Page 1 of 1

I S I S Wives.

PostPosted: Thu Oct 11, 2018 4:36 pm
by farishta
Muslim women who went from Canada to marry the ISIS fighters and now in captivity want to come back.

Hundreds of readers responded in the comments section but not a single one wants them back.

O! Canada, whatever happened to your compassionate heart?


https://globalnews.ca/news/4529299/wives-of-isis-fighters-want-canada/?utm_source=notification/

Re: I S I S Wives.

PostPosted: Thu Oct 11, 2018 7:12 pm
by manfred
Compassion is a good thing. But protecting innocent people from danger is the first duty of any government. The question is if these returning people pose a significant risk to others.

There are other sentiments often voiced in connection with this question... should such a person get public support? There answer to that is, she should get the same treatment and support as other citizens of Canada, but she should also be held responsible for her actions.

There is also a very pragmatic argument worth considering: The infamous Saudi mistake: They kicked out Osama Bin Laden, and in the process lost all control over him.

So in refusing the return, what would be the result? The women would find a new home elsewhere, but would be even more embittered and hateful towards the "West". This will turn the cycle again, and more violence and new terrorists will follow on from this.

We need to win the battle for the minds of people not the battle over land.

There are no easy answers I can think of, but I would look at each of the returners in turn, and if they committed crimes they must accept responsibility for them. If they want a new start in life, well should that not be encouraged? But how to balance that with the possible risk they pose?

The sad thing is, if we give people this chance, we will only read in the papers about the failures, about those who abuse the trust and kindness offered. The others, the successes, will just blend in with the rest of us. But it only takes one of two who deceive us and use the opportunity to kill more "kafir" to end all talks of compassion.

So, how would you square this circle? It seems whatever you do ends up making problems, including doing nothing.

You ask what happened to their compassionate heart? It is very difficult to be compassionate if you suspect that the person you offer compassion to may do you other others around you serious harm.

But we need to find a way to balance this out.

Re: I S I S Wives.

PostPosted: Thu Oct 11, 2018 8:17 pm
by sum
Hello

I think that they should not be allowed to return. If they are allowed then we are simply appeasing them and indicating that those who choose to wage war against our interests can get away with it. Are we to assume that they have left Islam? Almost certainly, they will have not. They will still be available for marriage if their husbands have died and produce more muslims. They are being punished Muhammad style - exile for causing mischief.

I would adopt a firm line despite the arguments posed by manfred.

sum

Re: I S I S Wives.

PostPosted: Thu Oct 11, 2018 9:33 pm
by manfred
Yes, sum there are always those who mistake kindness for weakness,and I can see the dangers you mention clearly. However, the "hard line" also has problems: it provides pretence justification for further violence. As I said, whatever you do, you clear one obstacle only to make a new one.

Perhaps a "deprogramming" is the solution?

Re: I S I S Wives.

PostPosted: Fri Oct 12, 2018 10:38 am
by manfred
This is an important question, and I wonder if others would like to share their ideas.

Re: I S I S Wives.

PostPosted: Fri Oct 12, 2018 2:58 pm
by sum
Hello manfred

I am not a fan of relying on deprogramming. Are they kept in "units" and away from any pro-Islamic influence? Perhaps they live at home and attend deprogramming "units" away from home on a daily basis but what is to stop them from going to the mosque and being deprogrammed from the deprogramming in the "units" or "centres" - call them what you will? As far as I understand it, the success rate is very poor to the point that it is not worth the effort. I have read that even when a person wants to be deprogrammed it is still very difficult to achieve. Most people want to eat meat but do not like being involved in the slaughter and butchering. It could be claimed that most muslims want an Islamic state but do not want to be in the violence involved although they share the same goals as the violent jihadis.

I would claim that there is no way to be sure that their views have changed in both the short term and long term. Deprogramming the masses is, in my opinion, a complete non-starter. Years ago I read that the Chinese banned children under the age of twelve from attending the mosque. I also read in the forum that one ex-muslim said that by the teenage years muslim children are fully fledged muslims.

The indoctrination of the young mind is much easier now with the internet and its social media communications. Other ideologies are using these media to spread their ideologies - the far left is one example. The moral of the story is to reach the young mind with your ideology before others try to do the same with their own ideology.

