Little miss 1st world problems got herself into a real 3rd world problem - UK has no obligation to solve them for her

[Val the Moofia Boss]

"Dumb teenager" excuse doesn't cut it. She expressed clear intent to leave her country to go join and fight for an enemy country. It's clear what kind of society she'd prefer to see Britain be turned into.

 

[KilroywasNOTHere]

"Dumb teenager" excuse doesn't cut it. She expressed clear intent to leave her country to go join and fight for an enemy country. It's clear what kind of society she'd prefer to see Britain be turned into.

people have this really twisted idea that somehow the bronze and middle ages were more meaningful and exciting.

 

[Cherico]

people have this really twisted idea that somehow the bronze and middle ages were more meaningful and exciting.

the bronze and middle ages did have moments of excitment but for the most part life was pretty dull. But people back then did have more meaningful lives then we do, but that's not a lack of technology but a lack of community.

People grew up knowing every one arround them, families were tighter by nessitiy and extended families would help raise the children, religion was a more prominate part of life and helped give context, because of the times people had more friends and many times people would be friends for years, decades and even life times.

People now are now a lot more isolated, the family unit has significantly broken down, and a lot of people are intensely lonely, our lives are less meaningful because we are more isolated.

 

[Despite]

Given that the UK abolished its death penalty some time ago, most likely she'd get a prison sentence.

The "Killing a Scotsmen" thing is an internet meme, not an actual law. The UK uses the principle of Implied Repeal, ancient obsolete laws automatically get repealed in the UK if they produce a new law that contradicts the old.

There is, of course, no more recent law that counters it being illegal to make a person stateless, that's a modern conceit.

Immigration Act 2014

www.legislation.gov.uk

The Specific Subsections:

Nationality, Immigration and Asylum Act 2002

An Act to make provision about nationality, immigration and asylum; to create offences in connection with international traffic in prostitution; to make provision about international projects connected with migration; and for connected purposes.

www.legislation.gov.uk

(4)The Secretary of State may not make an order under subsection (2) if he is satisfied that the order would make a person stateless.

(1)A person who is given notice under section 40(5) of a decision to make an order in respect of him under section 40 may appeal against the decision to an adjudicator appointed under section 81 of the Nationality, Immigration and Asylum Act 2002 (immigration appeal).

Shamina Begum was rendered stateless, and denied the chance to make an appeal.

At the time of the decision made by the Secretary of State, Shamina Begum was not rendered stateless. The fact that Bangladesh decided to ignore their own laws, because they don't have the same standard of legal probity as the UK, doesn't retroactively make the decision of the Secretary of State wrong in law.

This was tested in the UK Supreme Court.

As far as her multiple legal appeals go.

She appealed to have a lesser courts decision on the validity of this decision reviewed, and wanted to return to the UK to effectively appeal this.
Her right to a fair hearing doesn't trump the requirements of national security. Ultimately we cannot know exactly what the risk assessment said, so any pretense that we can challenge the UK security services on it is a bit thin.

Every decision made in her case by the UK has been validated, including those which involve the UK's adherence to international treaties. Your repeated assertions that the UK broke its own, or international law, aren't factual.

Begum Supreme Court decision.

