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

Really? Ah yes, the americans are below us, we are sooo superior! Take your condescending bullshit somewere else.
It isn't a question of superiority or inferiority, neither is it one condescending, but a simple observation. You, and by you I mean the US people, are very often incapable of understanding that their is nuances in all things, a flaw that you inherited, I believe, from the Cold War. Look @ Shitposter's post for example, for him, either one is responsible or the other, but he can't understand that both can be. Again, a flaw more often found in the US than in Europe, for example.
 
No, it's logical. While she is of course responsible for her decision, the UK government is also responsible for its. She could have allowed her don to go without her, she refused, maybe hopping to use him as a bargaining chip, I don't know, leading to his death. The UK stripped her, apparently illegally since she doesn't seems to have another, of her nationality, preventing her, and by extension her son, leading to his death. Both, at various degrees, have a responsibility in what happened. Also, responsible does not mean guilty. Again, simple logic.
Well you can't blame the UK gov for the child's death anymore than you can blame it any other child related death caused by the child's parents.The UK provided terms for the child to go to safe haven,the mother was the one who denied it and it was her responsibility.The UK provided her with citizenship and it's benefits and she went to live and work for an organization dedicated to it's demise.I think giving her the benefit of a doubt and wasting resources is not worth it.

It wasn't the UK government that took the child there,she did.It wasn't the UK government that took the child to an area that was objectively less safe,she did.The UK government allowed the child to return, but the mother didn't.
Illogical. Holding one side partially accountable doesn't mean that the other side isn't. I believe that you are American to hold such a view, but no, things are not bipolar, they are not 100% right or 100%.
On a side note, I have to congratulate you on the choice of your username.
Well how would a government do for someone that soundly betrayed them?What makes her so important compared to someone who is genuinely regretting their decision?She joined and supported an organization that is both violent and working against her government.

Wouldn't just accepting her cause an uproar among actually loyal subjects?Wouldn't accepting her back on her terms prove to be a risk to the actual people living in UK?Wouldn't it also be a risk to whatever rescue effort has to be made?She betrayed her country and wants back with nothing to give, not even loyalty.

She's responsible for being a piece of shit that put her son in danger, under circumstances entirely in her control(as she initiated the situation).She's responsible for putting her kid's needs under her wants, a betrayal of what every parent should be like.

And no, I ain't a burger and I still find your country-based high horse retarded.I find too many bleeding hearts here unable to understand that at the fault lies entirely on her, demanding that the UK government make unreasonable exceptions and decisions for the life of one when taking her in on her terms would be risking probably dozens more.

Never mind the message it would send out:
"As long as you drag a kid into your mess,you get a get-out-of-jail-free card".Now you opened the floodgate for every idiot to drag their kid into the fight with confidence,you now have more kids to save,even more kids endangered.Even more situations just like her.Even more kids in the same situation.
 
As I explained on SB in my various answers:

It doesn't matter. The UK government has no authority to decide to separate them on foreign soil. Furthermore, she is the mother and her role is important for the baby's development. It was either take both of them back or not at all.

Once back in the UK, they had the possibility to arrest the mother and send the kid to his relatives.

British citizens, British soil, British law.

As I explained, it was simple. The government made a mess of the whole thing. That's not "unfortunate" or "tragic", it's cowardice and the baby, a British citizen, died because of it. The government has a responsibility towards all its citizens. By refusing to make the simplest call and handle things, they abandoned a kid in a very dangerous environment for him and he died as a result. The government had one job, one. And it wasn't capable to make the right call.

The mother is responsible, yes. But she's definitely not the only one.

And I'm afraid he's not going to be the last one.
The government has a responsibility towards all its citizens.
This, I feel, where a lot of the disagreement comes from: does a Governments responsibility towards an individual citizen take precedent over their responsibility to the safety of the general public (perceived or otherwise)?
It doesn't have to take precedence. The UK has a prison system, with all the required infrastructure for radicalized people. They could've handled her.

And you know as well as I do that she would have been arrested and put in de-rad while in prison. So the risk for society was minimal. The British government had all the luxury to handle this situation in a professional manner. As you said, the government has the possibility to take your freedom away.