It is also regarded as fact that the indoctrinated mind protects itself from competing facts by blocking them them out from the centres that process them. In other words it very difficult for facts to change the indoctrinated mind. Articles will tell you that the first casualty of indoctrination is logic.

sum

Re: I S I S Wives.

PostPosted: Sat Oct 13, 2018 2:46 am
by idesigner1
Ultimately Canada will accept them all.

I don't believe in accepting them, I live in Canada.

Khadr's mom who lives in Canada and his sister are still very radical though Canada paid Khadr millions of dollar for his Gitmo imprisonment.

If they all repent and convert to other religions they can be accepted.

Or they submit to some religious Deprogam by hypnotist or psychologist they can be accepted.

They should isolated and should not be in contact with any mosque, any preacher.

Their relatives should sign million dollar bond .

Re: I S I S Wives.

PostPosted: Sun Oct 14, 2018 10:18 am
by Fernando
A difficult problem, Manfred, but a pragmatic argument might be, to misquote, "better to have them outside the tent shooting in, than to have them inside the tent shooting in".

Re: I S I S Wives.

PostPosted: Sun Oct 14, 2018 5:25 pm
by farishta
It was in the spirit of sly sarcasm that I said
O! Canada, whatever happened to your compassionate heart?

O! Canada being the first word of the national anthem of Canada.

Most of these stranded women were members of Al-Huda International Seminary run by Farhat Hashmi, a Pakistani woman.

fromhttps://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Farhat_Hashmi

Hashmi is in favour of establishing the Sharia Law in Canada. Her views on domestic matters are in accordance with her interpretation of the Sharia Law.
Hashmi considers polygamy to be legal, and has preached that Muslim women should let their husbands marry a second time so “other sisters can also benefit”. This saves men from having a nonmarital relationship, which is forbidden according to the Quran.


Tashfeen Malik, San Bernadino killer attened Al-Huda International Seminary in Multan , Pakistan.

Maybe Al-Huda International Seminary should take charge of these stranded women and settle them in Pakistan.

Re: I S I S Wives.

PostPosted: Sun Oct 14, 2018 10:21 pm
by manfred
Yes, I realised that, but you still addressed a serious question.... whose "responsibility" are these women? They have to go somewhere. Nobody wants them, all said and done. But which is better, they choose a place to hide in or they have to live in a place where they are known and will be watched?

So "Canada" says "clear off", fair enough, and entirely understandable. But what happens next? And who controls that?

Re: I S I S Wives.

PostPosted: Tue Nov 06, 2018 5:02 pm
by farishta
My thoughts to the post by Sum on deprogramming.

The very concept of deprogramming posits an idea of the brain as a computer. The process of deprogramming is thought of as deleting an installed software and installing a different one. This is, nowadays, done by presenting rational arguments to the subject to persuade him to see the iniquity of his worldview and thereby change. This is done in a pleasant and convivial manner.

This was not always so. Those who are old enough to have lived through the seventies will remember the first use of the word. It was a time when cults, both eastern and western, menaced the young impressionable minds. The parents sought the help of deprogrammer to get their children back. Mostly from Hare Krishna and Unification Church of Sun Yung Moon.

The method almost always involved kidnapping and coercive confinement. The deprogrammer harangued them non stop, the parents cashed in with their love and goodwill. The attrition rate was much higher than the success rate.

Then there was Brainwashing as practiced by the Russian, The Chinese and the North Koreans. The communist concept of the brain ( and the Mind ) is strictly
Pavalonian. They sought to re-educate the brain through menticide. Destroy the old memories by drugs and ECT. They only succeeded in destroying the neural
network and turning a man into a vegetable.

The CIA, not to be outdone, had its own MKUltra programme using LSD and Mescalin as well as ECT. The book " Manchurian Candidate " became a bestseller. Hundreds of poor Quebecois, classified as retarded or imbecile, were "treated" at Allan Memorial in Montreal. A gang of psychiatrists approved and cooperated.

Of course, all these are neither available nor advisable in this enlightened time of ours and totally irrelevant and useless for dealing with Anjem Choudhury and his ilk. Neither deprogramming or brainwashing will work to change the heart and mind of Jihadis.

So what is the solution? How can things change?