Standing back from the detail, and summarising the position, it appears to me
that the Court of Appeal erred in four respects.
133. First, it misunderstood the role of SIAC and the courts on an appeal against
the Home Secretary’s decision to refuse a person leave to enter the United Kingdom.
As I have explained, the scope of an appeal in such cases is confined to the question
whether the decision is in accordance with section 6 of the Human Rights Act. That
question does not arise in the present appeal.
134. Secondly, the Court of Appeal erred in its approach to the appeal against the
dismissal of Ms Begum’s application for judicial review of the Home Secretary’s
refusal of leave to enter the United Kingdom. It made its own assessment of the
requirements of national security, and preferred it to that of the Home Secretary,
despite the absence of any relevant evidence before it, or any relevant findings of
fact by the court below. Its approach did not give the Home Secretary’s assessment
the respect which it should have received, given that it is the Home Secretary who
has been charged by Parliament with responsibility for making such assessments,
and who is democratically accountable to Parliament for the discharge of that
responsibility.
135. Thirdly, the Court of Appeal mistakenly believed that, when an individual’s
right to have a fair hearing of an appeal came into conflict with the requirements of
national security, her right to a fair hearing must prevail. As I have explained, if a
vital public interest - in this case, the safety of the public - makes it impossible for a
case to be fairly heard, then the courts cannot ordinarily hear it. The appropriate
response to the problem in the present case is for the appeal to be stayed until Ms
Begum is in a position to play an effective part in it without the safety of the public
being compromised. That is not a perfect solution, as it is not known how long it
may be before that is possible. But there is no perfect solution to a dilemma of the
present kind.
136. Fourthly, the Court of Appeal mistakenly treated the Home Secretary’s
policy, intended for his own guidance in the exercise of the discretion conferred on
him by Parliament, as if it were a rule of law which he must obey. As a result, it
applied the wrong approach to considering whether the Home Secretary had acted
lawfully.
137. For these reasons, and those more fully set out above, I would allow the
Secretary of State’s appeals in each of the proceedings before the court, and dismiss
Ms Begum’s cross-appeal. The result is that (1) Ms Begum’s LTE appeal is
dismissed, (2) her application for judicial review of the LTE decision is dismissed,
and (3) her application for judicial review of SIAC’s preliminary decision in the
deprivation appeal is dismissed.

 

[LindyAF]

the bronze and middle ages did have moments of excitment but for the most part life was pretty dull. But people back then did have more meaningful lives then we do, but that's not a lack of technology but a lack of community.

I think Kaczynski was also right that humanity is psychologically "geared" to be solving hard-but-personally-solvable problems which is of direct relevance to your survival right now. (Where "personally solvable" here can also mean by direct interaction with someone). Modern problems are typically either trivially easy, hard-but-solvable but totally disconnected from your survival, or an individual has issues actually making and seeing an impact.

 

[The Original Sixth]

I have no clue what clan they belonged to because I and all of my close relatives have three middle names which aren't Japanese and a surname which is.

BTW: my twin sis and I were named after Shakespeare characters. Our older two sisters got their names from Greek mythology.

Then it seems to me there's not much of a chance that anyone is going to remember that grudge. I mean, your ancestors certainly didn't do what she did; betray the country she didn't want and then turn around to repeatedly beg them to take her back.

 

[King Arts]

Yeah, Begum should not be allowed back into the UK. I don't know why Bina thinks they should. I mean I can kinda see the reason, the UK decided to sign treaties on how to handle citizenship. And the UK never recognized ISIS as a nation so I don't know if Begum's "renouncing" her British citizenship would count. Usually you need to get actual new citizenship and then apply at your old nations embassy to end your citizenship. She never did that. But still she is a danger to allow back in, though that just means that the UK should put her in prison, or hang her themselves instead of pussy footing about it.
However The Original sixth can go fuck himself. Him gloating about an innocent child dying and saying he is happy is beyond disgusting. It kinda puts him on the same level as ISIS and their ilk. Now is there a decent chance that her kid if she raised him in the UK would have been a problem YES, is that a gurantee NO, even if it was likely or predetermined since when was a punishment given before a crime is commited. Now Begum's son dying is probably for the best, but to be happy about it, and type about it with one hand is worthy of scorn. It's sad that this was the way things went, but it's Begum's own fault her child died.

 

[Bear Ribs]

At the time of the decision made by the Secretary of State, Shamina Begum was not rendered stateless. The fact that Bangladesh decided to ignore their own laws, because they don't have the same standard of legal probity as the UK, doesn't retroactively make the decision of the Secretary of State wrong in law.

This was tested in the UK Supreme Court.

As far as her multiple legal appeals go.

She appealed to have a lesser courts decision on the validity of this decision reviewed, and wanted to return to the UK to effectively appeal this.
Her right to a fair hearing doesn't trump the requirements of national security. Ultimately we cannot know exactly what the risk assessment said, so any pretense that we can challenge the UK security services on it is a bit thin.

Every decision made in her case by the UK has been validated, including those which involve the UK's adherence to international treaties. Your repeated assertions that the UK broke its own, or international law, aren't factual.

