[Politics] British IS Girl wanting to return to the UK

[Simster]

Does make me laugh that those on here who believe in the law of the land get accused of being terrorist sympathizers.

Disappointed with Javid, just playing to popular opinion trying to paper over the cracks of a failed government, are we heading for enemies of the people, the sequel

Some of us are fully aware that Javid is playing the populist card over this, but that doesn't make it wrong. Firstly, he is pandering to popular opinion - one of revulsion at the brass neck of a terrorist having the front to ask to come crawling back to the country she went to war against. People expect the law NOT to be made an ass of over this. The other good reason for taking control of the situation as he has done is that he needs to send a message to other people like this: "go to war against this country, don't expect to be let back in when it doesn't go your way because you are not worth risking the safety of our own people for" .

So I'm not accusing you of being a terrorist sympathiser because you advocate the UK bringing this filthy little shit "home", I just think you'd do well to remember who the real victims are here. She has an alternative place to go, let her find her own way there.

 

[nicko31]

Some of us are fully aware that Javid is playing the populist card over this, but that doesn't make it wrong. Firstly, he is pandering to popular opinion - one of revulsion at the brass neck of a terrorist having the front to ask to come crawling back to the country she went to war against. People expect the law NOT to be made an ass of over this. The other good reason for taking control of the situation as he has done is that he needs to send a message to other people like this: "go to war against this country, don't expect to be let back in when it doesn't go your way because you are not worth risking the safety of our own people for" .

So I'm not accusing you of being a terrorist sympathiser because you advocate the UK bringing this filthy little shit "home", I just think you'd do well to remember who the real victims are here. She has an alternative place to go, let her find her own way there.

Where is the alternative place?

 

[Simster]

She does not have Bangladeshi citizenship. The Home Office argument is she is entitled to it, but 3 other British Jihadists with Bangladeshi heritage who they attempted to remove their British citizenship from on exactly the same argument all won their appeal cases as it was deemed they had been made stateless. Best of luck if you think Bangladesh will issue her and her baby with citizenship anytime soon, they've got enough problems of their own.

Ah right. Well then I agree that if there is literally no other alternative then she'll have to come back. Hopefully that'll mean her having her baby taken away from her as she's deemed an unfit and unsafe mother, and maybe that should be made clear to her too. Or alternatively she could apply for the Bangladesh citizenship she has the right to. Maybe the UK government could pay Bangladesh to take her - it'll be cheaper than taking her back and nobody wants her here.

Where is the alternative place?

Bangladesh, hopefully.

 

[Falmer Flutter ©]

Some of us are fully aware that Javid is playing the populist card over this, but that doesn't make it wrong. Firstly, he is pandering to popular opinion - one of revulsion at the brass neck of a terrorist having the front to ask to come crawling back to the country she went to war against. People expect the law NOT to be made an ass of over this. The other good reason for taking control of the situation as he has done is that he needs to send a message to other people like this: "go to war against this country, don't expect to be let back in when it doesn't go your way because you are not worth risking the safety of our own people for" .

So I'm not accusing you of being a terrorist sympathiser because you advocate the UK bringing this filthy little shit "home", I just think you'd do well to remember who the real victims are here. She has an alternative place to go, let her find her own way there.

Or the message could be: "Go to war with this country, but don't expect to be let back in without facing justice when it doesn't go your way."

I have a hypothetical scenario here. Imagine if Paul Gadd had said he wanted to come home from Vietnam or Thailand or wherever it was he was festering. Now think about the meltdown if the UK government had just said: "Nah, you're all right where you are. We're just going to strip your citizenship."

UK criminals living abroad have to be brought home to face justice for crimes committed in this country or against this country.

 

[ManOfSussex]

Ah right. Well then I agree that if there is literally no other alternative then she'll have to come back. Hopefully that'll mean her having her baby taken away from her as she's deemed an unfit and unsafe mother, and maybe that should be made clear to her too. Or alternatively she could apply for the Bangladesh citizenship she has the right to. Maybe the UK government could pay Bangladesh to take her - it'll be cheaper than taking her back and nobody wants her here.


Bangladesh, hopefully.

She's a British born, British citizen, who grew up in Britain and was radicalised in Britain - Again, like it or not, she's our problem that we should be dealing with, not one for Bangladesh, Iraq, Syria or some other country to deal with. Seriously, do you think Bangladesh are going to accept foreign Jihadists when they've got over 1 Million displaced Rohingya Muslims on their doorstep for them to wander about amongst and get their radicalised teeth into?

 

[nicko31]

Bangladesh, hopefully.

So if there is a Bangladeshi terrorist born in Bangladesh, they don't want back and has entitlement to British citizenship should we take the individual concerned?

Bangladesh has enough problems of its own, its a poor country

 

[The Gem]

Where is the alternative place?

Who gives a f*ck !!! let the c*nt live and die in another country, or rot in hell she's a f*cking terrorist.

