Forum menu
I see we've joined the Americans in carrying out extra judicial killings of it's own citizens...
[url= http://www.theguardian.com/world/2015/sep/07/david-cameron-justifies-drone-strikes-in-syria-against-britons-fighting-for-isis ]Guardian Article [/url]
good
It's hard to decide whether to be more bothered that he's executing British citizens without trial, or that he's bombing Syria after parliament voted against it.
If you can call someone actively planning terrorist activities from a foreign land a 'citizen' - two less MF jihadists to worry about.
nickcI see we've joined the Americans in carrying out extra judicial killings of it's own citizens.
As opposed to just extra judicially killing everyone else's citizens?
If you can call someone actively planning terrorist activities from a foreign land a 'citizen' - two less MF jihadists to worry about.
So why bother putting terrorist suspects on trial in this country? Much quicker to just execute them.
Smudger666 - Member
If you can call someone [s]actively[/s] [b]allegedly[/b] planning terrorist activities from a foreign land a 'citizen' -
Innocent until proven guilty and all that.
Our military are assassins now? Isn't that how you'd refer to military action against an individual in a country where you've not actually declared war?
If you can call someone actively planning terrorist activities from a foreign land a 'citizen'
Is there any evidence?
Or has Cameron used the wearisome (and not good enough under international law ) defence of; "He was looking at me funny, M'lud"
Nickc - ah shucks he didn't get the permission of a load of men in suits who have no grip on reality. But however I guess it would have passified you, which would make it worth it
Seems a waste of an expensive bit of kit (zee missile that is).
It's neoliberal intervention innit !
Who saw the evidence, who collected it, who checked it. Do we know it was actually the bloke they were targeting?
Considering the UK does not have a death penalty it seems happy to execute people.
Which other people are on the kill list? How do you get on the list what's the burden of proof? One of the things that makes a democracy is a respect of the law.
Seems a waste of an expensive bit of kit (zee missile that is).
I bet it was cheaper than having them politely arrested, brought back to the UK and and kept at Her Majerstys pleasure for the next 10 years.
If they'd managed to drop a bomb on William Joyce no one would have whined about it
I know it's wrong of me but I'm struggling to GAS about the fate of a couple of bearded nut jobs.
May it be the first of many strikes against IS in Syria. Any IS fighter is a legitimate target. Cameron did not have to go to parliament for a vote 2 year ago but he did so and abided by that decision. Its ckear now the vote not to intervene was a mistake
@ben agreed much better to have then killed in action, it is they who have chosen Jihad and a desire to be martyrs
[quote=mikewsmith said]Who saw the evidence, who collected it, who checked it. Do we know it was actually the bloke they were targeting?
Considering the UK does not have a death penalty it seems happy to execute people.
Which other people are on the kill list? How do you get on the list what's the burden of proof? One of the things that makes a democracy is a respect of the law.
Cameron made the point that there was no option to extradite the guy or have him put through any legal process.
DrJ - Member
I know it's wrong of me but I'm struggling to GAS about the fate of a couple of bearded nut jobs.
If you don't GAS about them consider the wider implications, parliament blocked military intervention in Syria and yet we are launching drone strikes, again how did these people get on the list?
Do we know it was actually the bloke they were targeting?
And who was killed on the 21st of July?
Cameron made the point that there was no option to extradite the guy or have him put through any legal process.
With that logic it will probably mean the US can nuke the Ecuador Embassy to get Assange then?
It's certainly made me think about where I holiday next year.
If you don't GAS about them consider the wider implications,
Yes I know you're right. But on a gut level it's quite satisfying to see these scumbags on the receiving end.
They blocked military action against Assad's regime, pretty sure the guy from Cardiff wasn't there fighting for Assad. And please all with the "if they can get away with this what's to stop them randomly taking out people in Surrey that vote for another political party" point-stretching bullshit.
As for declaring war, given we don't recognise the caliphate how the frick do you officially declare war on them? We're not targeting Syria's national army, we're targeting terrorists that have set up camp there.
I am struggling to give a shit about the fate of two bearded nut Jobs but I do give a shit about our way of life and the rule of law. I read Rosenberg's supposed rational as to how this was legal in the Guardian it begged a lot of questions and at best its actual conclusion was that in the right set of circumstances this was possibly legal and we just have to trust the politicians that the right set of circumstances existed.
We cannot just say they were baddies so it's fine . If Cameron can kill this guy and a couple of bystanders because it was expedient to do so what and who comes next ? Can we target an orphanage because there is someone who looks a bit ISIS driving past?
[quote=FuzzyWuzzy said] And please all with the "if they can get away with this what's to stop them randomly taking out people in Surrey that vote for another political party" point-stretching bullshit.
