British Da'ish Widow want to come home

[dejongj]

Even though they are British-born British citizens who have done nothing wrong? We should just abandon them in Turkey and whatever fate IS decides to dream up for them?

Can you explain why? If they were in the UK we would expect social services to remove them from the care of such irresponsible parents - why should we stop caring now, when it is within our power to deliver them to a safer and (hopefully) happier life?

They are the responsibility of the parent. The state should not interfere, that is what got us in the mess in the first place. We always think the state knows best, and even if it does, it will end up wrong with the children hating us for the separation. That is much more important to them then anything else.

 

[Mr Bump]

They are the responsibility of the parent. The state should not interfere, that is what got us in the mess in the first place. We always think the state knows best, and even if it does, it will end up wrong with the children hating us for the separation. That is much more important to them then anything else.

So what would happen if for instance a man in UK committed a terrible crime such as murder?
Are his young children tarred by the same brush?
They did not ask to be associated just are his/her children?

young children have absolute trust in the parents and do every bidding.
In this case the parents have made a poor choice and the children should be allowed back to there home country and made to realize that this great nation stands by its children.


In your eyes the parents are fully responsible for there children so for instance they could sell them for slavery or kill them?

 

[Llamaman]

I realy hope you and any children you may have are never judged by your morality it will be a very sad day.
I am so saddened by many of the comments on this forum lately but yours has truly hit a new low.

I can understand your sentiment, but can we please try and avoid making this so personal?
I think there's an interesting debate to be had here, but it will descend into bickering if we play the man rather than the ball.

 

[big soft moose]

I'm sure the children are innocents - but how do we bring them back without admitting the parent who could be a fully fledged nutter ? (there's something not right about this as I'd question why ISIL are willing to let her go ?)

 

[Mr Bump]

I can understand your sentiment, but can we please try and avoid making this so personal?
I think there's an interesting debate to be had here, but it will descend into bickering if we play the man rather than the ball.

But they are not balls are they?
They are young British children, one is barely a baby.

 

[Llamaman]

They are the responsibility of the parent. The state should not interfere, that is what got us in the mess in the first place.

But sometimes the parents are incapable/unwilling to be responsible. Should a child be left in the 'care' of a parent who recklessly endangers its life?
The state interfere in such matters every day, and after every high-profile infanticide, there are public calls for more intervention, not less.

We always think the state knows best, and even if it does, it will end up wrong with the children hating us for the separation. That is much more important to them then anything else.

Do foster children always hate the state for removing them from harm? I don't think so - I've certainly not seen any evidence of that.

There are many cases in the UK of people who have come here to work, leaving the children at home in the care of grandparents, aunts etc. They do because they want a better life for their children, even if it means separation from them. So let the woman decide - if she's genuinely concerned for them rather than herself, she'll do the right thing.

That said, I don't think we should preclude allowing her back until the security services have checked her out. She might have been taken there under duress. She might have been deradicalised by her experience. This could make her a powerful asset in the fight against IS - we are seeing too many families taking their children to Raqqa - perhaps a dose of reality from one of their own who's been there might persuade a few to stay.

 

[Llamaman]

But they are not balls are they?
They are young British children, one is barely a baby.

Yes, but calling another poster immoral because their view differs from yours is provocative and unhelpful. We can argue about the principles without publically judging each other or name-calling.

 

[Laudrup]

So what would happen if for instance a man in UK committed a terrible crime such as murder?
Are his young children tarred by the same brush?
They did not ask to be associated just are his/her children?

young children have absolute trust in the parents and do every bidding.
In this case the parents have made a poor choice and the children should be allowed back to there home country and made to realize that this great nation stands by its children.

In your eyes the parents are fully responsible for there children so for instance they could sell them for slavery or kill them?

Joining an Islamic death cult that want to bring on the end of western civilization isn't just 'a poor choice', it is a choice incompatible with living in Britain. Letting her back to raise her 5 kids with these values should be the very last option. I'd leave her where she is or take the kids off her if she slinks back into the country and jail her.

 

[dejongj]

So what would happen if for instance a man in UK committed a terrible crime such as murder?
Are his young children tarred by the same brush?
They did not ask to be associated just are his/her children?

young children have absolute trust in the parents and do every bidding.
In this case the parents have made a poor choice and the children should be allowed back to there home country and made to realize that this great nation stands by its children.


