House wife's father now blames the UK

[Notch7]

They might well be, but peaceful ones are beside the point really - in World War 2 the majority of Germans were peaceful. Islam is not a peaceful religion; it causes trouble wherever it exists. In essence, for x number of peaceful muslims in your country you have to accept y number of terrorist killings in your country.

Admitting muslims has been this country's biggest ever mistake. Let them to their own countries; East is East etc

Its all very well ranting but you haven't offered any solution -although I can understand your point and the frustration behind it. Certainly the idea that multiculturalism has been a success, is not true and we need to look for different solutions.

In the same way you would argue political correctness has prevents honest discussion and hidden the problems that exist, I would also argue that blaming a whole group of people for a minority of fundamentalists is also preventing honest discussion and it incites hatred.


I don't agree with your argument regarding Islam because Muslims have lived in the UK for many many years, the terrorism is only a recent thing.

 

[ban-all-sheds]

Its all very well ranting but you haven't offered any solution

Yes he has.

Hatred and discrimination - that is his solution.

 

[Brigadier]

Absolutely reinforces what BAS and I have been saying.
Interviewer: "The Foreign Secretary said it was too dangerous for UK to send anyone to help."
Pause
Journalist: "That's just ridiculous."

.

There's a world of difference between a journalist (who can be there both to report, but also to (inadvertently, deliberately, or truthfully) act as the mouthpiece of their interviewees) accessing the camp, and a UK consular official (a direct employee of "the enemy" of hundreds or thousands of the camp occupants).

 

[jasonzyx]

There's a world of difference between a journalist (who can be there both to report, but also to (inadvertently, deliberately, or truthfully) act as the mouthpiece of their interviewees) accessing the camp, and a UK consular official (a direct employee of "the enemy" of hundreds or thousands of the camp occupants).

Perhaps you didn't listen to the report. The reporter speaks of young international aid workers, UK military personnel, etc., also being there.
Maybe, you think the UK consular official would send notice of his/her intended visit, perhaps advising the camp that they could easily recognise the official, because he/she will be the one with the big notice over their head, "I'm the UK Consular official" surrounded by UK military.

I think we've already ascertained that it is not necessary for the Consular official to visit the camp. But even then the reporter on the ground stated that it is ridiculous to suggest that it is not safe. He's been there three or four times.
How many times as Jeremy Hunt been there to make his assessment? Maybe he read the travel advice on his own website.

 

[Ian H]

Perhaps you didn't listen to the report. The reporter speaks of young international aid workers, UK military personnel, etc., also being there.

I’m surprised one of them didn’t offer her a lift back in one of their helecopters or planes.

 

[Notch7]

Perhaps you didn't listen to the report. The reporter speaks of young international aid workers, UK military personnel, etc., also being there.

I see you still dont have any proof that the mother gave permission for the baby to be taken from her in Syria......

 

[jasonzyx]

I see you still dont have any proof that the mother gave permission for the baby to be taken from her in Syria......

I see you still don't have any sensible contributions to make to the discussion.
Just the usual irrelevancies.

 

[sodthisforfun]

From what I can tell by the interview is that yes, he believed that the UK could've come to help the baby, had they wanted. He did say though that they'd have had to moved pretty quick in order to have done so. There's no mention of the baby's mother giving permission.

He did say though that the people are not allowed to leave the camp on their own, and that the guards thought that being told the baby being sick was a plan to escape, plus the guards had little regard for ISIS members so perhaps another reason the baby didn't get the help it needed as quickly as it needed in hospital.. He didn't attribute the blame to any one situation, more of a mix, but he did lean towards the fact that Shamima, the mother, could've done a lot much earlier, while still pregnant to done more for the survival of her baby on the way. She was ultimately, especially while still pregnant, more in control than anyone else. Instead she stuck with ISIS until she no longer had a choice and she lost all control of her and her baby's situation.

He was without a doubt positive that Shamima Begum was ISIS through and through.

 

[Notch7]

I see you still don't have any sensible contributions to make to the discussion.
Just the usual irrelevancies.

how can it be an irrelevance -it is the most key point, without any proof the mother gave permission all your pontifications are irrelevant.

 

[EFLImpudence]

It's been twenty six pages.

Have the people professing to care about this woman and her baby - because she has been interviewed - expressed any concern for the hundreds of others who are there and the, I believe, thirty six others who have been stripped of British citizenship?

 

[sodthisforfun]

Do you think, possibly, it's less about caring and more liking an argument?

 

[Ian H]

Do you think, possibly, it's less about caring and more liking an argument?

Can you back up that accusation with factual science based information?

 

[sodthisforfun]

Can you back up that accusation with factual science based information?

*Wibble*

 

[jasonzyx]

how can it be an irrelevance -it is the most key point, without any proof the mother gave permission all your pontifications are irrelevant.

It's obvious, neither of us have proof for either argument, therefore neither argument can be proved, so why argue on an unverifiable point?
There is some evidence, posted by BAS, that the mother would have given permission. There is absolutely no evidence that she wouldn't.
So why keep making the same irrelevant point?

 

[jasonzyx]

From what I can tell by the interview is that yes, he believed that the UK could've come to help the baby, had they wanted. He did say though that they'd have had to moved pretty quick in order to have done so. There's no mention of the baby's mother giving permission.

He did say though that the people are not allowed to leave the camp on their own, and that the guards thought that being told the baby being sick was a plan to escape, plus the guards had little regard for ISIS members so perhaps another reason the baby didn't get the help it needed as quickly as it needed in hospital.. He didn't attribute the blame to any one situation, more of a mix, but he did lean towards the fact that Shamima, the mother, could've done a lot much earlier, while still pregnant to done more for the survival of her baby on the way. She was ultimately, especially while still pregnant, more in control than anyone else. Instead she stuck with ISIS until she no longer had a choice and she lost all control of her and her baby's situation.

He was without a doubt positive that Shamima Begum was ISIS through and through.

Like I said, I urge everyone to listen to the interview. Makeup your own minds instead of us continually providing our own interpretation.