Removing citizenship

12345679»

Comments

  • Again, fair comment. I'm probably overstating my case a bit.

    But so are you...
    They sought a nation state within the middle east that could be the home of all Muslims

    Most of their victims have been Muslims, so this is definitely not the case.

    Part of it is the practicality of denying citizenship to people who never wanted that citizenship in the first place, in a country where the border is as porous as a sieve, and where a significant proportion of the population will hide you. For political purposes, the UK had to own the NI situation (since it was of their own making), and that meant owning the people who lived there.

    Shamima Begun wants British citizenship (now? again? still?), but the UK government has ascertained they can paint her as 'somebody else's problem' after the event. They can't, clearly. My argument all along has been that post-hoc justification won't wash, and had they acted sooner, they could have made it very difficult for ISIS fighters to return 'home' to the UK.
  • There is a conspiracy theory that the baby was an invention - which sounds ridiculous and preposterous and disgusting.. until one looks at the photos.

    I would think that a journalist could tell if a person really had recently given birth and was nursing a child, and yet the photos never actually show any part of the baby.

    Which is even more bizarre given that the person in question claims to be from an ultra extreme Islamic sect whilst apparently having no problem showing her face to the media and therefore being shown to millions of men.

    It might be nothing, but to me something doesn't add up about this story.
  • Doc Tor wrote: »
    But so are you...
    They sought a nation state within the middle east that could be the home of all Muslims

    Most of their victims have been Muslims, so this is definitely not the case.
    Probably because their definition of "Muslim" (or at least, "faithful Muslim") is very narrow.
  • mr cheesy wrote: »
    There is a conspiracy theory that the baby was an invention - which sounds ridiculous and preposterous and disgusting.. until one looks at the photos.

    I would think that a journalist could tell if a person really had recently given birth and was nursing a child, and yet the photos never actually show any part of the baby.

    Which is even more bizarre given that the person in question claims to be from an ultra extreme Islamic sect whilst apparently having no problem showing her face to the media and therefore being shown to millions of men.

    It might be nothing, but to me something doesn't add up about this story.

    I haven't followed this enough to have any opinion about the baby, but the use of the niqab (face veil) is not only sectarian, but regional in aspect, and much less practised in remoter areas. FWIW the Quran's rule is about the covering of the chest, as breast-baring was apparently an aspect of some pre-Islamic rituals. We have old-order Amish and we have Mennonites who dress in everyday clothes as we also have women who belong to certain Mormon and evangelical sects and are in their modesty garments and those who are in other Mormon and evangelical sects, whose dress is the same as the general population.

    Her face-baring might well mean absolutely nothing.
  • Doc Tor wrote: »
    But so are you...
    They sought a nation state within the middle east that could be the home of all Muslims

    Most of their victims have been Muslims, so this is definitely not the case.
    Probably because their definition of "Muslim" (or at least, "faithful Muslim") is very narrow.

    Which was my point. ISIS's declared aim was rejected by 99.999'% of Muslims.

  • Her face-baring might well mean absolutely nothing.

    I thought IS had a rather ..erm.. extreme practice regarding the necessity of face covering.

  • GalilitGalilit Shipmate
    In the first interview the baby was mostly wrapped (as one does with newborns); but a pic in today's Guardian shows its little face ... and I for one have lit a little candle for his wee soul

    As to how to tell if someone has really given birth - do we have to show you our freshly bloodied pads to get you to believe us???
  • mr cheesy wrote: »
    There is a conspiracy theory that the baby was an invention - which sounds ridiculous and preposterous and disgusting.. until one looks at the photos.

    I would think that a journalist could tell if a person really had recently given birth and was nursing a child, and yet the photos never actually show any part of the baby.

    Which is even more bizarre given that the person in question claims to be from an ultra extreme Islamic sect whilst apparently having no problem showing her face to the media and therefore being shown to millions of men.

    It might be nothing, but to me something doesn't add up about this story.

