What should happen to the ISIS Brides?

[Jolly_Penguin]

I was earlier under the impression that we'd have to deal with millions of ex-fighters and their families. But it's so few people that it's not worth bothering about. Let them perish. It's a shame about what happens to their children, but this war has left at least 100 000 orphans in Syria. They can join that club. I see no reason to give the children of the fighters any privileges we're not also extending to the rest of the orphans, ie those orphaned because of their parents war crimes.

Since they are orphans, why not bring them all to safety? You don't have their criminal parents to worry about if they are dead, right? Why not just treat them as any other children, and educate them so they grow up to be peaceful and productive? Sounds good to me. I don't care if Timmy's dad was Hitler. Its not his fault.

 

[Derec]

Do you understand what The Onion is?

Yes, hence the preface "while it's Onion ...".
It is certainly the case Shamima Begum, Hoda Muthana etc. are given a pass by some because they are female.

 

[Toni]

Do you understand what The Onion is?

Yes, hence the preface "while it's Onion ...".
It is certainly the case Shamima Begum, Hoda Muthana etc. are given a pass by some because they are female.

Yeah, I don't really think you get it.

Sure, some people give the brides a break because they're female. Some give the guys a break or thousand because they're male.

I think a lot of times, idealistic or disaffected young people get caught up in something that they don't really understand. They see injustices or what they think are injustices and they are recruited by some pretty slick people who are awfully good at convincing someone how much they are needed. Some things are harder to get out of than others. Like Isis. So, yeah, I have a lot of sympathy for young people who get caught up and realize their mistakes and want to come home.

What are the choices, really? It's either welcome them home, and help them recover from their travails or kill them. Because that's what our goal seems to be re: Isis. Kill them, either actively or by starving them out or by instigating others to kill them for us.

I think it's better to welcome people home, help them recover and rebuild their lives. Learn from them how to better prevent others from being similarly lured. I think that's the smarter thing to do, as well as the more ethical and more moral thing to do.

 

[Derec]

Yeah, I don't really think you get it.

I do. I don't think you do though.

Sure, some people give the brides a break because they're female. Some give the guys a break or thousand because they're male.

Hardly. Male ISIS fighters captured by the Kurds or SDF are probably going to be hanged. Hardly a break, let alone a 1000.

I think a lot of times, idealistic or disaffected young people get caught up in something that they don't really understand.

And yet, actions have consequences. Even for young people. Hoda Muthana was a legal adult when she joined ISIS and worked as a propagandist for them on Twitter, trying to convince American Muslims to murder non-Muslims in terrorist attacks.
And if the administration is correct that she is not legally a US citizen, why should she be treated as one?
Shamima Begum, while a minor, was at 15 of an age when people are expected to take responsibility for their actions.

What are the choices, really? It's either welcome them home, and help them recover from their travails or kill them. Because that's what our goal seems to be re: Isis. Kill them, either actively or by starving them out or by instigating others to kill them for us.

Hoda , if she ever was legally a citizen, renounced her citizenship. I do not see why she should be "welcomed home". She and Shamima certainly should not get any help from US/UK governments to travel back. If they do make it back on their own, they should be prosecuted, but since the crimes of ISIS were predominately committed on Syrian and Iraqi soil, the locals should have the first right to prosecute them. After they serve those sentences, and when/if they make it back, they can be prosecuted under US/UK law.

I think it's better to welcome people home, help them recover and rebuild their lives. Learn from them how to better prevent others from being similarly lured. I think that's the smarter thing to do, as well as the more ethical and more moral thing to do.

So you basically want them not only to get away scot-free, but also to get some sort of government assistance? A 77 year old getting a handjob is worthy of prosecution in your book, but joining a terrorist organization is not?

 

[Derec]

While we are talking of these cases, how about the case of Bashidul Shikder, a Bangladeshi-American.
2 American Children May Be Trapped in the Last ISIS Village

He seems to be a fundamentalist Muslim himself, but his ex-wife was even more so, as she decided to go join ISIS with her sister and she also took Bashidul and her two children with her. He was urged to join them and when he refused, she divorced him, remarried and had another child. Earlier this year she was killed and her kids were injured. Presumably they are still in that last ISIS stronghold that is currently being fought over.