You were just slightly too early with that post 😆
If we had started bombing Assad... Anyone guess at a date when we would have said " Whoopsy , my bad" and started bombing ISIS. Or would we have just started bombing both sides.
It's all a bit 1984 innit ?
I wonder how many innocent men, women and children were killed to get these 2? The media never seems to report on that.
A faceless killing from a laptop in another continent obliterating everyone and everything within the region where these bad guys are is totally the wrong way to go about it.
Meh, the British government has always killed people abroad who pose a threat to national security. I saw a documentary about it recently, I think it was called "The man with the golden gun" or "Octopusy" or something...
ameron made the point that there was no option to extradite the guy or have him put through any legal process.
In that case, it's justifiable to use a drone to take out Tony Blair.
was waiting for that leap of 'logic' to come up..
and to be honest, there's parts of surrey that would be improved with an airstrike. 🙂
Hindsight and all that but if we had bombed Assad and gone all out to support the Free Syryan Army would we now have ISIS the "caliphate" or the current refugee crisis?
What I'd like to know is how the **** did they find two particular bearded dudes in the badlands of Syria (which is brimmers with bearded dudes). Pretty impressive really.
maybe they geotagged their video - you know - the one where they are innocently recruiting brits to join them.
Hindsight and all that but if we had bombed Assad and gone all out to support the Free Syryan Army would we now have ISIS the "caliphate" or the current refugee crisis?
Yes, in fact they would now be in total control.
We (the rest of the world and especially the US and europe) need to have a long hard rethink about the way we are handling the middle east, have a long term plan that is consistent and fair, and doesn't just involve bombing the **** out of today's enemy and providing the campaign poster for tomorrow's enemy.
Well it gives me a stiffy to think that Carrie Mathieson was involved somehow.
[quote=wrecker said]What I'd like to know is how the **** did they find two particular bearded dudes in the badlands of Syria (which is brimmers with bearded dudes). Pretty impressive really.
Special forces on the ground was the Radio 4* speculation this morning.
* other speculation is available.
Some more on the great use of Drones to kill people
http://dirtywars.org/
"if they can get away with this what's to stop them randomly taking out people in Surrey that vote for another political party" point-stretching bullshit.
Don't think they would just whoever the bomb hits will be declared a terrorist, evidence will be subject to national security and on it goes...
[img] 
[/img]
Top bombing......
MSP, have you seen how much money our arms industries are making out of the middle East?! There will be heavy lobbying to maintain the status quo in fighting.
crankboy - yes I believe we would have, if I remember correctly part of the reason that the vote went against bombing Assad was that IS were very much already there and we parliament felt that bombing Assad could help the extremists as well as the FSA.
But back to the original topic, I'm with Dr J, don't really give a s*** about the two idiots killed, I do care however about the apparent re-introduction of the death penalty, over sight, intelligence (is this coming from the same spooks that gave us evidence of WMD's in Iraq?) and civilian deaths in the area.
We are supposed to be outraged over the death of somebody who would decapitate innocent people, enslave and rape women and crucify someone who doesn't share their superstitions?
In that case, it's justifiable to use a drone to take out Tony Blair.
LIKE 😀
<sets up e-petition>
We seem to have adopted the 'Merican aproach to these things. We lecture people on freedom, justice and the rule of Law, then when it suits us we just throw that out of the window and appoint ourselves as judge, jury and executioner.
So when we execute someone with a drone, its defensible and justified, when ISIS execute someone its in inhuman abomination. The only difference I can see is the method. The hypocrisy is breathtaking. And they wonder where all these Jihadi's who hate the west are coming from? And lets just forget the 'collateral damage' involved in dodgy inaccurate intelligence too eh? The ones that have killed god knows how many innocent people in Afghanistan.
Its not so much this act specifically either, as much as what this is paving the way for. Dave always fancied himself as the heir to Blair. Tony had his war. Dave wants his too. And like Tony, he's not too fussed about the legalities of it all. He's got his own heroic Hollywood good guy narrative already written in his head.
He was itching to go into Syria and start bombing the wrong/other side a couple of years ago. But lets just forget about that for the time being, shall we? Having been stopped by the democratic system from doing that, he's obviously decided to dispense with all that nonsense and just do what he likes anyway this time around.
In that respect he truly is the heir to Blair. You either have international law that everyone is bound by, whether it suits you or not, or you have a free-for-all. And when you've encouraged that, then you can't complain when it then comes back and bites you on the arse!
His actions will have the opposite result of those intended. This will make us all less safe
We are supposed to be outraged over the death of somebody who would decapitate innocent people, enslave and rape women and crucify someone who doesn't share their superstitions?
Their death is not the point here. How it was carried out is the problem.