    I haven't followed this enough to have any opinion about the baby, but the use of the niqab (face veil) is not only sectarian, but regional in aspect, and much less practised in remoter areas. FWIW the Quran's rule is about the covering of the chest, as breast-baring was apparently an aspect of some pre-Islamic rituals. We have old-order Amish and we have Mennonites who dress in everyday clothes as we also have women who belong to certain Mormon and evangelical sects and are in their modesty garments and those who are in other Mormon and evangelical sects, whose dress is the same as the general population.

    Her face-baring might well mean absolutely nothing.
    Galilit wrote: »
    In the first interview the baby was mostly wrapped (as one does with newborns); but a pic in today's Guardian shows its little face ... and I for one have lit a little candle for his wee soul

    As to how to tell if someone has really given birth - do we have to show you our freshly bloodied pads to get you to believe us???

    I said it was a conspiracy theory.

    I'm not asking for proof, I'm just saying that the photos and videos are inconclusive.

    This video does not appear to my eye, as someone who has been close to a reasonable number of children, to be of a baby. She is holding something, but it isn't moving and shows little sign to of being a child.

    But YMMV, it is only a thought.
  • Anyway, whilst one can appreciate the trials of any mother who has lost children in these terrible circumstances, the recent recorded interviews with her have in no way put her in a good light.

    If anything I am even less warm to her as a person. She appears to have decided that a wet cat expression whilst asking for "forgiveness" is sufficient to gain sympathy - whilst at the same time apparently saying things that suggests she still believes in the IS ideology.

    Yes, it was a really messed up situation. But you did this to yourself, girl.
  • BoogieBoogie Shipmate
    edited March 2019
    I mostly agree @mr cheesy, but those babies were entirely innocent. :cry:
  • Boogie wrote: »
    I mostly agree @mr cheesy, but those babies were entirely innocent. :cry:

    Yes. I don't know what anyone could have done which would have made any difference.

    She's basically neglected her own children and is now trying to pass off the blame onto others.
  • mr cheesy wrote: »

    Her face-baring might well mean absolutely nothing.

    I thought IS had a rather ..erm.. extreme practice regarding the necessity of face covering.

    Indeed, but the men-who-are-like-lizards are not in charge about her right now, so their practices might be relevant.

    If, perhaps, she were returning to Scotland, kirk session and a board of presbyters could easily deal with her moral failings and defects. Aside from that, we must charge her with a specific offence, or just set her off to earn a living.
  • Martin54Martin54 Shipmate
    Doc Tor wrote: »
    Doc Tor wrote: »
    But so are you...
    They sought a nation state within the middle east that could be the home of all Muslims

    Most of their victims have been Muslims, so this is definitely not the case.
    Probably because their definition of "Muslim" (or at least, "faithful Muslim") is very narrow.

    Which was my point. ISIS's declared aim was rejected by 99.999'% of Muslims.

    No, it wasn't declared by that proportion globally. It will have had traction in a lot less nines. Especially in Iraq, Syria and second and third generation western Islamic youth.
  • You'd probably need to reconsider putting the victims of ISIS in with their armchair supporters.
  • Martin54Martin54 Shipmate
    What proportion of those were Sunni?
  • There are some figures here from Pew Research that show up to 14% approval rating of ISIS in various countries around the world in March 2015. It's a graph quite a long way down the article.
    How do Muslims feel about groups like ISIS?
    Recent surveys show that most people in several countries with significant Muslim populations have an unfavorable view of ISIS, including virtually all respondents in Lebanon and 94% in Jordan. Relatively small shares say they see ISIS favorably. In some countries, considerable portions of the population do not offer an opinion about ISIS, including a majority (62%) of Pakistanis.

    Favorable views of ISIS are somewhat higher in Nigeria (14%) than most other nations. Among Nigerian Muslims, 20% say they see ISIS favorably (compared with 7% of Nigerian Christians). The Nigerian militant group Boko Haram, which has been conducting a terrorist campaign in the country for years, has sworn allegiance to ISIS.