While these children did not choose to be taken to the Caliphate, I am sure they have already been exposed to ISIS propaganda. And they could grow up blaming the West for their injuries (described as facial burns, i.e. highly visible and permanent scarring). Note hat their father is not exactly secular himself. Would bringing them back be bringing back a ticking time bomb?

 

[Toni]

I do. I don't think you do though.


Hardly. Male ISIS fighters captured by the Kurds or SDF are probably going to be hanged. Hardly a break, let alone a 1000.

But I wasn't talking about breaks being handed out by Kurds or SDF.

And on the other hand, the guys weren't handed out and traded like baseball cards, either.

I think a lot of times, idealistic or disaffected young people get caught up in something that they don't really understand.

And yet, actions have consequences.

Actions do have consequences. Never mind what circumstances led to the consequence of these young people being lured to join Isis. Think about the consequences of stripping citizenship, of never allowing people to rejoin their families, to make amends. Those would lead to some pretty terrible consequences for the US.

Even for young people. Hoda Muthana was a legal adult when she joined ISIS and worked as a propagandist for them on Twitter, trying to convince American Muslims to murder non-Muslims in terrorist attacks.
And if the administration is correct that she is not legally a US citizen, why should she be treated as one?

My understanding of the law is that the current administration is wrong, as a point of law, about whether or not Muthana is a US citizen. I'm not an immigration lawyer, true, but I've worked with diplomats and know that it was the case that if someone was a diplomat, their children born in the US were not citizens of the US but if someone was NOT a diplomat, their children born in the US could claim US citizenship. My understanding is that her father was NOT a diplomat at the time she was born. That would make her a US citizen, however inconvenient it is for the current administration.

Shamima Begum, while a minor, was at 15 of an age when people are expected to take responsibility for their actions.

She could not legallly drive a car in most states, drop out of school, marry without parental permission in any state or at all in many states, legally vote or drink alcohol or get her ears pierced or get a tattoo or sign a contract or dozens of other things. She was an adolescent. Her brain development and judgment was not that of an adult. Not legally and not biologically. It's wrong to treat her as an adult. And for the record, no, I do not approve of trying 15 year olds as adults.

Hoda , if she ever was legally a citizen, renounced her citizenship. I do not see why she should be "welcomed home". She and Shamima certainly should not get any help from US/UK governments to travel back. If they do make it back on their own, they should be prosecuted, but since the crimes of ISIS were predominately committed on Syrian and Iraqi soil, the locals should have the first right to prosecute them. After they serve those sentences, and when/if they make it back, they can be prosecuted under US/UK law.

I have not said that I do not think they should stand trial for any crimes they have committed that might be prosecuteable. I've stated why I think it is wrong to strip the citizenship away from young people.

After the US Civil War, southerners did not lose their citizenship, afterall. Surely, those were acts of treason and sedition far more serious than anything these people have engaged in.

I think it's better to welcome people home, help them recover and rebuild their lives. Learn from them how to better prevent others from being similarly lured. I think that's the smarter thing to do, as well as the more ethical and more moral thing to do.

So you basically want them not only to get away scot-free, but also to get some sort of government assistance? A 77 year old getting a handjob is worthy of prosecution in your book, but joining a terrorist organization is not?

I think kids should be treated as kids. As far as I know, Kraft isn't being threatened with losing his citizenship. Aside from some very minor embarrassment, I doubt he will suffer any other consequence for his actions. Never mind that there is a lot to suggest that many of the women working at that 'massage parlor' were not there willingly. He's rich; he's white; he's male. Nothing will happen to him.

When you repeatedly use the familiar names of women and persons of color, you undermine any chance you might get at being seen as being a reasonable, objective commentator. Being courteous and respectful shores up your position. Being discourteous and disrespectful undermines your position.

 

[Derec]

But I wasn't talking about breaks being handed out by Kurds or SDF.

Who then? I certainly do not think male fighters should be welcomed to the West and given benefits either.

And on the other hand, the guys weren't handed out and traded like baseball cards, either.

Well Hoda went through three baseball cards husbands because ISIS fighter life expectancy is not great.

Actions do have consequences. Never mind what circumstances led to the consequence of these young people being lured to join Isis. Think about the consequences of stripping citizenship, of never allowing people to rejoin their families, to make amends.