In your eyes the parents are fully responsible for there children so for instance they could sell them for slavery or kill them?

The man in the UK will go to prison, that is not the same as what their mum have done. I'm not suggesting the children go to prison, I'm merely suggesting that at such a young age separating them from their mum really isn't going to help anyone.

There is no evidence the mum has been abusive to the children. The children can't stand by themselves. Having lost their father and then being separated by the British state from their mother will create hatred.

It is funny how you say "will someone please think of the children" and then get involved in rather personal condemnation of those who don't see it your way. Yet in a way that you don't seem to be able to see, I am actually thinking about the children and avoid growing hatred. The mum choose to live somewhere else, fine, let her.

I remember being young, it doesn't matter whether rich or poor or where you are. Being with your mum is incredibly important. And in my opinion we shouldn't interfere with that. I would think it is highly arrogant to think we know better.

 

[BBR]

You know no such thing.
She was married to an extremist, and a Muslim extremist at that.
It could been a case of "Do as you're told or die", or worse, "Do as you're told or the children die".

My first thought is no, there should be no return, but that's without knowledge of all the FACTS.

This is OOF, what have facts got to do with it

 

[dejongj]

But sometimes the parents are incapable/unwilling to be responsible. Should a child be left in the 'care' of a parent who recklessly endangers its life?
The state interfere in such matters every day, and after every high-profile infanticide, there are public calls for more intervention, not less.


Do foster children always hate the state for removing them from harm? I don't think so - I've certainly not seen any evidence of that.

There are many cases in the UK of people who have come here to work, leaving the children at home in the care of grandparents, aunts etc. They do because they want a better life for their children, even if it means separation from them. So let the woman decide - if she's genuinely concerned for them rather than herself, she'll do the right thing.

That said, I don't think we should preclude allowing her back until the security services have checked her out. She might have been taken there under duress. She might have been deradicalised by her experience. This could make her a powerful asset in the fight against IS - we are seeing too many families taking their children to Raqqa - perhaps a dose of reality from one of their own who's been there might persuade a few to stay.

The state does that indeed, and I don't agree. They seem to interfere when not required and don't want to know when the parents need help.

I never forgot having our children, the health visitor visits were very intrusive. They wouldn't schedule a time. They threatened to report you when you weren't at home. FFS having children is not an illnes. I can't stand the arrogance of the state in knowing it better. Heck even the rubbish they get fed in school doesn't come close to my standards.

Separating them from a perfectly fine parent is not the thing to do at the moment. There is no indication the children ar at risk of harm by the mum.

Personally I don't believe those who've been out are the best and have the comprehension to put this into context so that others understand and wouldn't go. There is an ideological huge difference.

No, I think this is purely for state provided benefits now there is no man to provide for her.

 

[big soft moose]

i'm not sure someone who takes her kids to join the daish qualifies as a 'perfectly fine parent' - although as ruth said she may not have had a lot of choice Extreme islam (like extreme christianity) holds that wife and children are chattels of the husband to do with as he wishes

however this is what i mean about something not adding up - sharia law would also hold that the 'elders' would find her another 'warrior brother' to marry (again she wouldn't get much if any choice) so its a little suspicious that they'd let her and the children return to the Uk just because she wants to

 

[dejongj]

i'm not sure someone who takes her kids to join the daish qualifies as a 'perfectly fine parent' - although as ruth said she may not have had a lot of choice Extreme islam (like extreme christianity) holds that wife and children are chattels of the husband to do with as he wishes

however this is what i mean about something not adding up - sharia law would also hold that the 'elders' would find her another 'warrior brother' to marry (again she wouldn't get much if any choice) so its a little suspicious that they'd let her and the children return to the Uk just because she wants to

Perfectly fine in the idea of the children. Just because we don't agree with her ideology, doesn't make her wrong or a bad parent. Heck if we were to apply that criteria than there would be lots and lots of bad parents.

Hmm back to the old days that children out of wedlock should be taken off the mum? The UK has had a very checkered past in my opinion in its relationship to children and parenting where the state knows best. The true extend is only just starting to surface. I really wouldn't add to it and break up a family unit at a time of stress and suffering.