    While I was digging for those numbers, I found this Independent article suggesting that Shamima Begum was partially home grown in the UK by Muslim attitudes to their women and girls
  • Martin54Martin54 Shipmate
    edited March 2019
    Doc Tor wrote: »
    You'd probably need to reconsider putting the victims of ISIS in with their armchair supporters.

    As I said, shave a few nines. About 4. Four orders of magnitude... Doc...
  • Martin54 wrote: »
    Doc Tor wrote: »
    You'd probably need to reconsider putting the victims of ISIS in with their armchair supporters.

    As I said, shave a few nines. About 4. Four orders of magnitude... Doc...

    What are you talking about? How is this a response to anything anyone has said?

    IS have terrorised a population. Releasing fighters back into that community would further terrorise victims.

    So wtf is your comment supposed to mean in response to that reality?

    Maybe drop the cryptic stuff for a change?
  • Martin54Martin54 Shipmate
    ?

  • Dare I suggest that there's another difference between supporters of Irish paramilitaries (both sides) and supporters of Daesh. Supporters of Daesh tend to have darker skin. Could that be a factor?

    I'm afraid that was the point I was getting at. I had hoped in asking, basically, why White UK terrorists get to keep their passports and don't even get deported to their country of preferred nationality (in fact, are even extradited when possible to bring them back to Britain for a trial) whereas Non-white UK terrorists apparently don't, and aren't required to account for their crimes in their home country that point might have made itself!

    I bear in mind too that Sajid Javid, the home secretary behind the decision, is himself a non-white British national. But can't really draw any conclusions as to what impact, if any, this might have had on his decision.

  • Doc Tor wrote: »
    @Anselmina - I very much doubt if any IRA member would have ever considered themselves British, since they deemed the creation of Ulster and its continued occupation by the British an illegal act. They were Irish.

    I can't think of a Northern Irish Catholic acquaintance or friend, to my own knowledge, who would've considered themselves British, the legal validity of their British citizenship being completely solid notwithstanding! On orchestra and choir trips it was no challenge spotting who the Catholics were and who the Protestants when we had to hand over our passports for checking. To say nothing about our Christian names.

    And, certainly during my years growing up it was a simple fact that if you were a Catholic you self-identified as Irish, and if you were Protestant you were British. The first time I ever got called Irish in my life, was when I moved to England at the age of 22, and every other English person started calling me Irish. Talk about an identity crisis! Took me about ten years to finally give up the fight explaining why I wasn't 'Irish'; and just to submit to the fact that whatever British had meant to me and my fellow Ulster folk, had no meaning at all in England. Hence my ambivalence towards nationality in recent years.

    Anyway, I apologise for dragging in this whole side argument. It was just something that struck me as kind of analagous in some ways, though obviously not in others.
  • Martin54Martin54 Shipmate
    edited March 2019
    The white 'terrorists' fighting for the Peshmerga against SCIS did not declare actual terrorist war on their homeland and it's citizens abroad. Any more than those white 'terrorists' who fought on either side of the Spanish civil war.
  • Anselmina wrote: »
    I'm afraid that was the point I was getting at. I had hoped in asking, basically, why White UK terrorists get to keep their passports and don't even get deported to their country of preferred nationality (in fact, are even extradited when possible to bring them back to Britain for a trial) whereas Non-white UK terrorists apparently don't, and aren't required to account for their crimes in their home country that point might have made itself!

    Aside from the possible racial issues, there could be other reasons.

    If you catch a terrorist in Northern Ireland, and deport him to the republic, you haven't actually prevented him from crossing back into NI and blowing something else up. It's like throwing next door's kids' ball back over the fence - you're probably going to do it more than once.

    If, on the other hand, you dump your terrorist in Bangladesh, or somewhere else half way around the world from your back garden, he's less likely to show up again.


Sign In or Register to comment.