Shamima Begum

Redka said:
I’ll give it a watch but presumably it her version of events afterwards.

but she never saw any of the attrocities and was blissfully unaware that they were going on around her. I’m watching now and just have pity for Fabio if he is gullible enough to believe anything that comes out of her mouth her - if are eyes aren’t shifting she is smiling before answering the difficult questions that’s when she’s not saying I don’t want to answer that. All this being in contradiction to her previous interviews prior to the westernisation of her appearance.

For the record I agree she should come back here and stand trial.
Click to expand...


You have sympathy for me for watching a documentary, while being fully aware that she’s hardly going to spill the beans and start attacking ISIS ideology …while she’s stuck in a place surrounded by 100s of ISIS people, and I have pity for you for believing a 15yr old school kid can’t be groomed so I guess that makes us even 😉

On your second point, that’s the main issue and I’m glad we agree on that much.
 
Redka said:
but she never saw any of the attrocities and was blissfully unaware that they were going on around her.
Click to expand...

It’s actually quite easy for women not to see the atrocities in these places. Many of them aren’t exactly allowed out much.….It’s a very different culture to what we experience. I could tell you some stories but you wouldn’t believe me and it would only take the converation down an unintended dark path. But I can very easily understand how she didn’t personally see these things being carried out with her own eyes. Unless they were being done right outside her window.
She also said she didn’t see beheadings but did see heads in bins in the street, so I don’t think at any point she makes out that she was unaware that these atrocities were occurring.
 
FabioPorkpie said:
It’s actually quite easy for women not to see the atrocities in these places. Many of them aren’t exactly allowed out much.….It’s a very different culture to what we experience. I could tell you some stories but you wouldn’t believe me and it would only take the converation down an unintended dark path. But I can very easily understand how she didn’t personally see these things being carried out with her own eyes. Unless they were being done right outside her window.
She also said she didn’t see beheadings but did see heads in bins in the street, so I don’t think at any point she makes out that she was unaware that these atrocities were occurring.
Click to expand...
I’m not sure whether we are watching the same documentary (bbc 1hr 30 mins) but she has just said that she saw heads in the bin - this was from her earlier interviews and she didn’t feel anything.
 
Redka said:
I’m not sure whether we are watching the same documentary (bbc 1hr 30 mins) but she has just said that she saw heads in the bin - this was from her earlier interviews and she didn’t feel anything.
Click to expand...
Yeah, she says she didn’t feel anything. But she thought they were the baddies who wanted to rape and murder her and her friends and their children. That’s how brainwashing works.
That said, I don’t care how brainwashed you are, seeing a head in a bin is going to **** you up for a bit. Maybe forever.
 
FabioPorkpie said:
Yeah, she says she didn’t feel anything. But she thought they were the baddies who wanted to rape and murder her and her friends and their children. That’s how brainwashing works.
That said, I don’t care how brainwashed you are, seeing a head in a bin is going to **** you up for a bit. Maybe forever.
Click to expand...
. “But she thought they were the baddies who wanted to rape and murder her and her friends and their children.”

Is taht your words as she did t say that or maybe I missed it?

I’m just not sure how this documentary does her any favours.
 
FabioPorkpie said:
Yeah it‘s pretty clear that she was completely brainwashed. In the earlier interviews she spoke in a way that made that very apparent. It is also pretty clear that she had to be careful what she said, living among a camp full of ISIS followers. It is also clear that at one point in her life she bought into a terrorist ideology and supported that organisation, and that is abhorrent, but she did so from a groomed child’s perspective. She should face justice and be punished accordingly for her actions, here.
She should not be used as culture war/right wing voter bait though, (and I believe she has) whether or not she poses a threat anymore.
That there is even a discussion that it is a factor in the decision to strip her of her citizenship, shows how far we have fallen into the mess.
Click to expand...
If she hasn't done anything then what justice does she need to face? Why can't she just come back here and live amongst us and get on with her days?
 
Redka said:
. “But she thought they were the baddies who wanted to rape and murder her and her friends and their children.”

Is taht your words as she did t say that or maybe I missed it?

I’m just not sure how this documentary does her any favours.
Click to expand...

No, they aren’t her words. They are mine, because I believe whether you believe her or not, it’s clear she’s been brainwashed and that comes through loud and clear by her understanding of who she thought were enemies at the time.
From memory, I do think the Times journalist also said something about her being clearly brainwashed during that segment, but it may have come later.
 
Randy said:
If she hasn't done anything then what justice does she need to face? Why can't she just come back here and live amongst us and get on with her days?
Click to expand...

Eh? Really?!
Where have I, or anybody else for that matter, said she’s done nothing wrong? Edit - she may have, but we can’t say she has or hasn’t for sure (beyond the obvious one of running away to join a terrorist organisation) Either way, she should be punished for her actions here.
Respectfully, I think you are maybe missing the point.
 
Last edited:
I watched it weeks ago, have listened to the podcast series and watched a number of other documentaries over the years.

I think there are two things I am confident of:

1. She was groomed as a child, and probably still as an adult. She has shown some remorse, but I think people are bemused that she hasn’t shown more and has refused to answer certain questions. If nothing else this is a PR mistake on her behalf.

2. She may still pose a security risk at some level, given her vulnerability.

I don’t know what the answer is about what happens to her now, I don’t think she can slot back into UK society and I don’t think we should be able to revoke her citizenship, nor do I think a Syrian refugee camp is the best place for her.