World's smallest violin, playing just for the ISIS members.
These people rejected the West and chose the Islamic Caliphate. They made their bed, let them lie in it.

Those would lead to some pretty terrible consequences for the US.

Welcoming back a person that later commits a terrorist attack would indeed be a pretty terrible consequence for the US. I mean, let's say we let Hoda in and she then decides to follow her own advice?

My understanding of the law is that the current administration is wrong, as a point of law, about whether or not Muthana is a US citizen.

As a point of law, it hasn't been adjudicated yet.

My understanding is that her father was NOT a diplomat at the time she was born. That would make her a US citizen, however inconvenient it is for the current administration.

Even if she was citizen, by providing aid and comfort to the enemies of US, she has committed high treason.

Whoever, owing allegiance to the United States, levies war against them or adheres to their enemies, giving them aid and comfort within the United States or elsewhere, is guilty of treason and shall suffer death, or shall be imprisoned not less than five years and fined under this title but not less than $10,000; and shall be incapable of holding any office under the United States.

(June 25, 1948, ch. 645, 62 Stat. 807; Pub. L. 103–322, title XXXIII, § 330016(2)(J), Sept. 13, 1994, 108 Stat. 2148.)

I do not think US has any obligation to bring traitors back from the battlefield when they are being held by a third party. However, if she makes her own way back, she should be prosecuted for treason, not have red carpet rolled out to help her get her life together.

She could not legallly drive a car in most states, drop out of school, marry without parental permission in any state or at all in many states, legally vote or drink alcohol or get her ears pierced or get a tattoo or sign a contract or dozens of other things. She was an adolescent. Her brain development and judgment was not that of an adult. Not legally and not biologically. It's wrong to treat her as an adult. And for the record, no, I do not approve of trying 15 year olds as adults.

And yet it happens. Sure, juveniles are not the same as adults. But neither are 15 year olds the same as 10 year olds. There is a continuum of responsibility, legally and biologically. Btw., the UK government think they can legally strip her of UK citizenship, and if they are successful, they have no responsibility toward her.

I have not said that I do not think they should stand trial for any crimes they have committed that might be prosecuteable. I've stated why I think it is wrong to strip the citizenship away from young people.

You wrote "I think it's better to welcome people home, help them recover and rebuild their lives". That does not include prosecuting them.

After the US Civil War, southerners did not lose their citizenship, afterall. Surely, those were acts of treason and sedition far more serious than anything these people have engaged in.

I am not sure about that. They felt allegiance to their state over against the federal government. That is very different than pledging allegiance to a theocratic Caliphate engaged in hostilities with what is supposedly your country and which exists on a different continent.
In other words, there is a difference with a conflict over how your country should be organized vs. joining forces with a completely different country over your own. German-Americans joining the Wehrmacht would be a better example. I do not think those were treated very kindly though. This comparison is better not only because of the "foreign power" vs. "civil war" aspect of it, but also because ISIS is, on the scale of Evil, much closer to Nazi Germany than to the Confederacy.

I think kids should be treated as kids.

Hoda is not a "kid". She was 19 when she joined ISIS, and is 24 now. Even Begum was not really a child, but a teenager. She is 19 now, an adult. So even if you want to excuse her actions when she was 15-17, her membership in ISIS when she was 18 and 19 happened while she was a legal adult.

As far as I know, Kraft isn't being threatened with losing his citizenship.

But he is being prosecuted. For something that should not be a crime in the first place. At the same time we have a traitor who you think should be "welcomed back".
We'll continue that discussion in the other thread, I merely brought it's quite a disconnect how you demonize men like Kraft while excusing women like Hoda.

He's rich; he's white; he's male. Nothing will happen to him.

Nothing should happen to him not to any other customers. And something should happen to the operators of the Spa iff (if and only if) any of the women were held there against their will. Nothing should happen to owners and operators simply for "running a house of ill repute".

When you repeatedly use the familiar names of women and persons of color, you undermine any chance you might get at being seen as being a reasonable, objective commentator. Being courteous and respectful shores up your position. Being discourteous and disrespectful undermines your position.

Again with the nomenclature police! I use the name that makes most sense in a given instance. I.e. shortest name that is unique enough. We went over this many times. But if you prefer, I shall refer to Hoda as "Mother of Jihad" from now on. After all, that's how she referred to herself. Deal?