 

[Llamaman]

however this is what i mean about something not adding up - sharia law would also hold that the 'elders' would find her another 'warrior brother' to marry (again she wouldn't get much if any choice) so its a little suspicious that they'd let her and the children return to the Uk just because she wants to

The article I read states that IS don't allow people to leave freely and have border controls etc. In this particular case, the woman sought the assistance of an anti-IS group to smuggle her out of the Caliphate and into Turkey, but she's still in fear as IS have links there and they could still face reprisals. Could all be an elaborate cover story, but equally could be true.

 

[Llamaman]

There is no evidence the mum has been abusive to the children

One might make the argument that taking the children to a warzone to witness the brutality of life under IS is a form of abuse.

I really wouldn't add to it and break up a family unit at a time of stress and suffering.

Hypothetically, would that position change if we got intelligence that an IS hit-squad were tracking the family and planned to publically execute them? It's a choice we may have to make in the near future - I can't imagine IS are too happy at the prospect of a high-profile defector.

 

[viv1969]

This is OOF, what have facts got to do with it

I know.
Shame on me..What was I thinking?

 

[dejongj]

One might make the argument that taking the children to a warzone to witness the brutality of life under IS is a form of abuse.

If that was the objective of going out there I would agree with you. That is not a teaching that fits in with my believes. However I am satisfied that the people going out there is not to witness the brutality of life under IS.

Hypothetically, would that position change if we got intelligence that an IS hit-squad were tracking the family and planned to publically execute them? It's a choice we may have to make in the near future - I can't imagine IS are too happy at the prospect of a high-profile defector.

Hypothetically speaking; yes it would.

 

[big soft moose]

of course if/when we deal decisively with IS this won't be an issue..

 

[dejongj]

I notice that three of the votes so far are regarding none of the above. It would be interesting to learn what other actions people would like to see taken? Would anyone care to elaborate?

 

[dejongj]

of course if/when we deal decisively with IS this won't be an issue..

I think it will. You can't deal with an ideaology, it can't be rooted out.

 

[big soft moose]

yeah but ISIL aren't an ideology , they are a perversion of the islamic religion - there's no need to deal with the ideology just with the people who think it justifies terrorism

look at the KKK in 1960s america vs how marginalised and irrelevant they are now..

 

[simon ess]

I notice that three of the votes so far are regarding none of the above. It would be interesting to learn what other actions people would like to see taken? Would anyone care to elaborate?

I nearly went with none of the above because of the inherent bias in the question with the use of the word "welcome".

 

[dejongj]

yeah but ISIL aren't an ideology , they are a perversion of the islamic religion - there's no need to deal with the ideology just with the people who think it justifies terrorism

look at the KKK in 1960s america vs how marginalised and irrelevant they are now..

I disagree and agree. We can't deal with the ideaology, but unfortunately that has got everything to do with it together with money, power and sexual frustration.

The security services were right, more and more evidence is coming out to that extend.

 

[dejongj]

I nearly went with none of the above because of the inherent bias in the question with the use of the word "welcome".

out of interest what inherent bias did you read into that? I didn't have any intention associated with it, just interested in how that is being interpreted.

 

[dejongj]

I nearly went with none of the above because of the inherent bias in the question with the use of the word "welcome".

out of interest what inherent bias did you read into that? I didn't have any intention associated with it, just interested in how that is being interpreted.

 

[simonblue]

I notice that three of the votes so far are regarding none of the above. It would be interesting to learn what other actions people would like to see taken? Would anyone care to elaborate?

Wars a never nice,and its very sad to say children get mixed up in them and they suffer,i don't think their are any easy answers of what to do in cases like this,i think that maybe she would be better of staying in an Islamic society for a while at least to start of with.

 

[simon ess]

Yes, I thought about it and decided you didn't intend any bias, but I'm sure you can see why the word "welcome" has connotations.

Even a word like "allowed" has connotations that are questionable.

The law does not "welcome" a suspect into court, or "allow" them to be tried.

 

[dejongj]

Cool thanks for the clarification. That is a useful distinction. I see what you mean.

 

[Llamaman]

I notice that three of the votes so far are regarding none of the above. It would be interesting to learn what other actions people would like to see taken? Would anyone care to elaborate?

One of those is mine - I felt the question as asked focused only on her and didn't consider that the children were also a factor and that their treatment did not necessarily have to be the same as the mother's (although that would be preferable, subject to security clearance).
(I also felt that the choice of words was somewhat loaded, but given how overwhelming the result is, it probably hasn't influenced the result of the poll)

 

[Mr Bump]

I also found the OPs opening post very leading and the options in the vote reflecting obvious views in this matter.
I did vote on let the law decide for the sake of.