I also don’t think this issue is purely about racists and non-racists. It’s far more complicated. Some people would happily send her to the chair simply for wearing a hijab, but most people are just scared of further terrorism.
 
Last edited:
The issue is the more she speaks the more she incriminates herself or reduces her credibility.

She is trying to balance a number of things:

1. The guards in the room whilst she’s interviewed.
2. What her lawyers have told her to say and not to say.

3. what she has said previously.

3. Along with being wary of not incriminating herself.

All you can be sure of from that documentary is that everything coming out of her mouth is trying to balance all of the above aspects and therefore looks guarded and disingenuous at best and outright lies at worst.

The other thing you can take from the documentary is that in the public domain there is little hard evidence of wrong doing (bar the obvious joining a terrorist organisation). We will never be privy to what sajid David knows about her actions.

I think she will be back in the UK in about five years time.
 
Redka said:
The issue is the more she speaks the more she incriminates herself or reduces her credibility.

She is trying to balance a number of things:

1. The guards in the room whilst she’s interviewed.
2. What her lawyers have told her to say and not to say.

3. what she has said previously.

3. Along with being wary of not incriminating herself.

All you can be sure of from that documentary is that everything coming out of her mouth is trying to balance all of the above aspects and therefore looks guarded and disingenuous at best and outright lies at worst.

The other thing you can take from the documentary is that in the public domain there is little hard evidence of wrong doing (bar the obvious joining a terrorist organisation). We will never be privy to what sajid David knows about her actions.

I think she will be back in the UK in about five years time.
Click to expand...
I dunno why she doesn’t just start a YouTube channel. She’d have about a billion subscribers in a week and be able to buy her own country with the earnings.
 
It’s a very complex situation. Part of me agrees she was a child and maybe we should be more understanding. Then there’s another part of me that watched her BBC interview where she was constantly smirking when asked about what went on and I just don’t believe her
 
Redka said:
The issue is the more she speaks the more she incriminates herself or reduces her credibility.

She is trying to balance a number of things:

1. The guards in the room whilst she’s interviewed.
2. What her lawyers have told her to say and not to say.

3. what she has said previously.

3. Along with being wary of not incriminating herself.

All you can be sure of from that documentary is that everything coming out of her mouth is trying to balance all of the above aspects and therefore looks guarded and disingenuous at best and outright lies at worst.

The other thing you can take from the documentary is that in the public domain there is little hard evidence of wrong doing (bar the obvious joining a terrorist organisation). We will never be privy to what sajid David knows about her actions.

I think she will be back in the UK in about five years time.
Click to expand...

The other thing you can be sure of was that she was a naive vulnerable 15 year old child in touch with people in Syria, namely her bezzie mate who had legged it there and was telling her how mint it was and sending her propaganda vids of kids playing in the park and fair grounds etc.
In fact, the police were aware of this pal and wanted to speak to Begum and her chums about their terrorist friend, so gave them letters to take home to their parents….which of course they didn’t. Talk about incompetence..
 
FabioPorkpie said:
The other thing you can be sure of was that she was a naive vulnerable 15 year old child in touch with people in Syria, namely her bezzie mate who had legged it there and was telling her how mint it was and sending her propaganda vids of kids playing in the park and fair grounds etc.
In fact, the police were aware of this pal and wanted to speak to Begum and her chums about their terrorist friend, so gave them letters to take home to their parents….which of course they didn’t. Talk about incompetence..
Click to expand...
Yes that did seem a bit odd to do it via letter!
 
Ladybucket said:
It’s a very complex situation. Part of me agrees she was a child and maybe we should be more understanding. Then there’s another part of me that watched her BBC interview where she was constantly smirking when asked about what went on and I just don’t believe her
Click to expand...
I agree she’s not always convincing. But she hasn’t been media trained I’d assume. There was a question about her husband in the recent documentary and she smirked/laughed when asked about him, almost as if he had a small penis or something, and it just felt inappropriate/misplaced, even if it wasn’t because she was still hiding something important.

But I wouldn’t revoke her citizenship purely because of that.
 
Ladybucket said:
It’s a very complex situation. Part of me agrees she was a child and maybe we should be more understanding. Then there’s another part of me that watched her BBC interview where she was constantly smirking when asked about what went on and I just don’t believe her
Click to expand...
The smirking is not a good luck and the attitude of I joined isis - so what, why are people still talking about it!
 
atypical_boro said:
I agree she’s not always convincing. But she hasn’t been media trained I’d assume. There was a question about her husband in the recent documentary and she smirked/laughed when asked about him, almost as if he had a small penis or something, and it just felt inappropriate/misplaced, even if it wasn’t because she was still hiding something important.

But I wouldn’t revoke her citizenship purely because of that.
Click to expand...
Totally. It’s a complex case that drifts from morality to legality in a heartbeat.

She clearly wants to be back with her family and she has lost more than one child which is awful.

It’s just hard to defend someone clearly smirking at questions regarding ISIS who has been told to have a western look to manipulate ppl
 
What really amazed me initially is that as a country we allow three minors to leave our shores seemingly unchecked. I mean travelling these days we are 'held' in airports for hours. before travel. Simple checks could have prevented all of this unfolding, then follow up on the why's and who's involved. UNLESS they were being watched by security forces and told to let them travel.
Not happy with the previous decision at all, simply because she was a minor and one of 'ours'. I'm sure the concerns of her being a security risk is genuine, Judges and our leadership have seen the evidence, but we will never be given the opportunity to see this so we will have to trust in the decision makers whether we like it or not.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top