Hmm, for most cases I'd say that listing is pretty thin given it entirely consists of claiming the appeals court isn't allowed to question their decision in various ways.

But since my only concern about Begum in the first place is wanting the minutiae of the law recognized, that's satisfying enough.

 

[Despite]

Hmm, for most cases I'd say that listing is pretty thin given it entirely consists of claiming the appeals court isn't allowed to question their decision in various ways.

But since my only concern about Begum in the first place is wanting the minutiae of the law recognized, that's satisfying enough.

I think there is a much more important issue in there. It maintains the concept of Parliamentary Sovereignty. Because the only way for the lower courts to mandate that Begum would get to come back in the face of the decision made, would have been to effectively usurp the powers of Parliament to overrule the elected official, and require that the right to a fair hearing overruled government national security concerns, without any ability for the appeals court to review classified information.

I don't see how you think its reasonable to word this as though the Supreme Court was merely claiming that the appeals court wasn't allowed to question the decision. The Supreme court wasn't claiming anything. That is the law, with precedent and case law to support it. It isn't thin, its rock solid, unless you reject the sovereignty of the United Kingdom completely.

Yeah, Begum should not be allowed back into the UK. I don't know why Bina thinks they should. I mean I can kinda see the reason, the UK decided to sign treaties on how to handle citizenship. And the UK never recognized ISIS as a nation so I don't know if Begum's "renouncing" her British citizenship would count. Usually you need to get actual new citizenship and then apply at your old nations embassy to end your citizenship. She never did that. But still she is a danger to allow back in, though that just means that the UK should put her in prison, or hang her themselves instead of pussy footing about it.
However The Original sixth can go fuck himself. Him gloating about an innocent child dying and saying he is happy is beyond disgusting. It kinda puts him on the same level as ISIS and their ilk. Now is there a decent chance that her kid if she raised him in the UK would have been a problem YES, is that a gurantee NO, even if it was likely or predetermined since when was a punishment given before a crime is commited. Now Begum's son dying is probably for the best, but to be happy about it, and type about it with one hand is worthy of scorn. It's sad that this was the way things went, but it's Begum's own fault her child died.

There was a legal mechanism to allow her return. She would have been given specific conditions under which she could return, which she would have had to accept. Probably that she would arrive at a certain time and date, and via a certain route, and she would be arrested on her arrival, and assessed immediately by security services and if her child was with her, suitability to be a parent, which is obviously at this point a nonsensical idea. However before anything like this could be considered, she had engaged with the media in a campaign to regain entry, which drastically turned public opinion against her, and made it politically untenable for any more considered response.

I would agree there is no value in applauding the death of her children, to cheer such deaths diminishes the person applauding such a result. An appropriate solution would have been her imprisonment, and the fostering of her children with an appropriate family. Obviously not her immediate family, who should have been investigated for their potential contribution to the radicalisation of their daughter and her friends.

 

[The Original Sixth]

However The Original sixth can go fuck himself. Him gloating about an innocent child dying and saying he is happy is beyond disgusting.

Don't be stupid. I am not happy a child is dead. I am pleased that HER child is dead. And before you get angry enough to type out a reply, you should hear why I am justified in believing so.

Humans grow old and die. They do this because their body stops producing the T-cells needed to create new cells. Your body then slowly begins to shut down as it's forced to try and repair your body without any new cells and keep what cells it does have going. Eventually something breaks and you flatline.

The reason why your body does this is because as your DNA chain has errors in it. These errors are generally minor, but the longer you live and the longer that DNA chain goes on, the greater the errors become. Thus, even if you HAD the cells to replace the ones in your body, you would eventually develop cancer and die.

The solution to this problem is that you pair your DNA chain with someone else's DNA chain. That evens out the errors and allows you to live. This sounds an awful lot like the selfish gene, I know--but there's more to it than that. Because people generally enjoy spending time with their children. They enjoy watching them grow up, spending time with them, and getting to know them. In short, humans survive eternally in the mortal coil by creating a new them with someone else, imparting their history and memory onto the child(s) before passing on.

