Hoda Muthana

[Dill]

(02-26-2019, 11:26 AM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote: A fair policy question.   I'll throw a second wrinkle in here.  She has no US passport.  As far as I know there is no legal requirement for us to provide her with one or to go and fetch her from her self-imposed exile.

A truly progressive view.  I'll again offer second alternative.  She broke the law in Syria, let her be tried there as any US citizen would be tried in another country in which they broke the law.  These ISIS brides were often, if not always, complicit in the forced marriage and rape of enslaved women such as the Kurds or Yazidi.  She can stay in Syria until she is properly tried.  If she somehow makes it back to the US she can be tried by us for providing material aid to a terrorist organization.  Sorry, but I don't buy into your idea that she can somehow be used as a propaganda tool against islamic extremism.

You and Bels are having a great discussion. I don't have time to jump in, and probably won't till tomorrow.

But I can't resist tossing out one question--who would conduct Muthana's trial in Syria? The Alawite regime we don't consider legitimate?  This would be like sending El Chapo back to Mexico to be tried by another drug cartel.

Also, to whom is ISIS propaganda addressed in the West?  Mostly to people like Muthana. Understanding why the group was attractive to her is important to people trying to counter ISIS propaganda in the UK and the US.  Someone explaining, first, how she was fooled or brainwashed or whatever, and second, what life was really like under ISIS government, might seem very useful to people addressing at risk audiences.

I'm not the only one who thinks so:

To Syria And Back: How 2 Women Escaped Their Radicalized Husband
https://www.npr.org/2018/08/08/635252666/to-syria-and-back-how-2-women-escaped-their-radicalized-husbands
The former ‘First Lady of ISIS’ now loves Reform Jews, plans to visit Jerusalem
https://www.timesofisrael.com/the-former-first-lady-of-isis-now-loves-reform-jews-plans-to-visit-jerusalem/

https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/i-was-an-isis-bride-from-london-then-one-day-i-escaped-xj57jsv0q

More later.

[Sociopathicsteelerfan]

(02-26-2019, 01:57 PM)fredtoast Wrote: But it completely destroys any claim that the ONLY reason the media reports on these types of situations are the presence of MAGA hats.

Seeing as no one made that point I don't know what you think you "destroyed"

Quote:Guess you are just ignorant of the difference between transitive and intransitive verbs. Apparently you believe that the only way you could ever be surrounded by trees is if they grow up around you. 

No, I am aware that words have meanings.  If I walk into a group of people I cannot then claim I was surrounded by them.  This is simple logic.

Quote:The fact that the video does not show how he came to be surrounded is part of the problem

Except for the fact that it absolutely does show that.

Quote:but the video clearly shows that he is surrounded by the whooping crowd of boys.  To argue otherwise is absurd.  

Sure, after he walked right into their midst.  You're parsing hairs and it's a losing argument.  I'm sure you believe otherwise but I don't think you're going to sway the opinion of a logical observer with this type of argument.

[fredtoast]

(02-26-2019, 04:44 PM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote: Except for the fact that it absolutely does show that.

The original video that I saw did not show it.  That is the one that everyone agrees misrepresented the situation.

[fredtoast]

(02-26-2019, 04:44 PM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote: No, I am aware that words have meanings.  If I walk into a group of people I cannot then claim I was surrounded by them.  This is simple logic.

Actually if you were in the middle of them then you would be surrounded by them.

That is what the video showed.  Phillips was surrounded by the boys.

Are you sure you understand the difference between transitive and intransitive verbs?

[Sociopathicsteelerfan]

(02-26-2019, 04:26 PM)Dill Wrote: You and Bels are having a great discussion. I don't have time to jump in, and probably won't till tomorrow.

But I can't resist tossing out one question--who would conduct Muthana's trial in Syria? The Alawite regime we don't consider legitimate?  This would be like sending El Chapo back to Mexico to be tried by another drug cartel.

Not really a good analogy, but I understand your point.  We do put ourselves in a bit of a legal bind by stating the Assad regime is not legitimate.  I would state that Us citizens being tried under regimes we consider illegitimate is not without precedent.  I see no reason why this circumstance would be special.