I felt the OP and the vote was focused on the woman with very little sympathy for the children.

 

[dejongj]

One of those is mine - I felt the question as asked focused only on her and didn't consider that the children were also a factor and that their treatment did not necessarily have to be the same as the mother's (although that would be preferable, subject to security clearance).
(I also felt that the choice of words was somewhat loaded, but given how overwhelming the result is, it probably hasn't influenced the result of the poll)

I also found the OPs opening post very leading and the options in the vote reflecting obvious views in this matter.
I did vote on let the law decide for the sake of.

I felt the OP and the vote was focused on the woman with very little sympathy for the children.

Fair enough and thank you for coming forward. Yes it was definitely focussed on the woman, hey the children aren't allowed to travel independently without a guardian. As such the whole process is about the woman and I am a firm believer that this woman wouldn't harm her children and that they are actually belong together as a family unit. Especially during these times of what must be a stressfull situation.

 

[viv1969]

Fair enough and thank you for coming forward. Yes it was definitely focussed on the woman, hey the children aren't allowed to travel independently without a guardian. As such the whole process is about the woman and I am a firm believer that this woman wouldn't harm her children and that they are actually belong together as a family unit. Especially during these times of what must be a stressfull situation.

That very much depends on their ages and the airline.
BA will take them unaccompanied from 5.

 

[PaulF]

With regard to the woman being allowed to leave by Isis, I saw a documentary a month or so about life inside Isis and an Israeli lawyer who was leading an organisation to rescue people trying to get out of Isis territory. Quite interesting, not to mention dangerous for all involved.

Edit.
The programme was Channel 4 Dispatches - Escape from Isis
http://www.channel4.com/programmes/dispatches/articles/all/escape-from-isis

 

[Overexposed]

I realy hope you and any children you may have are never judged by your morality it will be a very sad day.
I am so saddened by many of the comments on this forum lately but yours has truly hit a new low.

Perhaps you can discuss security/morality with some of the relatives of those who lost kin in the London bombings.

 

[dejongj]

That very much depends on their ages and the airline.
BA will take them unaccompanied from 5.

What about the 1 year old? And lack of independent passports, etc.

 

[simonblue]

With regard to the woman being allowed to leave by Isis, I saw a documentary a month or so about life inside Isis and an Israeli lawyer who was leading an organisation to rescue people trying to get out of Isis territory. Quite interesting, not to mention dangerous for all involved.

Edit.
The programme was Channel 4 Dispatches - Escape from Isis
http://www.channel4.com/programmes/dispatches/articles/all/escape-from-isis

It was an Kurdish lawyer,and theses women were being held against their will taken prisoner or kidnaped by IS

 

[viv1969]

What about the 1 year old? And lack of independent passports, etc.

I have no idea.
But if the decision was to refuse repatriation of the mother, but allow that of the children, and if the mother went along with it, given the curcumstances I'm sure suitable state guardians would be dispatched and flights arranged at the expense of the great British taxpayer

 

[dejongj]

I have no idea.
But if the decision was to refuse repatriation of the mother, but allow that of the children, and if the mother went along with it, given the curcumstances I'm sure suitable state guardians would be dispatched and flights arranged at the expense of the great British taxpayer

Of course it always is. Which brings it to a whole different conversation. And I wonder what the actual benefits will be for all involved. And I'm not talking about the ones you receive in the form of a cheque.

 

[Llamaman]

Perhaps you can discuss security/morality with some of the relatives of those who lost kin in the London bombings.

Not one of which was carried out by a toddler.

 

[Phil V]

Perhaps you can discuss security/morality with some of the relatives of those who lost kin in the London bombings.

Interesting viewpoint?
I watched the memorial service, and listened to some survivors and the kin of some of the dead.
And the overwhelming feeling was one of forgiveness and acceptance. Not one of them stated that retribution or retaliation was a decent thing to do.

Nothing personal to you, but this attitude reminds me of all those neo nazi symapathisers who tried to use Lee Rigby's death as justification for being knobheads. It doesn't wash, it's drivel of the lowest order. What makes us civilised is being able to put away negative emotions in order to deal with criminals in a fair manner in order to build a just society.