TSwizzle
Let's Go Brandon!
Well that seems fair. Will the pitbull have to be put to sleep ? And if so, do I have to do it or does the pitbull owner do it ?
-
Features
What should happen to the ISIS Brides?
- Thread starter Harry Bosch
- Start date
Well that seems fair. Will the pitbull have to be put to sleep ? And if so, do I have to do it or does the pitbull owner do it ?
Derec
Contributor
Not really. At least the Southern States were part of the US until the secession. Hoda went to a completely different continent to join the enemies of the US.
Wrong. REL never wrote things like this about the Union.
Let's pay the Kurds off to look after her. Or maybe we can build a women's wing at Gitmo. If EU wants to pitch in, we can house "their" ISIS brides, like that Bangladeshi chick, too. Win win.
Terrell said:
That bitch (pun intended) is a stray from Yemen (same place as the traitor Anwar Al Alwaki) whom we foolishly took in. If a stray bites the hand that feeds it, then escapes, it's ok not to bring her back.
J842P
Veteran Member
Well, Hoda, at least, burned her passport and was an outspoken advocate.
She was also 20, not 15, And the other woman (whose citizenship status is less murky) was even older.
Well, if this one renounced her citizenship then who cares? She's not America's problem anymore. Let her die in a fucking ditch or something - it doesn't really matter.
My comments relate to cases like the British one I linked to earlier where she's still a citizen but the government is trying to revoke that because they they don't want to have an ISIS member come back home.
Derec
Contributor
That "British" (really Bangladeshi) one who doesn't regret joining ISIS, only wants to come home now that the Caliphate is in ruins and she wants free NHS care for herself and her infant son (that she had with a Jihadist she married and says she still loves), and has offered justification for the terrorist attack at the Ariana Grande concert in Manchester?
Cases like that you mean?
By the way, if Begum is to be considered "British" just because she was born in UK despite non-UK descent and despite rejecting UK for the Islamic Caliphate, should not her infant son be considered Syrian, not British, because he was born in Syria? Or does "birthright citizenship" only work one way - to bring more and more Islamists into the West?
Birthright citizenship is not a universal thing. There are only about 30 countries that have it. Mostly in the Americas.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jus_soli
Harry Bosch
Contributor
Yes, I think that this is wrong as it forces other countries to deal with British and American citizens. As an aside, I'm finding it real difficult to sympathize with these women. I actually wonder how their recruitment works: did they watch the civilians being beheaded or thrown off buildings and then did they think "oh that looks cool, I want to join that group".
SLD
Contributor
You can lose your birth right citizenship by committing treason, which I think she is pretty darn guilty of. Treason carries the death penalty under US law. Her case reminds me of Tokyo Rose, who was found guilty of treason, but only sentenced to 6 years. Interestingly, she was not allowed to return to the U.S. but then arrested in Japan and tried in U.S. courts.
I can see the case for not allowing her to return. But why not prosecute her for treason? In today’s world she’d probably get a lot more than 6 years.
SLD
ETA: Axis Sally might be a better analogy as Tokyo Rose was pardoned. Axis Sally was sentenced to twenty to thirty years and served 11.
I can see the case for not allowing her to return. But why not prosecute her for treason? In today’s world she’d probably get a lot more than 6 years.
SLD
ETA: Axis Sally might be a better analogy as Tokyo Rose was pardoned. Axis Sally was sentenced to twenty to thirty years and served 11.
Last edited:
ruby sparks
Contributor
It's all very complicated.
One thing I'd guess is that those whose responsibility it is to decide if someone can come home or not are not thinking either of the individual case or the moral principle. Likely they will take note of any legal obligations (vis a vis liability or accountability if they infringe something) and also of realpoliticical considerations, such as setting a precedent, or weighing up the cost or costs (in money and time) and/or weighing up outcomes, such as considering if it's better to have her (I'm talking about the ongoing case of Shamima Begum, who has expressed remorse by the way) in the UK or abroad, where she, or her child when it grows up, might eventually do more harm. But given that most political decisions are short-termist in nature, maybe that last idea is awry. See also: what plays well with voters and potential voters.
One more thing. Prosecuting could be tricky due to insufficient evidence.
One thing I'd guess is that those whose responsibility it is to decide if someone can come home or not are not thinking either of the individual case or the moral principle. Likely they will take note of any legal obligations (vis a vis liability or accountability if they infringe something) and also of realpoliticical considerations, such as setting a precedent, or weighing up the cost or costs (in money and time) and/or weighing up outcomes, such as considering if it's better to have her (I'm talking about the ongoing case of Shamima Begum, who has expressed remorse by the way) in the UK or abroad, where she, or her child when it grows up, might eventually do more harm. But given that most political decisions are short-termist in nature, maybe that last idea is awry. See also: what plays well with voters and potential voters.
One more thing. Prosecuting could be tricky due to insufficient evidence.
SLD
Contributor
DrZoidberg
Contributor
Teenage girls do lots of dumb shit. I say forgive and forget. In the west we have freedom of thought. So demanding that she shows remorse to come home is not compatible with western values. I say no to thought policing. I also think that we should always be more lenient to women than men. Because of crime statistics. Women tend to be less trouble.
This is a clearly false statement. No country is obligated to take these people.
ruby sparks
Contributor
Harry Bosch
Contributor
Are you denying that they are in a country now? Where do you think they should go now? Atlantis?
I am denying any country was forced to take them.
This. If she specifically renounced her American citizenship then America has no more obligation to care about her than Bulgaria. If that sucks for her and she has nowhere to go, then that sucks for her and she has nowhere to go. When she told America that this sort of thing isn't their problem, it's actually fine for America to say "OK, we won't have it be our problem then".
DrZoidberg
Contributor
https://twitter.com/Shamima__Begum
I don't think they're damning. I think she's trying to put on a brave face, like so many teenagers often do. If I'm to speculate, it could be to make her feel better about getting rejected, which is what she expects. And she's funny. She has a sense of humour about her predicament. Since when is that a crime? Her throwing herself at the feet of those who feel wronged by her.... why would she do that? When she joined ISIS she didn't think they were a terrorist organisation.
I was a communist a short period in my early teens. Because I fancied a girl who was also a communist. That doesn't make me feel I need to apologise to all those wronged by communist regimes throughout the ages. I think Shamima Begum is in the same situation.
ruby sparks
Contributor
I don't have time to read through all those, unfortunately. What I'd need to see, in relation to the topic of prosecution specifically, is something that incriminates her, in terms of something that is a crime.
She has apologised elsewhere, of course.
ruby sparks
Contributor
I doubt this will change many peoples' minds, and I'm not suggesting it should. I'm just pointing out that she has expressed some remorse.
[YOUTUBE]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TGAxm6KJTWE[/YOUTUBE]
[YOUTUBE]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TGAxm6KJTWE[/YOUTUBE]