Now, this woman, she joined with an ISIS fighter. ISIS, who is responsible for the countless deaths of innocent people and their children. They raped and pillaged their way through the Middle East. And she's not only proud of her husband, proud of his cause--but she was an active participant. Actively aiding men who went out and killed women and children. Actively assisted in oppressing women's dress code. Even carried a gun. Helped to sew explosives into the flesh of young men, so they couldn't back out. Helped her husband and by proxy, thousands of ISIS fighters, rape women across the Middle East.

And after this reign of terror, cut short by the weakness of ISIS and an allied coalition led by the United States (the UK's strongest and closest ally), she expects the UK to welcome her back into the fold so they can take care of HER child? Where was she when all the other children of countless other women were brutally killed? Men as young as 16, 14, or younger were killed by ISIS. Sometimes through combat and other times through brutal executions. Or suicide bombings. But she expects that HER child should be kept safe, that her child should be given the assistance of the very people she made war against?

And what would that boy have become? It is against the core of the UK's being to simply take a child and erase its history. A child has a right to know about their history. And so long as the mother is alive, she can continue to try and find him. Continue to try and influence him. And a child who grows up in the system? Grows up in a system where people who might be in on the secret might resent him? Or treat him as something dangerous? Even growing up in the system can make your resentful of not having your parents. How will that child turn out if you knowingly deprived him of his history?

Or do you tell him the truth and force him to live with the shame? And will he accept that shame or will he wish to believe (as so many kids do) that their parents are good people and the world is out to get them? And what happens if he's 8, knows his history, and wishes to be in touch or live with his mom? Or to have his mother return? No matter what you do, you risk creating a new terrorist in your own country. That you raised and nourished.

The kindest thing is for this child to have died. And that is a very bitter thing, but it is the truth. To believe that you can take this child, hope to erase his history--is arrogant beyond belief. Both in that you are able to do so completely and in believing that you had the right to begin with. So, accepting that this is a bitter situation for the child that cannot end well, let us look to whose at fault and who stands to benefit.

The fucking skank who created her own situation. And for her, I take every measure in celebrating her child's death. Because after robbing so many parents of their children, their brothers, their sisters, and their future--she thinks that she deserves a child? Deserves to have that child raised in a first world country where, if the situations were reversed, she would now be aiding her husband and his buddies in raping UK women and killing UK men? Eradicating their families?

Another poster spoke of how his ancestor was considered a traitor. It's one thing to leave your nation and settle somewhere else. Politics and events can conspire to make any of us a traitor to the current regime that holds power. We may be wrong, we may not be. But to leave your nation to join the enemy, to take part in war crimes that destroys families, and then to expect--to expect that your old host nation will take you back, so your family can live in comfort and safety? That is beyond disgusting. That is vile, it is manipulative, and it is the lowest form of evil.

So yes, yes I am glad that HER child died. Because she had no right to expect that she should have the joy of raising a family, after what she did.

It kinda puts him on the same level as ISIS and their ilk.

Funny, I don't remember declaring war against the United States, marrying an enemy of our Union, and waging a campaign of rape and death across unsuspecting Middle Eastern families. Maybe you should rethink that position?

Now is there a decent chance that her kid if she raised him in the UK would have been a problem YES, is that a gurantee NO, even if it was likely or predetermined since when was a punishment given before a crime is commited.

No, all signs point to her child would become a monster. Because she would use every trick and every manipulation to get back in contact with her son. And what right would the UK government have to say no? Most Western nations agree that it is the CHILD'S right to know their parents. Even if the UK government did hide him, there is no assurance that her family wouldn't track him down. And the only thing he would understand is that the mean UK government took him from his home, his place of belonging.

There is a very, very small chance that this would work out well for the UK.

Now Begum's son dying is probably for the best, but to be happy about it, and type about it with one hand is worthy of scorn. It's sad that this was the way things went, but it's Begum's own fault her child died.

Again, I am not happy that a child died. I am happy that HER child died. Because it is exactly what she deserved. To rot and fester in the Middle East, with no children.

 

[Morphic Tide]

They do this because their body stops producing the T-cells needed to create new cells. Your body then slowly begins to shut down as it's forced to try and repair your body without any new cells and keep what cells it does have going. Eventually something breaks and you flatline.