Quote:Also, to whom is ISIS propaganda addressed in the West?  Mostly to people like Muthana. Understanding why the group was attractive to her is important to people trying to counter ISIS propaganda in the UK and the US.  Someone explaining, first, how she was fooled or brainwashed or whatever, and second, what life was really like under ISIS government, might seem very useful to people addressing at risk audiences.

I can make the exact same argument with street gangs.  None of that absolves someone of the illegal acts committed by them while a member.  Additionally, we aren't talking about a minor, at least in the Muthana case.  Adults should have to deal with the consequences of their actions.

Quote:I'm not the only one who thinks so:

To Syria And Back: How 2 Women Escaped Their Radicalized Husband
https://www.npr.org/2018/08/08/635252666/to-syria-and-back-how-2-women-escaped-their-radicalized-husbands
The former ‘First Lady of ISIS’ now loves Reform Jews, plans to visit Jerusalem
https://www.timesofisrael.com/the-former-first-lady-of-isis-now-loves-reform-jews-plans-to-visit-jerusalem/

https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/i-was-an-isis-bride-from-london-then-one-day-i-escaped-xj57jsv0q

More later.

There's a point to be made there, these people could, possibly, help de-radicalize others or give an insight into how they were radicalized.  They can do all of that after they serve time for their crimes.  Alternatively, they could return and bring their special brand of Isis related propaganda and beliefs with them.  Personally, I don't want anyone who willingly joined ISIS to enter the US, ever.  I realize that may not always be an option and in Muthana's case if she is determined to be a US citizen I don't believe we have to go and get her or to provide her with a US passport.  If that's the case I would not expend any effort in doing either.  She made her bed, she can lie in it.


I will point this out in closing.  In each instance you used examples of females who joined ISIS.  Would we be having this discussion if we were talking about a young man who willingly traveled there and joined?  If not, then we must ask ourselves why we would treat these women differently.

[Sociopathicsteelerfan]

(02-26-2019, 04:52 PM)fredtoast Wrote: The original video that I saw did not show it.  That is the one that everyone agrees misrepresented the situation.

Careful, you're making Trump's fake news case for him.

(02-26-2019, 04:56 PM)fredtoast Wrote: Actually if you were in the middle of them then you would be surrounded by them.

That is what the video showed.  Phillips was surrounded by the boys.

So your argument is now predicated on an incomplete understanding of the circumstances?  IN any event, plenty of people maintained their opinion of this kid after the full video came out, which again shows my point, that these girls are getting more sympathy from some that Sanderson did/does, is valid.

Quote:Are you sure you understand the difference between transitive and intransitive verbs?

No, I'm horribly uneducated and unintelligent.  Please keep this in mind when replying to me further.

[Belsnickel]

(02-26-2019, 05:04 PM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote: I will point this out in closing.  In each instance you used examples of females who joined ISIS.  Would we be having this discussion if we were talking about a young man who willingly traveled there and joined?  If not, then we must ask ourselves why we would treat these women differently.

This is a question I asked myself while writing my initial comment in this little chain we had. I have to say that yes, I would. Just like in this case I would advocate for answering for their criminal actions while recognizing that complexity of their decision based on influential propaganda. That doesn't mean everyone would have the same answer, though.

[Mike M (the other one)]

(02-26-2019, 01:57 PM)fredtoast Wrote: But it completely destroys any claim that the ONLY reason the media reports on these types of situations are the presence of MAGA hats.


Guess you are just ignorant of the difference between transitive and intransitive verbs. Apparently you believe that the only way you could ever be surrounded by trees is if they grow up around you. 

The fact that the video does not show how he came to be surrounded is part of the problem, but the video clearly shows that he is surrounded by the whooping crowd of boys.  To argue otherwise is absurd.  

The video doesn't show it, but Phillips stated he went into the group of boys while beating his drum. And Fred it was the media that made a bid deal out of the boys wearing a MAGA hat(s), and I don't think most of us even knew they were Catholics in the beginning.

http://www.startribune.com/fuller-picture-emerges-of-viral-video-between-american-indian-man-and-catholic-students/504631721/

But on Sunday, Phillips clarified that it was he who had approached the crowd.

[Benton]

I like to grate fresh Parmesan into my Cheerios. It makes it tasty and heart healthy.

Wait... was that unrelated to Hoda Muthana?

It was.



