Now that Daesh is done for what do with them?

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British government has withdrawn the british citizenship from that Shamima Begum girl/women.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British government has withdrawn the british citizenship from that Shamima Begum girl/women.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...

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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 what she did was Treason.

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

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.

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

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.

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.

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.

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...

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 for.

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.

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?

Now that Daesh is done for what do with them?

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Deck head

Well-Known Member

Deck head

Well-Known Member

Deck head

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Deleted User

Guest

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Similar threads

Popular threads in this forum