The reason why your body does this is because as your DNA chain has errors in it. These errors are generally minor, but the longer you live and the longer that DNA chain goes on, the greater the errors become. Thus, even if you HAD the cells to replace the ones in your body, you would eventually develop cancer and die.

Correction on the biology here, most cells in the body can undergo mitosis perfectly fine. T-cells are actually an immune system thing, while left-over pluripotent cells do a small bit of what you describe with stem cells being the largest supply.

The actual things involved are that your cells gradually "lose their place" in the genetic instruction set and there's an imperfection in genome replication that loses bits at the end, so eventually your everything forgets how to work and can't repair damage anymore because the broad mitosis stops.

Brain failure with age is still a bit of a mystery to my knowledge, as the underlying biology is such that telomeric aging should be glacial as should epigenetic drift, while heart failure is a much closer to mechanical matter as it doesn't have cell mitosis to begin with, the existing cells just get bigger and eventually wear out like an overworked pump.

Reproduction produces a new individual with a fresh "index" and early life has silly amounts of telomerase involved keeping the "buffer" topped off. Notably, there are some ways discovered to activate the super-overkill suite of genome repair from embryonic growth, but have so far only gone through animal testing. Which, mind you, has taken a rat at the edge of dying of old age and returned it to its prime, but still.

 

[The Original Sixth]

Correction on the biology here, most cells in the body can undergo mitosis perfectly fine. T-cells are actually an immune system thing, while left-over pluripotent cells do a small bit of what you describe with stem cells being the largest supply.

The actual things involved are that your cells gradually "lose their place" in the genetic instruction set and there's an imperfection in genome replication that loses bits at the end, so eventually your everything forgets how to work and can't repair damage anymore because the broad mitosis stops.

Brain failure with age is still a bit of a mystery to my knowledge, as the underlying biology is such that telomeric aging should be glacial as should epigenetic drift, while heart failure is a much closer to mechanical matter as it doesn't have cell mitosis to begin with, the existing cells just get bigger and eventually wear out like an overworked pump.

Reproduction produces a new individual with a fresh "index" and early life has silly amounts of telomerase involved keeping the "buffer" topped off. Notably, there are some ways discovered to activate the super-overkill suite of genome repair from embryonic growth, but have so far only gone through animal testing. Which, mind you, has taken a rat at the edge of dying of old age and returned it to its prime, but still.

I stand corrected on that point. I fear I am recalling much of this from memory and it is not my wheelhouse. Know any books that speak on the matter. I should like to learn more.

 

[Zachowon]

She betrayed her country.
She should be killed and her family with her.

 

[King Arts]

Don't be stupid. I am not happy a child is dead. I am pleased that HER child is dead. And before you get angry enough to type out a reply, you should hear why I am justified in believing so.

Humans grow old and die. They do this because their body stops producing the T-cells needed to create new cells. Your body then slowly begins to shut down as it's forced to try and repair your body without any new cells and keep what cells it does have going. Eventually something breaks and you flatline.

The reason why your body does this is because as your DNA chain has errors in it. These errors are generally minor, but the longer you live and the longer that DNA chain goes on, the greater the errors become. Thus, even if you HAD the cells to replace the ones in your body, you would eventually develop cancer and die.

The solution to this problem is that you pair your DNA chain with someone else's DNA chain. That evens out the errors and allows you to live. This sounds an awful lot like the selfish gene, I know--but there's more to it than that. Because people generally enjoy spending time with their children. They enjoy watching them grow up, spending time with them, and getting to know them. In short, humans survive eternally in the mortal coil by creating a new them with someone else, imparting their history and memory onto the child(s) before passing on.

Now, this woman, she joined with an ISIS fighter. ISIS, who is responsible for the countless deaths of innocent people and their children. They raped and pillaged their way through the Middle East. And she's not only proud of her husband, proud of his cause--but she was an active participant. Actively aiding men who went out and killed women and children. Actively assisted in oppressing women's dress code. Even carried a gun. Helped to sew explosives into the flesh of young men, so they couldn't back out. Helped her husband and by proxy, thousands of ISIS fighters, rape women across the Middle East.

