[Closed] Drone Strike authorised by Cameron

globalti - Member
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?

Gotta point there sonny...

I think inactivity suits TBH; muslim extremists and iran backed assad killing each other. Civpop (as ever) will bear the brunt of it.
Dunno where people think british arms companies are making money from though, Assad is well armed by the Russians and Iranians and you can be damn sure they aren't supplying ISIS.

The problem is, without a trial (or at least some public disclosure of evidence) we have no idea if they had done any of those things or planned to do any of those things.

With activities such of these though it would be impossible to have a trial or disclose that evidence within the timescale of the operation. I imagine there was a good amount of opportunism involved.

I do believe there are questions to be answered and there should be some justification given, beyond, we didn't like him. But, how would those of you against the drone killing deal with him and others like him? Troops on the ground is going to lead to more casualties and I doubt things would just blow over if we ignore the situation.

I'm not sure of the answer myself but the long term solution to this does not involve blowing up people who disagree with us.

you can be damn sure they aren't supplying ISIS

... any longer ?

But, how would those of you against the drone killing deal with him and others like him? Troops on the ground is going to lead to more casualties and I doubt things would just blow over if we ignore the situation.

binners has it nailed though

You either have international law that everyone is bound by, whether it suits you or not, or you have a free-for-all.

So why bother putting terrorist suspects on trial in this country? Much quicker to just execute them.

That was intended as sarcasm, just to clarify...?

Cameron sure isn't Socrates.

The Americans were up to 2000 drone strikes in ****stan the last time I looked. When the people in the targeted area flee some of them head for Afghanistan and then Europe and ultimately the UK.

What was it? "Hearts and minds".

Cameron killing his own citizens is better than killing those of other nations but I can't see how either is going to be part of bringing peace to the region. Only the people of the region can do that.

But, how would those of you against the drone killing deal with him and others like him? Troops on the ground is going to lead to more casualties and I doubt things would just blow over if we ignore the situation.

And who appointed us the World Police? Why should we be getting involved at all? Have we learnt absolutely nothing from Iraq and Afghanistan, where we helped facilitate this insane situation in the first place? Western involvement in the middle east has been, without exception, an unmitigated disaster, of truly biblical proportions. Yet we have the supreme arrogance to believe that we have the answers this time. Well... the ones that suit our interests, anyway. And they're the ones that count, right?

As the refugee crisis is clearly demonstrating, all non-combatants are getting themselves the **** out of there. Lets concentrate on dealing with that bit, which presents enough of a problem already.

We should leave the two sets of barbarians to fight themselves to a standstill.

Its nothing to do with us, and our involvement will only make things imeasurably worse!

They never did. Arms did go in, but that was pre-ISIS, they even took steps to ensure that they didn't go to the more nutty types (like al nusra).

binners - Member
Tony had his war. Dave wants his too.

Don't agree with that.

The rest of what you say has merit though.

Is it not their ultimate wish to be matyred for their religion?
Edit. As much as I really don't give a shit about them being blown up they are abroad . I would refuse them re entry into this country.

As the refugee crisis is clearly demonstrating, all non-combatants are getting themselves the **** out of there. Lets concentrate on dealing with that bit, which presents enoughof a problem already.

ooooh...I was waiting for this one to be debated on here

I'm all for it, these people are scum, who would of undoubtabley gone on to murder innocent civilians abroad, and posed a risk to the safety of those in our country

So why bother putting terrorist suspects on trial in this country? Much quicker to just execute them.

Did we have the chance to arrest them?

With that logic it will probably mean the US can nuke the Ecuador Embassy to get Assange then?

Remind me when Assange was suspected of planning to sneak into the country and blow up our citizens?

For all those bleating about this, would you be changing your mind in hindsite if they'd come back into the country and blown up your wife/kid/sister?

Their lives are worth far far less than the innocents they murder.

It's a good start.

Their lives are worth far far less than the innocents they murder.

Does that work both ways? or is it ok when drone strikes kill innocents, after all that's not murder just collateral damage.

Oh good... the point of view from the red-faced, shouty tabloid reader at the bar, 5 pints in, has arrived. With all the thought and careful consideration which that generally entails

" was waiting for that leap of 'logic' to come up.."
When one removes a line in the sand which protects people from extra judicial killing it is not really a leap of logic to ask where that line will be redrawn it is more common sense.