As a reminder, guys, stay on topic. Otherwise, that thread will get closed.

[GMDino]

(02-26-2019, 05:04 PM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote: I will point this out in closing.  In each instance you used examples of females who joined ISIS.  Would we be having this discussion if we were talking about a young man who willingly traveled there and joined?  If not, then we must ask ourselves why we would treat these women differently.

I know I said to stay on topic but this line made me think:

Does that double standard work for you too?  If it were a man would you WANT them to be brought back?  

Not that I think you think that, but to accuse others begs the question if they can accuse you.

[*bfine32*]

(02-26-2019, 10:54 PM)GMDino Wrote: I know I said to stay on topic but this line made me think:

Does that double standard work for you too?  If it were a man would you WANT them to be brought back?  

Not that I think you think that, but to accuse others begs the question if they can accuse you.

Not to put words in someone's mouth by answering a question not posed directly to me but:

To me gender matters not. 

[GMDino]

(02-26-2019, 11:00 PM)bfine32 Wrote: Not to put words in someone's mouth by answering a question not posed directly to me but:

To me gender matters not. 

Me either.  But ti someone wants to pose that question it would seem, to me, that they believe at least a few people are saying it does matter and it is only fair others could do that to him.

I don't think anyone made that distinction in this case.

[Sociopathicsteelerfan]

(02-26-2019, 10:54 PM)GMDino Wrote: I know I said to stay on topic but this line made me think:

Does that double standard work for you too?  If it were a man would you WANT them to be brought back?

No, not at all.  

Quote:Not that I think you think that, but to accuse others begs the question if they can accuse you.

I'm not sure why that begs the question, but have at it.

(02-26-2019, 11:02 PM)GMDino Wrote: Me either.  But ti someone wants to pose that question it would seem, to me, that they believe at least a few people are saying it does matter and it is only fair others could do that to him.

I'm certainly not bothered by it.  

Quote:I don't think anyone made that distinction in this case.

Well, actually, what prompted the thought was the fact that every link Dill shared about returning ISIS members was about women.  Given that women demonstrably receive lesser sentences than men for the same crimes;

https://www.law.umich.edu/newsandinfo/features/Pages/starr_gender_disparities.aspx

https://fivethirtyeight.com/features/women-arent-always-sentenced-by-the-book-maybe-men-shouldnt-be-either/

https://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/09/11/men-women-prison-sentence-length-gender-gap_n_1874742.html

It raised the question of whether these two women were receiving any sympathy for joining an organization as vile as ISIS because they were women.  Feel free to read the above links and ponder the question yourself.

[fredtoast]

(02-26-2019, 05:07 PM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote: Careful, you're making Trump's fake news case for him.

No.  Actually I am doing the opposite.  I am pointing out that the media admitted the first video was deceptive and did plenty of reporting on the way the story changed as more info came out.


Trump claims that the media intentionally lies just to try and get him.

[fredtoast]

(02-22-2019, 07:20 PM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote:  The media is more sympathetic to these girls than they were to a kid wearing a MAGA hat and smirking! 

(02-26-2019, 05:07 PM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote: IN any event, plenty of people maintained their opinion of this kid after the full video came out, which again shows my point, that these girls are getting more sympathy from some that Sanderson did/does, is valid.

Actually there is a huge difference between "the media"  and "some people".

[Dill]

(02-26-2019, 11:26 AM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote: A truly progressive view.  I'll again offer second alternative.  She broke the law in Syria, let her be tried there as any US citizen would be tried in another country in which they broke the law.  These ISIS brides were often, if not always, complicit in the forced marriage and rape of enslaved women such as the Kurds or Yazidi.  She can stay in Syria until she is properly tried. 
................
 We do put ourselves in a bit of a legal bind by stating the Assad regime is not legitimate.  I would state that Us citizens being tried under regimes we consider illegitimate is not without precedent.  I see no reason why this circumstance would be special.

(02-26-2019, 11:44 AM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote: Should she be tried in Syria for her crimes before we even discuss whether she should be returned to the US?  Also, she isn't a kid who fell under the thrall of the local gang or some other local, daily, influence.  She had to actively seek them out online (I don't know about you but I haven't encountered any Isis related sites while using the internets), then purchase a plane ticket to Turkey and then be smuggled into Syria.  This is a rather large cut above any other example of this sort.