And after this reign of terror, cut short by the weakness of ISIS and an allied coalition led by the United States (the UK's strongest and closest ally), she expects the UK to welcome her back into the fold so they can take care of HER child? Where was she when all the other children of countless other women were brutally killed? Men as young as 16, 14, or younger were killed by ISIS. Sometimes through combat and other times through brutal executions. Or suicide bombings. But she expects that HER child should be kept safe, that her child should be given the assistance of the very people she made war against?

And what would that boy have become? It is against the core of the UK's being to simply take a child and erase its history. A child has a right to know about their history. And so long as the mother is alive, she can continue to try and find him. Continue to try and influence him. And a child who grows up in the system? Grows up in a system where people who might be in on the secret might resent him? Or treat him as something dangerous? Even growing up in the system can make your resentful of not having your parents. How will that child turn out if you knowingly deprived him of his history?

Or do you tell him the truth and force him to live with the shame? And will he accept that shame or will he wish to believe (as so many kids do) that their parents are good people and the world is out to get them? And what happens if he's 8, knows his history, and wishes to be in touch or live with his mom? Or to have his mother return? No matter what you do, you risk creating a new terrorist in your own country. That you raised and nourished.

The kindest thing is for this child to have died. And that is a very bitter thing, but it is the truth. To believe that you can take this child, hope to erase his history--is arrogant beyond belief. Both in that you are able to do so completely and in believing that you had the right to begin with. So, accepting that this is a bitter situation for the child that cannot end well, let us look to whose at fault and who stands to benefit.

The fucking skank who created her own situation. And for her, I take every measure in celebrating her child's death. Because after robbing so many parents of their children, their brothers, their sisters, and their future--she thinks that she deserves a child? Deserves to have that child raised in a first world country where, if the situations were reversed, she would now be aiding her husband and his buddies in raping UK women and killing UK men? Eradicating their families?

Another poster spoke of how his ancestor was considered a traitor. It's one thing to leave your nation and settle somewhere else. Politics and events can conspire to make any of us a traitor to the current regime that holds power. We may be wrong, we may not be. But to leave your nation to join the enemy, to take part in war crimes that destroys families, and then to expect--to expect that your old host nation will take you back, so your family can live in comfort and safety? That is beyond disgusting. That is vile, it is manipulative, and it is the lowest form of evil.

So yes, yes I am glad that HER child died. Because she had no right to expect that she should have the joy of raising a family, after what she did.

Listen DNA goop worshipping Buffon. No having children does not give you immortality, you don't really live on after death through your children. DNA memory or whatever is sci fi bullshit. As for the kid becoming like his parents, that would not be a problem if both the mother and father are dead, put the baby into the foster system and he will disappear like so many others whose parents are unknown or dead. Your last line again shows how idiotically similar to ISIS you are, the Old Testament flat out was more progressive than your pre bronze age bullshit. Yes Begum does not deserve the happiness of children. However her son did not deserve to die. The sins of the father shall not fall on the head of the son, and the sins of the son shall not fall on the father. Each person shall be judged for their actions. I know this is some insightfull stuff.

Funny, I don't remember declaring war against the United States, marrying an enemy of our Union, and waging a campaign of rape and death across unsuspecting Middle Eastern families. Maybe you should rethink that position?

You do want to wage a campaign of death and destruction on the middle east though? You literally want to punish innocent people because of perceived connection to another group of people. So yes you are like ISIS or the black hewbrew Isralites, or the commies in some places that want to genocide whites because of the crimes of their ancestors.

No, all signs point to her child would become a monster. Because she would use every trick and every manipulation to get back in contact with her son. And what right would the UK government have to say no? Most Western nations agree that it is the CHILD'S right to know their parents. Even if the UK government did hide him, there is no assurance that her family wouldn't track him down. And the only thing he would understand is that the mean UK government took him from his home, his place of belonging.

There is a very, very small chance that this would work out well for the UK.

Oh I'm sorry I did not know you were a fucking psychic who has access to the future. Your psedu scientific bullshit has been proven wrong again and again, people who've had shit parents, have risen above that, and those who've had great parents have been shit.

Again, I am not happy that a child died. I am happy that HER child died. Because it is exactly what she deserved. To rot and fester in the Middle East, with no children.