Nobody said that she should've or would've been free once back in the UK. I never said that, Firethorn never said that. Nobody.

Are you arguing that the British prison system cannot handle her? What about the people already incarcerated? Does the fact that they're in prison, undergoing de-rad or other protocols or just in prison for the rest of their lives, put the safety of society in such danger that you feel scared every day?
Question becomes should we go to the cost and risk of sending people to bring her back given that she willingly put herself in the situation in the first place?
When it appears that an innocent child's life, a British citizen for that matter, would be in danger, yes. It's not just about her, mate. It's a balance of interest. Can we handle her (prison,...)? Yes. Can we ensure the baby's safety? Yes. Does he has relatives? Yes.

The kid should've been the priority. And now, I honestly hope the family will take this in court.

The way your government handled the situation is... Well I honestly can't think of an appropriate word.

And if I may ask, which bastion of Political virtue do you hail from?
I only hail from one, single bastion... which is the law and how to make the best decision possible according to the law and the various interests at stake. Like the government, you only see what you want to see: the political aspects. As if the child never existed...Well, now it makes their lives easier. It doesn't change however the fact that the government neglected to provide assistance to one of its citizens for purely political/electoral reasons. That's not a political position, it is not a moral position. It is a legal position. They perverted the law.

And deep down, you already know that between us two, you have the weakest arguments. The mere fact that your government stripped her of her nationality, making her stateless contrary to international law and the fundamental tenets of a democratic state, doesn't help your point of view.

The UK can handle the mother, there's a prison system. As I explained several times here and will keep explaining it, the simple choice was to repatriate them, put her in jail after a fair trial, let the baby's relatives to take care of him. Reading you, it's like the UK is so fucked up that you cannot even handle a woman in prison. Belgium does, and our prison system is not all rosy either. But we handle our business, we don't wash our hands and let "other States" deal with it.

That child's life should've been protected. He wasn't supposed to DIE. The Britisth government, YOUR government's responsibility towards that life was clear: to protect him and ensure his safety. The safety of the public in the UK would've been upheld by the mother's imprisonment. The mother is responsible for the decisions she made but YOUR government certainly is responsibility for denying that child the help he was supposed to receive.

What will happen the day you find yourself on foreign soil amidst a crisis and your government decides to let you rot there? Will you be okay with that? You know what happens (in normal condition, when you have a government which deserves the term) when, in a country where a crisis occur, a government notices that they have citizens stranded in-country? They evacuate them.

That's what a government is supposed to do. It's its responsibility, whether alone or in coordination with other States.


I don't know UK family (and related) laws well enough to give a detailed answer. But I am pretty sure, based on (international) private law, that it is not that simple either.


Not that I am aware of, which isn't surprising. As I explained, de-rad works well with softcore militants, ie. not the violent type. Hardcore militants are a lot harder to deal with. There are programs for them but with mixed results.

This is a pretty clear case. The slippery slope argument is not easy to apply here. Almost no one will ever willingly and public ally deny their citizenship to join a known terrorist organization. I also believe most of us will disavow any of our relatives who chooses to do so.

So no this wont be spreading its affects to other issues.
I'm not saying it will, I am explaining what is the usual way for any given government to handle a situation where its (innocent) citizens, such as this child, are in danger on foreign soil.
The UK dumped her and her child. Now, while State usually let foreign states handle crimes committed on their soil (especially if it's a democratic State, with similar rules of due process, etc.), Syria is a mess and the government or the Kurds are unable/unwilling to deal with her. Plus their laws don't necessarily provide the same judicial guarantees.

Problem is: there is an innocent child. It's not just about her. And on that point, the British government's duty was to ensure his safety. Period. No buts, no ifs there. It is the single and most important duty of any government. The government should've evacuated both of them, deal with the mother and ensure the child's safety).

Simple. Elegant. Lawful
.

But no, the British government was hell bent on making another mess (ya know, Brexit doesn't suffice). And their refusal to even consider the child also led to his death. Like it or not, the British government is responsible. It has a duty towards its citizens and failed to act.
 