 

[Derec]

Isis brides should be welcomed back with open arms?

I like how the caption says that particular two women are "allegedly" in the photo because you can't see who the fuck they are under the garbage bags.

Taken from an article about death of Hoda Muthana's first husband in 2015.
'Jihadi Brides' Praise Death Of Australian IS Militant

Umm Jihad [Hoda Muthana], who tweeted an image apparently showing Abu Jihad's body, announced the death of her husband on Twitter. Abu Jihad had "fought in the front lines until he obtained shahadah [martyrdom]," she wrote.

Umm Jihad said she was "the most content I have ever been in my life."

Umm Jihad's nationality is unknown, [at the time, but now we know she is a Yemeni with disputed citizenship] but The Age reported that Raham is thought to have married a "jihadi bride" from the United States.

While Umm Jihad tweeted about her sense of contentment, Umm Abdullatif called on Western Muslims to carry out terror attacks in their home countries. "Kill Kuffar [infidels] in alleyways, stab them and poison them. Poison your teachers. Go to haram [forbidden] restaurants and poison the food in large quantities," Umm Abdullatif tweeted.

Muslim women in the West would not be deterred from sending their husbands to fight in the Middle East, Umm Abdullatif added. "Our husbands die in frontlines but that doesn't stop women in the west from sending their husbands to kill kuffar. Attack: UK AUS & US," she tweeted.

Do not be deceived, these women are just as fanatical as the men.

 

[Derec]

Another article about Hoda from 2015.
Gone Girl: An Interview With An American In ISIS

At the time, she was only identified by her first name and her nom de guerre. Buzzfeed talked to her father Mohammed (without revealing he was a diplomat). It turns out he is a fundamentalist Muslim.

The use of the phone, however, was limited by the family’s conservative rules. “When [Hoda] get a cell phone, she went on it like any teenager happy with a phone, and she opened Facebook and I saw some of her pictures, herself, and I told her, ‘No, that's not acceptable,’” he said. Although Hoda’s brothers and Mohammed himself have Facebook accounts — with pictures of themselves visible — the women of the family were not to have social media accounts or use messaging apps to communicate with anyone besides family members.

To enforce this, Mohammed would often check his daughter’s phone. When Hoda would object, claiming that everything on her phone was hers, and private, Mohammed said he would respond, “Yeah, you're private but I am a father; I need to know what you do.”

It's amazing he does not recognize the link between his fundamentalist religion and her viewing ISIS favorably.

Hoda’s newfound dedication to her faith was a source of pride to her father, particularly her commitment to memorizing the Qur'an. Mohammed said that she would write out the words of the holy book in English and Arabic to help her memorize, filling many books.
Mohammed said that he had no idea that her devotion would lead her to ISIS. “When I heard her memorizing one of the biggest suras — Surat Al*-Kahf — I was comfortable because she’s a true Muslim, disciplined, but I didn’t know she’s going to go that far. Honestly. Nobody knows.”
Hoda said that her parents saw her change over time as she deepened her faith. “I dressed and behaved more modestly,” she said. “It helped me with my temper and made me a better person overall. They liked the change until they saw me getting ‘jihadi.’”

More about Family Murthana ...

“For me, this is terrible news, her to stay one night,” Mohammed said. “It’s unacceptable.” He called his other children from D.C. and told them to retrieve their sister (his wife does not drive or speak English).

Jeez, I am shocked, shocked, that growing up in a wonderful family like this could lead one to become a supporter of ISIS.

We need to be more careful who we let immigrate...

 

[DrZoidberg]

I was earlier under the impression that we'd have to deal with millions of ex-fighters and their families. But it's so few people that it's not worth bothering about. Let them perish. It's a shame about what happens to their children, but this war has left at least 100 000 orphans in Syria. They can join that club. I see no reason to give the children of the fighters any privileges we're not also extending to the rest of the orphans, ie those orphaned because of their parents war crimes.

Since they are orphans, why not bring them all to safety? You don't have their criminal parents to worry about if they are dead, right? Why not just treat them as any other children, and educate them so they grow up to be peaceful and productive? Sounds good to me. I don't care if Timmy's dad was Hitler. Its not his fault.