 

[Green Cross Code Man]

So if there is a Bangladeshi terrorist born in Bangladesh, they don't want back and has entitlement to British citizenship should we take the individual concerned?

Bangladesh has enough problems of its own, its a poor country

One thing not mentioned as far as I have seen in this discussion, is that Bangladesh is presumably a far more 'suitable' place for her to live, having the view of the West that she has, in that it is an Islamic country.

 

[cunning fergus]

By that same argument then the UK will no longer be able to deport terrorists who come to the UK with the express intention of killing British citizens.

Thanks.

You need to take your head out your arse, terrorists are not (or very rarely) deported from the UK because the same lawyers (and their shills) agitating we take this shithouse back will argue that they cannot be sent to a dangerous shithole of a country, or that they’ve had kids, theyre homosexual etc.

I can remember the Afghans’ who hijacked a passenger jet diverted it to Stansted, and they were never deported.

Your point does not hold water in practice, and most people know it.

 

[Simster]

Or the message could be: "Go to war with this country, but don't expect to be let back in without facing justice when it doesn't go your way."

I have a hypothetical scenario here. Imagine if Paul Gadd had said he wanted to come home from Vietnam or Thailand or wherever it was he was festering. Now think about the meltdown if the UK government had just said: "Nah, you're all right where you are. We're just going to strip your citizenship."

UK criminals living abroad have to be brought home to face justice for crimes committed in this country or against this country.

But that isn't the message we are suggesting is it? She wants to be let back in, fully aware that she might have to suffer a bit and she seems to think that is a price worth paying. I would bet you any money that if it became apparent that the state would take her baby away because of her radicalised beliefs, you wouldn't hear her bleating about coming back to the UK. She'd go strangely quiet on the subject.

She's a British born, British citizen, who grew up in Britain and was radicalised in Britain - Again, like it or not, she's our problem that we should be dealing with, not one for Bangladesh, Iraq, Syria or some other country to deal with. Seriously, do you think Bangladesh are going to accept foreign Jihadists when they've got over 1 Million displaced Rohingya Muslims on their doorstep for them to wander about amongst and get their radicalised teeth into?

If Bangladesh were to refuse her citizenship, then yes, I think unfortunately we have a duty to take her back. It's probably worth asking first though, and from the UK's point of view, I'd happily see how much money Bangladesh would accept to take her. She's clearly no threat to their population, unlike ours. And to be honest, as a citizen of this country, that is my first concern.

So if there is a Bangladeshi terrorist born in Bangladesh, they don't want back and has entitlement to British citizenship should we take the individual concerned?

Bangladesh has enough problems of its own, its a poor country

As above.

And your illustration doesn't really work at all: a Bangladeshi from a minority community goes to a foreign country with the express intention of fighting the Bangladeshi state - perhaps by advocating child murders by a man wearing a suicide vest. She then decides to publicly announce she is returning to Bangladesh and doesn't regret any of it. And you think Bangladesh would just "accept" their responsibility and deal with her in an orderly manner allowing her all manner of legal representation, perhaps a token amount of jail time and then spending a small fortune on granting her a new identity on her release for her own safety?

Righto. Call me cynical, but I reckon she'd not go back at all in fear of her life, and would try and gain citizenship elsewhere. Everybody knows it. Have a look at Amnesty International at the way dissidents are treated in various harsh, less tolerant, poorer nations. We all know it, and some of us are tired of being treated like the proverbial dustbin by these wankers who consider us "infidels".

 

[cunning fergus]

She was born in this country, grew up in this country, radicalised in this country and the state she's been in for the last 4 years - the Islamic State of Iraq and Syria Caliphate - doesn't exist.

The UK and other countries who have citizens who've gone to IS to ultimately fight against them need to show leadership, responsibility and deal with their own nationals - not leave it for others such as Syria, Iraq or Turkey to deal with, or in the case of Ms Begum, try to pass the buck onto Bangladesh - She's never even been to Bangladesh and 3 other British Jihadists who The Home Office tried to dump on them, on the grounds they were entitled to Bangladeshi citizenship, all won their appeals at the attempts of The Home Office to remove their British citizenship, as they'd been found to have been rendered stateless. You've also got the factor of her now having a baby born to a British mother to further complicate things and Bangladesh wont be touching either of them with a barge-pole.

Still, it's got Sajid Javid some favourable headlines and I guess the ensuing massive cost of all the subsequent legal action to the taxpayer won't be blamed on him either.

She left the country on her sisters passport, the UK has no obligation to send her one.

She is in Syria due to her own choices, and therefore if the Syrains want to deport her then thst is one thing, that is not what is happening as she now wants to come back.

Her parents and their supporters should raise funds and go out and put her in a safe place in Syria to protect her and her syrian kid. It is for them to help her not the British Govt or taxpayer.

If they had any sense they would not bring her back, she would be a target for reprisals by those family members/friends of those killed in Manchester.