Last edited:
As I explained on SB in my various answers:









But no, the British government was hell bent on making another mess (ya know, Brexit doesn't suffice). And their refusal to even consider the child also led to his death. Like it or not, the British government is responsible. It has a duty towards its citizens and failed to act.
The "child" didn't "die", it was simply a clump of cells that got aborted.
 
The "child" didn't "die", it was simply a clump of cells that got aborted.
You're as disgusting as you are stupid. He was 2 weeks old, died of pneumonia, suffered severe acute malnutrition. He was alive and so much more than "simply a clump of cells that got aborted".

I never though you could be this stupid. I'm impressed. Maybe you should ask Trump to recruit you. You share some similarities and I'm sure he would love to read or hear such disgusting comments.
 
You're as disgusting as you are stupid. He was 2 weeks old, died of pneumonia, suffered severe acute malnutrition. He was alive and so much more than "simply a clump of cells that got aborted".

I never though you could be this stupid. I'm impressed. Maybe you should ask Trump to recruit you. You share some similarities and I'm sure he would love to read or hear such disgusting comments.
he's making an anti abortion point I think...
 
I doubt so, this is him playing the usual asshole on a very serious thread and showing again that he lacks even a modicum of decency. And even if that's true, it's off-topic.
And yet, this is a thing leftists are pushing, so it brings into question if the left actually has room to call trump "evil" "disgustuing"
 
And yet, this is a thing leftists are pushing, so it brings into question if the left actually has room to call trump "evil" "disgustuing"
Then open a new thread to discuss about it all you want, this is not the right place. I don't need to be mentioned either, I don't care about the abortion debate in the US and extremists views on both sides of the aisle. I'm used to saner political debates.
 
The "child" didn't "die", it was simply a clump of cells that got aborted.
I have to ask - are you off your pills???? :mad:
If you want to make a political statement, make a new thread, I will be happy to discuss abortion with you, I have some life experience that has given me a f***ing lot of personal insight.
 
.... Wow.

Didn't the ISIS dudes promise virgins and glory? And fighting against an evil empire (America) for God (Islam)

This is like a really dark take of harem genre.
A medieval peasant dying of the plague & getting Isekai'd into ISIS territory by Allah? ISIS Schoolgirl is the main Tsundere LI.
I have some life experience that has given me a f***ing lot of personal insight.
Where you aborted as a child, and now your spirit haunts an old abortion clinic turned internet cafe?
 
Where you aborted as a child, and now your spirit haunts an old abortion clinic turned internet cafe?
If one tries to forget for a moment what this thread is about, this one was actually funny (y)
 
Well you can't blame the UK gov
You can for not respecting international laws, that state that you can't make a person stateless.

The UK provided her with citizenship and it's benefits
No ? She was born British.

It wasn't the UK government that took the child there,she did.It wasn't the UK government that took the child to an area that was objectively less safe,she did.The UK government allowed the child to return, but the mother didn't.
The child was born there, and unless she was able to hold her pregnancy since 2015, he was also conceived there. So no, she didn't bring her child there.

Well how would a government do for someone that soundly betrayed them?What makes her so important compared to someone who is genuinely regretting their decision?
Wouldn't just accepting her cause an uproar among actually loyal subjects?Wouldn't accepting her back on her terms prove to be a risk to the actual people living in UK?Wouldn't it also be a risk to whatever rescue effort has to be made?She betrayed her country and wants back with nothing to give, not even loyalty.
Never mind the message it would send out:
"As long as you drag a kid into your mess,you get a get-out-of-jail-free card".Now you opened the floodgate for every idiot to drag their kid into the fight with confidence,you now have more kids to save,even more kids endangered.Even more situations just like her.Even more kids in the same situation.
Arrest her on arrival, remove her parental rights (which is legal), give the child to his grandparents or, baring that, a foster family. She would be punished, the kid would be safe.
 
No. If you don't know how and why it's important, then that's on you. Others have a more deeper , clearer understanding.

[Laughs in Nestle and Union Carbide]

Seriously man, look at how the US Dumped craptonnes of Agent Orange on Vietnam and massacred its civilians, or how the USSR Devoured Eastern Europe after 1945
 
Back
Top Bottom