Nor is the " will we bomb an orphanage next?" question that irrelevant one western backed democracy with a self proclaimed policy to militate unnecessary harm has hit Schools and UN centres and Hospitals on similar arguments.

Rock and a hard place. Both in the sense that if they had reliable intelligence about these guys and their alleged bomb plots, didn't take action, and these plots came to pass then folks wouldn't be shrugging and saying it's the risk we take.

Secondly, because we don't have a policy for boots on the ground (although

Special forces on the ground was the Radio 4* speculation this morning.

Which is where it goes all Spooks-ey and Homeland-ey. There are people with far more intelligence (both senses of the word) than you and I, and others far braver than you and i that like it or not, we have derogated responsibility to making these decisions and carrying them out to. There's probably some 'bearded nut job' sat in an ISIL training camp right now shitting his pants because he's doffed two big nobs in it and there's a trail that'll lead the reason why they just got visited by an drone straight back to him if he hasn't been perfect in his actions. And may yet lead to him even if he has. And because of people like that i can walk the streets of my free country a little bit sounder.

(is this coming from the same spooks that gave us evidence of WMD's in Iraq?)

I'm not convinced the Spooks did. In fact their evidence was possibly more of the 'there AREN'T any WMDs' type, but was ignored / contradicted in favour of wanting to go to war anyway. Hence Kelly, Hutton, Chilcot, etc.

Did they use an Heir to Blair missile?

What is the point of covertly killing somebody then rather publicly going on about it afterwards? Kind of defeats the object of doing it covertly in the first place.

Remind me when Assange was suspected of planning to sneak into the country and blow up our citizens?

For all those bleating about this, would you be changing your mind in hindsite if they'd come back into the country and blown up your wife/kid/sister?

My problem is not with their end in many ways but the judge, jury and executioner role of the government. The lack of oversight and the implications and problems that has been evident in the US kill them just in case policy.

This kind of thing has always happened, the only difference here was that it was a missile strike from a drone, rather than a person from Mossad, SAS or SOE ('James Bond') doing it quietly with a knife or pistol.

One of the main reasons the USA wanted the UK to take part in airstrikes against ISIS is that the RAF have access to newer missiles that cause less collateral damage. Hence, why the RAF have been given the task of going after cars, pickups etc.

For those not paying attention here is an article from the Guardian in July in the UK's efforts on providing intelligence in Syria, no doubt that's coupled with the GCHQ/NSA base on Cyprus.
[url= http://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2015/jul/16/raf-iraq-and-syria-spying-missions-new-battle-of-britain-fallon ]UK Intel over Syria[/url]

binners - Member
But, how would those of you against the drone killing deal with him and others like him? Troops on the ground is going to lead to more casualties and I doubt things would just blow over if we ignore the situation.
And who appointed us the World Police? Why should we be getting involved at all? Have we learnt absolutely nothing from Iraq and Afghanistan, where we helped facilitate this insane situation in the first place? Western involvement in the middle east has been, without exception, an unmitigated disaster, of truly biblical proportions. Yet we have the supreme arrogance to believe that we have the answers this time. Well... the ones that suit our interests, anyway. And they're the ones that count, right?

As the refugee crisis is clearly demonstrating, all non-combatants are getting themselves the **** out of there. Lets concentrate on dealing with that bit, which presents enough of a problem already.

We should leave the two sets of barbarians to fight themselves to a standstill.

Its nothing to do with us, and our involvement will only make things imeasurably worse!

It's a bit odd this, I agree with quite a lot of what binners has to say.

Saves me typing it all out.

😀

Unfortunately it's a "damned if you do, damned if you don't" situation.

If they had taken another course of action or delayed and not managed to capture them and then they had gone on to undertake another 7/7 then there would be outrage and calls for heads in the government/security services to roll.

If they had tried to capture him and lost soldiers and innocent lives in the process then there would also be outrage.

In this instance they took the quickest and most sure fire way of stopping them. Was it right? I can't say it's ever "right" to take another persons life but as humans, with out past, it's pretty pointless arguing that point as our whole existence is based on killing each other.