Again you dense stupid mother fucker, maybe Begum got what SHE deserved. But the SON did not get what HE deserved. Like Jesus Christ do you think infants are accessories or something and not separate people? I'm curious do you support abortion or are you a hypocrite?

She betrayed her country.
She should be killed and her family with her.

So punishing people for the crime of being related to a piece of shit. Tell me when did that EVER happen in America? Because here's a hint it never did we wanted to avoid shit like what kings did in Europe. Maybe you can fuck off to the Middle East, Russia, or China, or North Korea if you want to live in a nation where you are punished for another person's actions. Also I'm curious if you'd feel the same way if families of people who were involved in January 6th would get the same treatment?

 

[Zachowon]

Listen DNA goop worshipping Buffon. No having children does not give you immortality, you don't really live on after death through your children. DNA memory or whatever is sci fi bullshit. As for the kid becoming like his parents, that would not be a problem if both the mother and father are dead, put the baby into the foster system and he will disappear like so many others whose parents are unknown or dead. Your last line again shows how idiotically similar to ISIS you are, the Old Testament flat out was more progressive than your pre bronze age bullshit. Yes Begum does not deserve the happiness of children. However her son did not deserve to die. The sins of the father shall not fall on the head of the son, and the sins of the son shall not fall on the father. Each person shall be judged for their actions. I know this is some insightfull stuff.


You do want to wage a campaign of death and destruction on the middle east though? You literally want to punish innocent people because of perceived connection to another group of people. So yes you are like ISIS or the black hewbrew Isralites, or the commies in some places that want to genocide whites because of the crimes of their ancestors.


Oh I'm sorry I did not know you were a fucking psychic who has access to the future. Your psedu scientific bullshit has been proven wrong again and again, people who've had shit parents, have risen above that, and those who've had great parents have been shit.


Again you dense stupid mother fucker, maybe Begum got what SHE deserved. But the SON did not get what HE deserved. Like Jesus Christ do you think infants are accessories or something and not separate people? I'm curious do you support abortion or are you a hypocrite?


So punishing people for the crime of being related to a piece of shit. Tell me when did that EVER happen in America? Because here's a hint it never did we wanted to avoid shit like what kings did in Europe. Maybe you can fuck off to the Middle East, Russia, or China, or North Korea if you want to live in a nation where you are punished for another person's actions. Also I'm curious if you'd feel the same way if families of people who were involved in January 6th would get the same treatment?

You do know what happens to those that often turn against the US and fight us? They generally don't make it home.

 

[King Arts]

You do know what happens to those that often turn against the US and fight us? They generally don't make it home.

What does that have to do with what I said? I have no problem killing traitors, but being related to traitors or any other criminals doesn’t mean you are that.

 

[Zachowon]

What does that have to do with what I said? I have no problem killing traitors, but being related to traitors or any other criminals doesn’t mean you are that.

When you raise your family as traitors?

 

[King Arts]

When you raise your family as traitors?

Now you are talking about Begum's parents yes? Well I do think they should be investigated with a fine toothed comb to look if they are sympathetic towards Islamic terrorist groups. If they find they have done treason bring them in and punish them for their crimes. If they haven't done anything. Then the knowledge that raised such a loathsome individual should be enough for people to pity and look down on them.

I mean are you honestly saying that people should be punished for the actions of their kids? What if your son turns into a serial killing pedo? Should we charge you with the crimes even if you did nothing and it was only your child that was evil?

 

[Zachowon]

Now you are talking about Begum's parents yes? Well I do think they should be investigated with a fine toothed comb to look if they are sympathetic towards Islamic terrorist groups. If they find they have done treason bring them in and punish them for their crimes. If they haven't done anything. Then the knowledge that raised such a loathsome individual should be enough for people to pity and look down on them.

I mean are you honestly saying that people should be punished for the actions of their kids? What if your son turns into a serial killing pedo? Should we charge you with the crimes even if you did nothing and it was only your child that was evil?

No.
By family I ment her and her kids

 

[King Arts]

No.
By family I ment her and her kids

Oh, she herself should be executed for treason. The kids haven't done anything and she wouldn't have the chance to raise them to be terrorists if she is dead.