#saferinsyria

 

[nicko31]

One thing not mentioned as far as I have seen in this discussion, is that Bangladesh is presumably a far more 'suitable' place for her to live, having the view of the West that she has, in that it is an Islamic country.

The primary religion of Bangladesh is irrelevant. Anyway, she is a British national not Bangladeshi.

 

[ManOfSussex]

If Bangladesh were to refuse her citizenship, then yes, I think unfortunately we have a duty to take her back. It's probably worth asking first though, and from the UK's point of view, I'd happily see how much money Bangladesh would accept to take her. She's clearly no threat to their population, unlike ours. And to be honest, as a citizen of this country, that is my first concern.

Why is she clearly no threat to their population? ISIL have been attacking and murdering scores of people in Bangladesh over recent years.

 

[Simster]

The primary religion of Bangladesh is irrelevant. Anyway, she is a British national not Bangladeshi.

That is gold.

Do you believe the shit you write or are you too consumed with smug self-satisfaction that you don't know how stupid you read?

 

[Simster]

Why is she clearly no threat to their population? ISIL have been attacking and murdering scores of people in Bangladesh over recent years.

In which case I'm sure Bangladesh will not grant her citizenship and if she has any form of moral compass she will have to try elsewhere before coming crawling back here. If we have to have her back, we have to have her back - I'd just advocate making that as difficult as possible though.

 

[Green Cross Code Man]

The primary religion of Bangladesh is irrelevant. Anyway, she is a British national not Bangladeshi.

How can the primary religion of Bangladesh be irrelevant? She left this country as she hates and despises western values and disagrees strongly enough to go and join the worst terrorist group in the world for many years. She wanted to impose Islam on Syria, Iraq and a primary aim of IS is to provoke a holy war in Europe. Bangladeshi society, would naturally fit more into her idea of how a country should operate than the UK which keeps interfering with middle eastern countries, meaning the problem is unlikely to go away.

 

[ManOfSussex]

She left the country on her sisters passport, the UK has no obligation to send her one.

She is in Syria due to her own choices, and therefore if the Syrains want to deport her then thst is one thing, that is not what is happening as she now wants to come back.

Her parents and their supporters should raise funds and go out and put her in a safe place in Syria to protect her and her syrian kid. It is for them to help her not the British Govt or taxpayer.

If they had any sense they would not bring her back, she would be a target for reprisals by those family members/friends of those killed in Manchester.

#saferinsyria

The child isn't Syrian. It doesn't work like that - it was born in a refugee camp to a British Mother - this further complicates the legal arguments to her advantage. The 'woulds' and 'should' in the rest of your post are irrelevant to the due legal process in all this ultimately.

 

[CHAPPERS]

Hang on. Because she's an ISIS supporter she is more aligned with the values of Bangladeshis? Is there a spectrum? Bit ISIS-y = Bangladesh, not ISIS-y at all = Britain

Better go and ask a Bangladeshi what they think about that. Hadn't we?

 

[sydney]

She is clearly still brainwashed FFS. I suspect the government have decided that she will never recover having been indoctrinated in our Country. Javid is a popularist, spineless coward. Typical politicking that will be overturned by the courts soon.

I’d like to have thought that our agents would have got to her a long time before our ****ing press. Surely there is a huge amount of intelligence that needs drawing out of that poisoned head.

When trapping her into the Manchester question, there was a the moment that the baby cried from under her despotic gown that signified that his future and probably life were now over as the chubby self satisfied journo waddled off knowing that he’d got the most emotive line he could and that the headlines along with his career trajectory would be massive.

‘America First’ screams that nasty Trump***t.
We are not America though, we tend to put worldwide problems at the top of our agenda like we did in 1939, it’s not as simple as ‘Britain First’ for us. She is our problem, we should have got to her first, taken that innocent child and then interrogated her until we fully understood the radicalisation process. Then she is in our jails until she proves she is no longer radical - for the rest of her life if need be but she is still our problem, Britain should sort it’s own shit out, we are not America, we are better than this.

trumps major bonus is he is 2000 miles away over the atlantic .......we are just 25k's away over a ditch ......we are the ones the firing line ......**** america.

 

[Falmer Flutter ©]

But that isn't the message we are suggesting is it? She wants to be let back in, fully aware that she might have to suffer a bit and she seems to think that is a price worth paying. I would bet you any money that if it became apparent that the state would take her baby away because of her radicalised beliefs, you wouldn't hear her bleating about coming back to the UK. She'd go strangely quiet on the subject.

Well clearly that's not the message being suggested by the government today, despite it seemingly being the policy in the past. Of course there wasn't quite as much media attention with those, mainly I suspect because they were men without a baby in tow... Surely that would be a better than doing nothing. Also, I haven't seen many arguments for a soft approach of bringing her back and basically letting her get away with. Only the leftist of lefties would advocate such madness.