or a UK politician has facilitated that. Thats not karma either, but thats unforseeable consequences of political action. We call that tragedy, or irony. Sometimes even necessity.

Thats where black/dark humor originates from.)


----------



## notimp (Mar 9, 2019)

Lets pick a different situation. Lets say, the women in the example here and her (terrorist) husband reenter the UK, as per law is their right. Lets say all risk identifiaction and mitigation, and reintegration measures fail, and her husband does - what every second nitwhit here expects him to do and blows up a group of people for "terrorism" reasons in the UK.

Do we call that Karma?
We dont.

Lets say we put this into the perspective of the west having conquered and exploited middle eastern countries for centuries.

Do we call it Karma in that context?
We dont.

In fact, we call it terrorism, and convince our societies, that its the biggest issue they face to date (it is not), and they should be very afraid (yes, please - if you've got nothing better to do). Then we use it to sell the same people another war with an entirely different country.

Because in their minds, it all blends together. They might even call it Karma at that point.

This is kind of the little lesson I want to leave this thread with. Karma is too positive of  a  masking term for this farce.


----------



## PrettyFly (Mar 10, 2019)

What I don't understand is.

Why are you so sure that the Yazidi people of Kurdistan and Iraq so thoroughly deserved to suffer mass murder and to be sold in to sex slavery, that you can not bring yourself to say the people who committed it were terrorists.

The people she helped harm were the people of that region. The born and raised there. Their fight was largely against the populace and local forces (created to fight them).

*You can not claim they went there to liberate the Yazidi from Western colonialism.*

I'm really struggling to understand that line of reasoning. Can you explain it more?


----------



## Maq47 (Mar 10, 2019)

dimmidice said:


> Wow your argumentative skills are bollocks. You need to get real. If you join a terrorist group yes you're a terrorist. Actually just gonna block you because based on this post you're clearly a nutter.


@InsaneNutter


----------



## PrettyFly (Mar 10, 2019)

notimp said:


> I might tell you something that might be news to you, but smiling is a sign of happiness.
> 
> Now enter a study that "proves that". Now enter causality not clear to the researchers. Now all of a sudden people are telling other people to smile more, so they can be more happy.
> 
> ...




I mean you can refused to acknowledge whatever you want despite strong evidence base. It just is a red flag to others to devalue your opinion.


----------



## notimp (Mar 10, 2019)

PrettyFly said:


> Why are you so sure that the Yazidi people of Kurdistan and Iraq so thoroughly deserved to suffer mass murder and to be sold in to sex slavery, that you can not bring yourself to say the people who committed it were terrorists.


Easy out, because I believe in (the existence of) collective delusions.

Essentially - hold people responsible on a personal level, its harder to hold them responsible on a collective one.

Also because I see how easy that can be instrumentalized.

My first "motivation" in any situation is to basically try to look at it from multiple angles, try to find the best outcome - and try to act towards it.

What happened in the (non recent) past is entirely non relevant to this approach. Help people to learn things, so they might not readily make the same mistake soon, mitigate the outcome for all people involved.

Meaning.

If the entire marketing gag of "IS fighters are not welcome back" would actually had a chilling effect (prevented people from being instumentalized in the future), I'd be reluctantly for it.

But thats not what its providing. Really. Not to anyone who can read... 

To me saying, that a human collective is bad, is like saying electricity is bad to some extent.

I accept, that the human subconscious is a heck of a thing. Freud apparently passed an angry and disillusioned man, because he saw how thin the veil of civilization was at the start of WW2.

So thats not what I choose to focus on, if I have the choice.

Now you can say - that victims need retaliation or "justice" for the healing process, but that doesnt have to end in blame narratives the size of "terrorism".

I very much believe, that human beings in war are different from anything armchair coaches would expect of them. And that that doesnt depend on a specific ideology or race.

In general. I might stray from that ideology (the thing I layed out overall) once in a while though.


----------



## Deleted-401606 (Mar 10, 2019)

How did this guy delete his post and his account?Wtf lol?


----------