As for compassion, sure, once she truly pays for her monstrous deeds.  As I stated earlier, there are reams of testimony from enslaved, raped, women about how the Isis brides ran herd on them and controlled them for the men.  I'm going to reserve most of my compassion for the poor women who were enslaved and raped en masse.  I'll let you know if I have any left over for someone who joined willingly and went to great pains to do so.

(02-26-2019, 12:11 PM)Belsnickel Wrote: If she committed crimes in Syria, then there should be something occurring in the Syrian legal system. However, that does still require that we get the question of her citizenship sorted out. We do have an interest in the proceedings if she is a USC being put through their legal system. If she is a USC, it is our duty to ensure her rights are not being violated by Syria, either.

Under Obama, the US policy goal for Syria was to get rid of Assad. The reason for that was because Assad's forces regularly gassed and shot women and children. Women and children--all manner of civilians--have disappeared without trial in his prisons, where rape, torture and murder are regular occurrences. This is the fate of those who oppose or have opposed his regime.

The links below provide a better idea of who would be "trying" Muthana in Syria, and how--and why this circumstance would be "special."

AI estimates up to 13,000 civilians executed in Syrian military prison over four years
Amnesty International has estimated that 50 civilians per week were unlawfully executed at a military prison between 2011 and 2015. The rights group has called on the regime to be brought before the ICC.
https://www.dw.com/en/ai-estimates-up-to-13000-civilians-executed-in-syrian-military-prison-over-four-years/a-37435537

UN Experts: Widespread Abuses and Killings of Detainees in Syria
https://ijrcenter.org/2016/02/17/un-experts-widespread-abuses-and-killings-of-detainees-in-syria/

While the majority of those detained are men, there are documented cases of women and children who have perished in the detention centers while in the custody of the State. Id.at para. 22. There are also reports of rape and other sexual violence against detainees in government controlled detention centers. Id. at para. 32.

The report found that a majority of the deaths recorded in the report occurred in detention centers controlled by Syrian intelligence services and that the centers under the control of Military Security had the highest number of documented deaths. See id. at paras. 36-37. Although the army units and security agencies are responsible for the detentions, torture, and deaths, military hospitals and judiciary institutions also play a role by failing to investigate, prevent, or provide information on deaths. See id. at para. 40. The COI concluded that the State violates the right to life by failing to investigate the deaths of individuals in its custody. Id. at para. 46.

Trump has. of course, changed US policy, in 2017 stating it was up to the Syrian people to decide their leader. But the Syrian regime has not changed. Turing Muthana over to the Syrian government would likely mean her disappearance under very unpleasant circumstances. And it would not be ok because "ISIS did it too!"

[Dill]

(02-26-2019, 11:26 AM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote: Dill Wrote: LOL you "hope" that I'll condemn ISIS unequivocally--because I have given people so much reason to doubt that? Also I don't think they are an "Islamic cause" any more than white nationalism (which I hope you'd be willing to condemn) is an American cause.

 ISIS clearly is an islamic cause as its tenants spring directly from the teachings of islam.  All kaffirs should be subjugated or converted (by the sword if need be!), taking slaves is permissible (if not encouraged).  You can certainly argue that it's a perversion of islamic teachings, but you absolutely can't logically deny that ISIS and it's tenants are directly supported by islam.

You are also correct that white supremacy is not an American cause as there are "white people" all over the globe.

Maybe a clearer analogy would be the KKK, who aren't all over the globe. Their founders claimed the KKK's tenets sprang directly from the US Constitution.  In that document, owning slaves is permissible (if not encouraged), and some important Supreme Court decisions have agreed. 

So framing ISIS is an "Islamic cause," whose tenets spring directly from the the teachings of Islam, doesn't clarify the legacy of Islam today any more than framing the KKK as an American cause, springing directly from the US Constitution, clarifies the legacy of the Constitution today. 

There is probably no need to continue reminding people that ISIS is bad or hoping that people in this forum condemn it "unequivocally."

(02-26-2019, 11:26 AM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote:

Quote: Wrote:In short, I don't see any useful point in setting a MAGA smirker who spiraled into prominence on an amateur video beside a case brought before the world by news media seeking to report and inform--and then arguing over who got a "pass."
The proper distribution of vilification between these two may eventually become interesting to me as a register of MAGA grievance against the "unbalanced" liberal press, but I am just not there yet.