But we're not. Sounds nice. But politically dead in the water.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

How about a different approach? They can come home--but go to a POW camp so long as ISIS is fighting.

 

[DrZoidberg]

How about a different approach? They can come home--but go to a POW camp so long as ISIS is fighting.

But ISIS are crushed. ISIS will of course keep fighting, because any random loser can pick up a rock and throw it at somebody and yell something about ISIS, and that will count as a continuation of the ISIS armed conflict.

 

[ideologyhunter]

A series on Investigation Discovery.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

How about a different approach? They can come home--but go to a POW camp so long as ISIS is fighting.

But ISIS are crushed. ISIS will of course keep fighting, because any random loser can pick up a rock and throw it at somebody and yell something about ISIS, and that will count as a continuation of the ISIS armed conflict.

So long as ISIS is egging on such attacks they are still active and the Jihadi brides would remain as prisoners of war.

 

[repoman]

I wonder how many Lady Kaede's are in the UK?



Don't marry or let move into your territory someone you have fucked over. This is basic stuff.

 

[Derec]

So long as ISIS is egging on such attacks they are still active and the Jihadi brides would remain as prisoners of war.

After the end of the war POWs are returned to the former enemy, not freed to stay in your country.

 

[Derec]

ISIS launches last ditch counter-offensive using women and children fighters in Baghouz

The reports said the Syrian Democratic Forces saw many women and children dressed in their combat fatigues attacking their points during today’s battle.
The Syrian Democratic Forces will likely counter this Islamic State offensive in the coming hours as they hammer away at the terrorist group’s last bastion with both airstrikes and heavy artillery.
Due to their shortage of fighters, the Islamic State has begun using women and children at the front-lines to help defend their last positions at the Baghouz Camp.
The Islamic State had previously prohibited women from fighting at any of their front-lines; however, due to a shortage in manpower and provisions, they have made an exception to this rule.

How very progressive of them.

Hmm. Don't the loose robes interfere with freedom of movement which is essential in combat?

 

[DrZoidberg]

How about a different approach? They can come home--but go to a POW camp so long as ISIS is fighting.

But ISIS are crushed. ISIS will of course keep fighting, because any random loser can pick up a rock and throw it at somebody and yell something about ISIS, and that will count as a continuation of the ISIS armed conflict.

So long as ISIS is egging on such attacks they are still active and the Jihadi brides would remain as prisoners of war.

Who do you think ISIS are? The distributed nature of Islamist movements precludes this.

A big problem with Westerners think about Islam, is that we assume that Islam is like Christianity, but different hats. Islam is quite loosely held together. An imam or religious leader, is only that because he's popular. It could be compared to baptist ministers. They have no official rank or power. A Muslim doesn't have allegiance to a single imam. They have allegiance to (their version of) Islam in general. The way Islam is organised, it's by it's nature quite democratic.

Muslims also often equivocate between the religious power and the political power. Making this confusing. Isis is both an Islamic religious movement, as well as a political movement. Any loser can decide they're a member of ISIS. There's no initiation rites. There's no seal of approval.

I think your idea of ISIS is a fantasy. The political organisation of ISIS is completely crushed. There's nothing left of it. It's only the religious movement left. And that has no leader really. Al-Baghdadi is just a figure head. He's not leading any troops anymore. There's no functioning organisation left within which to give orders.

- - - Updated - - -

ISIS launches last ditch counter-offensive using women and children fighters in Baghouz

The reports said the Syrian Democratic Forces saw many women and children dressed in their combat fatigues attacking their points during today’s battle.
The Syrian Democratic Forces will likely counter this Islamic State offensive in the coming hours as they hammer away at the terrorist group’s last bastion with both airstrikes and heavy artillery.
Due to their shortage of fighters, the Islamic State has begun using women and children at the front-lines to help defend their last positions at the Baghouz Camp.
The Islamic State had previously prohibited women from fighting at any of their front-lines; however, due to a shortage in manpower and provisions, they have made an exception to this rule.

How very progressive of them.

Hmm. Don't the loose robes interfere with freedom of movement which is essential in combat?

I think it's a ninja

 

[Loren Pechtel]

So long as ISIS is egging on such attacks they are still active and the Jihadi brides would remain as prisoners of war.

Who do you think ISIS are? The distributed nature of Islamist movements precludes this.