We in the west have to change by changing by changing our ways of dealing with Islam. Support people like Robert Spencer and Pamela Geller. When ECHR convicts Ms. Wolffe for blasphemy for calling Mohammad a pedophile we all, each and every one of us, should protest by carrying a cartoon of Mohammad on T-shirt. The newspapers and media are the biggest appeasers of Muslims. So are the politicians. So is the academia. The public, in their millions, must come up with innovative ways to ridicule Muslims and Islam.

Let sneering contempt and blasphemous ridicule be our weapon.

Image
POST A REPLY

Re: I S I S Wives.

PostPosted: Tue Nov 06, 2018 7:38 pm
by manfred
Well, I would look at these women in much the same way as a mentally ill people committing crimes. In both cases these is really only one thing to do: They need to be in secure accommodation to protect the public, and they need to remain there until such time that we can be sure they no longer pose a risk. In some cases, that mean be never. While they are in custody, they should be offered a chance to examine and change their views. If they can credibly demonstrate that they no longer are who they used to be, then, and only then can a possible release be discussed. This is harsh, but allowing them a chance to do more damage would be utterly irresponsible.

I would find the idea to simple wash our hands off them and prevent their return to their home countries a cheap cop-out: As I said, they do have to live somewhere. So we would simply be giving our problems to others to deal with.

Re: I S I S Wives.

PostPosted: Tue Nov 06, 2018 8:42 pm
by sum
Hello farishta

I will shortly be opening a thread asking "What are we?" It will also ask people for their thoughts on this matter as I believe that we are only electro-chemical entities very similar to the vertebrates but differ in that we have a much larger and more efficient "computer" - our brain.

sum

Re: I S I S Wives.

PostPosted: Wed Nov 07, 2018 11:43 am
by Fernando
sum wrote:Hello farishta

I will shortly be opening a thread asking "What are we?" It will also ask people for their thoughts on this matter as I believe that we are only electro-chemical entities very similar to the vertebrates but differ in that we have a much larger and more efficient "computer" - our brain.

sum
I'm looking forward to your thread, sum.

Re: I S I S Wives.

PostPosted: Wed Nov 07, 2018 12:00 pm
by Fernando
manfred wrote:Yes, I realised that, but you still addressed a serious question.... whose "responsibility" are these women? They have to go somewhere. Nobody wants them, all said and done. But which is better, they choose a place to hide in or they have to live in a place where they are known and will be watched?

So "Canada" says "clear off", fair enough, and entirely understandable. But what happens next? And who controls that?
In any case, these people are mostly citizens of the countries they're returning to. If any of them ARE from some Islamist hell-hole though, their countries should be quite happy to have them back.

As for de/re-programming, I see a problem (using the computer analogy) with how to do it. This is because religion tends to be hard-wired into people's brains and it's the operating-system that needs to be changed. It's no good messing about with high-level language programming if the operating system mandates certain actions and won't allow certain others. An ordinary religious person can probably be persuaded - high level programming - that their interpretation of scripture should be changed to an alternative one. A convinced fundamentalist would have to be persuaded that they're running a faulty operating system - i.e. defective religion - and they need to change it. But of course this operating system is in charge and will void such instructions.

So what chance of re-programming such as Anjem Choudary? None, I would say.

Re: I S I S Wives.

PostPosted: Wed Nov 07, 2018 12:58 pm
by sum
I have posted a thread "What are we?" in the Miscellaneous section. I hope that people join the thread as it will possibly explain the developing personality of Muhammad and the consequence for mankind.

sum

Re: I S I S Wives.

PostPosted: Fri Feb 22, 2019 4:12 pm
by farishta
The shame of those siding with Shamima Begum

Brendan O'Neill




At last, having kept pretty shtum about it for the past few years, the virtue-signalling set has mustered up some sympathy for women caught up in the horrific Isis vortex.

Unfortunately, though, their sympathy isn’t for the Yazidi women who were burned alive after refusing to become sex slaves for Isis jihadists. Or the Kurdish women who found themselves living under the brutal misogynistic yoke of the Isis empire. Or the Syrian and Iraqi women whose husbands and sons were beheaded for adhering to the wrong branch of Islam. No, their sympathy is for a woman who supported the movement that did all those things. Who provided moral succour to the Isis barbarians. Who rejected her nation, her community and her family to throw her lot in with the Islamist death cult that gleefully slaughtered women and girls, including here in the UK.