You wrote this in bold so I assume it's really important to you and I read it multiple times to ensure I absorbed every ounce of nuance and meaning available.  Having done so I am forced to come to the conclusion that you have completely missed the point.  That there are people who are more sympathetic to a woman (which I'm sure has nothing to do with the sympathy at all) who willingly joined a vile terrorist organization that burned people alive, beheaded children, engaged in mass rape and drown people in cages, then they are to a kid who wore a MAGA hat and "smirked" at a Native American guy is a rather telling of the mindset of some people in our society.  Oh, lest I forget, some of the kids in his group were acting insensitively by doing a "tomahawk chop".  That alone may explain the enhanced level of outrage.  

If you want to get me there, then you have to show me a journalist, or public official, or anyone, who first expressed outrage at the MAGA smirker, but was then "more sympathetic" to the woman you associate with beheading children (and whom you would turn over to someone who gasses children), but whom we so far still know little about, even if she "chose" to join ISIS.

You appear to be following the lack of vilification much more closely than I am. Can you provide examples of how Muthana gets a "pass" or "the benefit of the doubt" or "absolution"?  Is it mere ABSENCE of vilification in the reportage which bothers you here? There should be some because some people criticized the MAGA kid and beheading children is worse?

Right now I just see two different news cycles, generated by quite different people, events and issues, which have for you somehow congealed into a symbol of injustice or unbalanced reporting. I don't understand why you are looking for this light comparison when other weightier issues follow from Muthana's case.  Or I don't understand why you find the MAGA comparison weightier than the legal ramifications of repatriating a one-time ISIS supporter.  For me, that ISIS drowned people in cages doesn't connect coverage of Muthana to Sandman right away.

[Dill]

(02-26-2019, 05:04 PM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote: I will point this out in closing.  In each instance you used examples of females who joined ISIS.  Would we be having this discussion if we were talking about a young man who willingly traveled there and joined?  If not, then we must ask ourselves why we would treat these women differently.

Likely things could be different for a man, since a woman with children would be unlikely to have carried a weapon,  or raped or beheaded anyone.  At Nuremburg, NAZIS were judged as individuals, according to what a court could prove they did individually, not by what NAZIs in general did.  If you followed my links, then you can see an ex-ISIS woman now gets to live in Texas, no problem.

Hopefully someone from GW's Program on Extremism will at least get to interview Muthana.  One thing their reports make clear is that the appeal of ISIS to people in the US changes over time.    https://extremism.gwu.edu/reports

[*bfine32*]

Got to admit; this one has me conflicted:

https://www.yahoo.com/news/woman-joined-islamic-state-starts-fight-return-us-184816901--politics.html

Quote:An Alabama woman who joined the Islamic State lost a first round on Monday in a legal fight to return to the U.S. with her toddler son, even as a judge seemed to support at least one argument made by her lawyer for her U.S. citizenship.

U.S. District Judge Reggie Walton denied a request for "expedited" proceedings for Hoda Muthana, whose lawyers sought to have her lawsuit litigated on an emergency schedule so she could get out of a refugee camp in Syria and back to the U.S.

Legal issues aside: her desire to return for the welfare of her child is commendable; however, I sure lots of mothers would want to come here for the sake of their children. Many of whom never called for death to Westerners.

Pompeo saying she's a threat may be going a little far; as I'd hope her first destination in the states would be incarceration. I suppose the child would become a ward of the state.

[*michaelsean*]

(03-04-2019, 11:00 PM)bfine32 Wrote: Got to admit; this one has me conflicted:

https://www.yahoo.com/news/woman-joined-islamic-state-starts-fight-return-us-184816901--politics.html


Legal issues aside: her desire to return for the welfare of her child is commendable; however, I sure lots of mothers would want to come here for the sake of their children. Many of whom never called for death to Westerners.

Pompeo saying she's a threat may be going a little far; as I'd hope her first destination in the states would be incarceration. I suppose the child would become a ward of the state.

I thought I read that her parents offered to take the child.  They've lost their daughter one way or the other so I think it would be good for the child and the grandparents.