What's new
Frozen in Carbonite

Welcome to FiC! Register a free account today to become a member! Once signed in, you'll be able to participate on this site by adding your own topics and posts, as well as connect with other members through your own private inbox!

ISIS schoolgirl wants to return home

My point was that International Law has virtually laughable enforcement mechanisms.
International law, as it pertains to the behaviour of sovereign states, has almost no enforcement mechanisms. There's only one - authorization of the use of force against a state by the UNSC. This is not a bug, it's a feature, otherwise no sovereign state would ever be willing to enter into an agreement that limits its behaviour. And even though there are many examples of sovereign states wiping their figurative shoes on the agreements they've made, there are also many (and many more) examples of sovereign states abiding by those agreements. This reflects the plurality of views that is at the very core of our global civilization, from the level of individuals all to way to the level of sovereign states. Changing it would require changing ourselves and basically turning humanity into a hive-mind. Even in the darkest times of unipolarity, in the years 1998-2008, wasn't the world that bad.
 
Ah yeah, didn't take long to go to a bash Britain thread did it?
Nope, we're taking about the UK government, that's different.

Girl is Bangledeshi now,
Nope she isn't
Shamima Begum is not a Bangladeshi citizen and there is "no question" of her being allowed into the country, Bangladesh's ministry of foreign affairs has said.

She's an unapologetic terrorist who would be a threat to innocent people
Maybe she is, but that's why prisons are for.

So no, the UK isn't to blame nor does it have a responsibility to kowtow to terrorists
It isn't when you arrest her as she arrive, judge her and throw her in jail, stripping her of her parental rights at taking the child away from her.

don't blame the Govt for ignoring her, rather I praise it for bombing the shit out of these lowlifes in the first place.
And to hell with the child. The people ask for blood, let give them blood to save our positions.
 
She is Bangledeshi even if they loudly deny it, citizenship stems from the parents and her father is a Bangledeshi citizen living in Bangledesh. That means by law she has citizenship of her father's home nation. She is right now Bangledeshi, not British, despite protestations to the contrary.

So let's consider the options. Say the choice was made to bring her to the UK, how? You'd need for them to travel from Syria to a friendly nation, likely Turkey, where there is a British consulate. There is no safe road or air link so you'd need to travel overland in a truck or maybe charter a chopper, but good luck finding someone to take that contract.
For starters you wouldn't transport a deathly ill baby, no responsible doctor would sign off on that, so she's not going anywhere until the local hospital stabilises the kid which is what it tried to do anyway. The only logical time to do it was before the birth of the child and that boat was long past.
There was the option floated to return the kid but not the mother but the mother refused this as she wanted to stay with the kid. That was clearly a ploy as she would have been separated from it anyway the second she landed in London and was sent to jail with the kid going into care.
But by far the biggest reason here is the fact that to get her out you would be sending British officials into a warzone swarming with unaccounted for ISIS members. The Foreign Secretary has specifically cited this danger to life as a reason it didn't happen. You'd risk multiple lives for the sake of one, and it would be an extremely hazardous journey a sick kid likely wouldn't survive anyway.

So it is what it is, and I do not like the idea of the Govt sending British citizens to their potential deaths, and at ISIS hands they would be extremely horrible deaths, for a lost cause just to appease a section of the media. I do feel bad for the kid, but it isn't as simply as just picking it up and bringing it or the mother home. It would be an extremely dangerous mission into hostile territory that was not secure of ISIS who would just love to behead some British doctors and aid workers on the net. I remind you it has happened more than once before
 
She is Bangledeshi even if they loudly deny it, citizenship stems from the parents and her father is a Bangledeshi citizen living in Bangledesh. That means by law she has citizenship of her father's home nation. She is right now Bangledeshi, not British, despite protestations to the contrary.
So… it is fine that the UK say she isn't British, despite the fact she is, but it's wrong if Bangladesh allegedly do the same ? Care to explain your reasoning ?

So let's consider the options. Say the choice was made to bring her to the UK, how? You'd need for them to travel from Syria to a friendly nation, likely Turkey, where there is a British consulate. There is no safe road or air link so you'd need to travel overland in a truck or maybe charter a chopper, but good luck finding someone to take that contract.
For starters you wouldn't transport a deathly ill baby, no responsible doctor would sign off on that, so she's not going anywhere until the local hospital stabilises the kid which is what it tried to do anyway. The only logical time to do it was before the birth of the child and that boat was long past.
There was the option floated to return the kid but not the mother but the mother refused this as she wanted to stay with the kid. That was clearly a ploy as she would have been separated from it anyway the second she landed in London and was sent to jail with the kid going into care.
But by far the biggest reason here is the fact that to get her out you would be sending British officials into a warzone swarming with unaccounted for ISIS members. The Foreign Secretary has specifically cited this danger to life as a reason it didn't happen. You'd risk multiple lives for the sake of one, and it would be an extremely hazardous journey a sick kid likely wouldn't survive anyway.

So it is what it is, and I do not like the idea of the Govt sending British citizens to their potential deaths, and at ISIS hands they would be extremely horrible deaths, for a lost cause just to appease a section of the media. I do feel bad for the kid, but it isn't as simply as just picking it up and bringing it or the mother home. It would be an extremely dangerous mission into hostile territory that was not secure of ISIS who would just love to behead some British doctors and aid workers on the net. I remind you it has happened more than once before
That's all nice, but you are deflecting the subject here. The subject isn't the possibility or not to physically bring her back to the UK, but the fact she was stripped of her nationality, making it impossible whatsoever. But good try I guess.
 
So… it is fine that the UK say she isn't British, despite the fact she is, but it's wrong if Bangladesh allegedly do the same ? Care to explain your reasoning ?
Britain did it first, if they had done it first then there would be no other option. It is a rather simplistic way to view it of course but not inaccurate, Jus Sanguinis applies unless revoked and the UK revoked it first. And there is a campaign by a senior Bangladesh cleric to accept her over there.

That's all nice, but you are deflecting the subject here. The subject isn't the possibility or not to physically bring her back to the UK, but the fact she was stripped of her nationality, making it impossible whatsoever. But good try I guess.
This is true, the lack of nationality is the decider. But if it wasn't, and I'll note the baby was still considered British even if the mother was not, then there was still nothing to be done.
The Govt has said the children are innocent parties and considered British, there are at least five in the same situation and the goal is indeed to return the children as it would have been to return this particular baby, but it didn't happen because it is simply too dangerous.
I will differentiate that the ones who went their willingly got what they deserve, but the children did not and so should be helped as much as possible. But right now 'possible' is very hard to define. So we are still looking at helping UK citizens, but those citizens are just the children.
 
So… it is fine that the UK say she isn't British, despite the fact she is,
but the fact she was stripped of her nationality
She stopped being British by all metrics the moment she joined a god damn foreign terrorist organisation, tried to justify the murder of the British public of which included fucking children mind you as targets with "muh retaliatory strikes" and the fact the group in question literally identifies itself as an independent state.
 
She stopped being British by all metrics the moment she joined a god damn foreign terrorist organisation, tried to justify the murder of the British public of which included fucking children mind you as targets with "muh retaliatory strikes" and the fact the group in question literally identifies itself as an independent state.
That doesn't work like that, or where will you stop then ? if ISIS was a state, then you would have a point, but it isn't. She must be punished yes, but legally, and in accordance to international laws.
 
Back
Top Bottom