Yes, they are sympathising with Shamima Begum. The 19-year-old Isis supporter. The woman who says the mass murder at the Manchester Arena, one of whose victims was an eight-year-old girl, was ‘retaliation’ for Western attacks on Isis and was justifiable on that basis. The woman who said she wasn’t fazed by the sight of severed heads in dustbins because the people who those heads belonged to had sinned against Islam and therefore deserved to die. The woman who stayed in Raqqa, and said it was a good place to live, even as the rulers of Raqqa were enslaving Yazidi women, putting dissenters’ heads on spikes, and executing barbaric attacks everywhere from Mosul to Nice to London Bridge. That woman — that’s the one they feel compassion for.

Actual compassion too. Treat Begum ‘with compassion’, says a Guardian headline. Across the broadsheet media and in leftish political circles, Begum is being talked up as a victim. She’s the real victim, apparently, not the thousands who were butchered by the movement she willingly joined and happily stayed with. Her family lawyer openly describes her as a ‘victim’. Commentators say she is a victim of grooming. Apparently she was brainwashed online at the age of 15 and therefore cannot be held fully responsible for her actions. What, even when she turned 18? And stayed with this barbaric movement that was enforcing seventh-century authoritarianism against its own adherents and unleashing bloodshed against the citizens of numerous nations?

I’ve been worried about the moral compass of the chattering classes for a while now. These are people who will destroy individuals who commit minor speech-based transgressions — for example by ‘misgendering’ a trans person — and yet who refuse to pass firm moral judgement against genuine evil, like the massacre at Charlie Hebdo or the sight of British-born Muslims trekking thousands of miles to join a neo-fascistic religious outfit. But even I have been taken aback by the sympathy for Begum. It points to a complete unanchoring of sections of the opinion-forming set from any sense of morality. They seem more exercised by the alleged plight of a female Isis supporter than they ever were by the genuine, historically horrific plight of the uncountable females who were mistreated, enslaved or killed by Isis.

None of the claims being made about Begum add up. Groomed? She actively sought out Isis. A victim? She was a grade-A student who meticulously planned and executed her escape to the Islamic State’s deranged caliphate. A child? She’s 19 now and she still isn’t that bothered by the removal of people’s heads or the massacre of British citizens. Strikingly, though, she is a dab hand at the cult of victimhood. People should show me sympathy for what I’ve been through, she says. My jaunt with Isis has made me stronger, she insists, as if she had merely been on a gap year or a reality TV show or something. She is cleverly exploiting a culture that she knows full well exists in modern Britain: a culture of reluctance when it comes to criticising hardcore Islamists too harshly and a tendency to feel a cloying, racially-tinged pity for any Muslim who falls in with ‘bad’ people. Begum is tapping into and seeking to utilise the UK cultural elite’s caginess about condemning Islamic extremism, and this is likely to reap benefits for her.

This is not to say Sajid Javid is right to revoke Begum’s citizenship. That is a rash and illiberal move that could set a dangerous precedent. Even worse, it seems driven by political cowardice, by a desire to push people like Begum, and actual British fighters for Isis, out of sight and out of mind. Indeed, both the sympathisers with Begum and the Home Office that has revoked her citizenship seem driven by an unwillingness to confront the seriousness of the situation at hand: the fact that hundreds of Muslim Britons betrayed their nation in the most grotesque way imaginable and the possibility that this tells us something very important, and deeply concerning, about the ideology of multiculturalism that currently governs our nation. Begum shouldn’t be shown compassion or denuded of her citizenship — she should be brought back and tried as a traitor to the British people.

from The Spectator.

Re: I S I S Wives.

PostPosted: Sat Feb 23, 2019 2:43 pm
by farishta

Re: I S I S Wives.

PostPosted: Sat Feb 23, 2019 7:09 pm
by Eopithecus
Brand ISIS wives and give them to the Kurds, let Muslims deal with their own.

Re: I S I S Wives.

PostPosted: Mon Feb 25, 2019 4:02 am
by Ansar al-Zindiqi
How an estimated 500 Western women were enticed by ISIS.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bRY27dP3f1s