A big problem with Westerners think about Islam, is that we assume that Islam is like Christianity, but different hats. Islam is quite loosely held together. An imam or religious leader, is only that because he's popular. It could be compared to baptist ministers. They have no official rank or power. A Muslim doesn't have allegiance to a single imam. They have allegiance to (their version of) Islam in general. The way Islam is organised, it's by it's nature quite democratic.

Muslims also often equivocate between the religious power and the political power. Making this confusing. Isis is both an Islamic religious movement, as well as a political movement. Any loser can decide they're a member of ISIS. There's no initiation rites. There's no seal of approval.

I think your idea of ISIS is a fantasy. The political organisation of ISIS is completely crushed. There's nothing left of it. It's only the religious movement left. And that has no leader really. Al-Baghdadi is just a figure head. He's not leading any troops anymore. There's no functioning organisation left within which to give orders.

The distributed nature makes it awfully hard to stamp out, it doesn't mean it doesn't still exist.

 

[DrZoidberg]

So long as ISIS is egging on such attacks they are still active and the Jihadi brides would remain as prisoners of war.

Who do you think ISIS are? The distributed nature of Islamist movements precludes this.

A big problem with Westerners think about Islam, is that we assume that Islam is like Christianity, but different hats. Islam is quite loosely held together. An imam or religious leader, is only that because he's popular. It could be compared to baptist ministers. They have no official rank or power. A Muslim doesn't have allegiance to a single imam. They have allegiance to (their version of) Islam in general. The way Islam is organised, it's by it's nature quite democratic.

Muslims also often equivocate between the religious power and the political power. Making this confusing. Isis is both an Islamic religious movement, as well as a political movement. Any loser can decide they're a member of ISIS. There's no initiation rites. There's no seal of approval.

I think your idea of ISIS is a fantasy. The political organisation of ISIS is completely crushed. There's nothing left of it. It's only the religious movement left. And that has no leader really. Al-Baghdadi is just a figure head. He's not leading any troops anymore. There's no functioning organisation left within which to give orders.

The distributed nature makes it awfully hard to stamp out, it doesn't mean it doesn't still exist.

It also means it won't be stamped out. It's completely analogous to Nazism. When the Allies took Berlin they hadn't crushed Nazism. Nazism was crushed by forgiving them and subsuming them by the Cold War. The Nazis had one identity under Hitler, and were allowed to quickly switch identity and just drop the old one. Nazism wasn't crushed by arms alone. That was only a small part of it. Same deal in Japan. They got to be freedom loving and democratic instead. New identity.

It doesn't help that we in the West routinely confuse Islam with Islamism. We're continually pushing regular Muslims towards radicalism. It's not just our fault, of course. But right now we're not helping matters.

Here's a little story. In the 1970'ies and 1980'ies Egyptians moved to Sweden and in 1990 set up a Swedish branch of the Muslim Brotherhood (Islamists) called the Muslim Council of Sweden (also Islamists). Because of racism of low expectations nobody in the Swedish general public was listening to what these people were actually saying. Because of wanting to seem multi-cultural the ruling political party, the Social Democrats (not Islamists and not a fascist party) became allied with these people. So the most leftist liberal party imaginable get into bed with actual fascists. Whooops! So they get massive political funding. Huge sums of money from the Swedish people. This gave them muscle to spread their ideology, even outside Sweden. It also opened all the necessary doors into the European establishment. BTW, this is still ongoing.

This is the kind of thing I'm talking about. We have to stop doing this. We have to stop seeing Islamists as just people who feel passionate about their faith. They are pure evil. We have to stop seeing regular Muslims as Islamists. Because it just alienates (both groups) and adds to the problem. Beside the obvious point of being wrong. We have to stop treating brown people like children who don't know any better.

ISIS isn't a problem with Islam. It's a problem with fascism. The Islam of the ISIS members is not the problem. The people of West Germany stopped being Nazi while still being Christian. Their Christianity didn't make them Nazis.

We have to ditch the idea that Islamism can be defeated via conventional means. Fascism will always be attractive because it's provides simple solutions to complicated problems, and above all blames everything that's bad on somebody other than you. It allows somebody to be an utter cunt, while simultaneously letting them be victims. Who doesn't like that? Islamists are not special, nor unique nor will they go away.