Personally I think we can't go on with the way things are going but unfortunately there is not a quick way out and anything we do is going to attract criticism.

But they were going to blow up the queen !!!!

I'm so glad that our last load of wars didn't lead to a humiliating defeat and embarrassing withdrawl from Iraq and Afghanistan.

Certainly didn't motivate any lads from Leeds and Bradford to blow themselves up on the tube, oh no.

As for weapons, out biggest arms customer the Saudis and their allies are backing AlQaeda linked rebels in Yemen against the Iranians own insurgents there. I'm sure those rebels are the trustworthy kind though

Next week is our big arms fair in Excel, will the Russian state arms company (main supplier of Assad) be there again?
Who knows but I'm sure all those £millions of weapons we sell will bring further peace and prosperity to the people of the middle east

One of the main reasons the USA wanted the UK to take part in airstrikes against ISIS is that the RAF have access to newer missiles that cause less collateral damage

Brilliant! Finally.... a Smart Missile that can tell whether someone is guilty or not, and either blow itself up, or not depending on its considered judgement.

Unfortunately it's a "damned if you do, damned if you don't" situation.

If they had taken another course of action or delayed and not managed to capture them and then they had gone on to undertake another 7/7 then there would be outrage and calls for heads in the government/security services to roll.

Alternatively... if you believe this is the answer, then go before parliament and say 'we need to be carrying out extra-judicial killings of British citizens to keep British citizens safe'

Thats how democracy works. Awkward isn't it? So lets just dispense with the whole democratic process, do it anyway, and then tell everyone to just take our word for it, and not ask any questions at all.

Remind me again... what is parliament actually for, if not for exactly this? TO hold elected leaders to account. And to ensure they can't just go killing whoever they fancy, without deeming it necessary to supply any evidence as to why.

If they can make a strong enough case, then fair enough. But they decided that they weren't prepared to make any case at all. They were just going to do it.

I heard that the government were "considering" putting "special forces" (ie: SAS) on the ground in the region. This means they're already there.

It takes ground observation to direct an anti-personnel drone strike.

Well i'm struggling to see how this is a problem. We're officially at war with IS - they are a legitimate target. For some strange reason the humanitarian do gooder finger-waggers who are up in arms about the refugees from Syria decided not to apply their humanitarian good will to those same people when they were under attack from Assad in their own country, so we voted not to carry out any military action in Syria itself leaving them at the mercy of IS - but any IS target outside of Syria is a legitimate target - oh what a rediculous situation that is. These guys were cowering in Syria, but it if we have firm evidence of their whereabouts and that they are a threat then we should go after them.

We can only bury out heads in the sand over IS for so long before they come back to bite us. History has shown us many times that if you appease aggressors and give them the space to breathe, no good will come of it.

We had our chance to deal with this situaiton but now I read that Putin is getting involved supporting Assad making any future intervention to deal with Assad very difficult ineed. Putin will help Assad purge Syria of IS (good) but then help reinstate Assad's cruel regime and Assad will then start a programme of rounding up those that opposed the Assad regine and torture them and inflicting untold misery on millions of people.

I heard that the government were "considering" putting "special forces" (ie: SAS) on the ground in the region. This means they're already there.

Good to know the people with the inside information on special forces operations are willing to speak about it so openly on a forum (ps I am with you, I know there isn't a boat house at the Hereford barracks)

For some strange reason the humanitarian do gooder finger-waggers who are up in arms about the refugees from Syria decided not to apply their humanitarian good will to those same people when they were under attack from Assad in their own country, so we voted not to carry out any military action in Syria itself leaving them at the mercy of IS - but any IS target outside of Syria is a legitimate target - oh what a rediculous situation that is.

ISIS are the forces that were armed to fight the Assad regime, you seem as confused as British foreign policy.

Chat with a lawyer last night. "Why isn't there a judicial part to this authorisation process?" "Because they know all the judges would say no".

In the same camp as a lot of people... Not too bothered that these dudes got blown up, they seem like wrong 'uns. Not happy with how it's done- who appointed David Cameron judge, jury and executioner, or turned our army into assassins? Who decides what the burden of proof is, or where the lines in the sand are? You start to get queasy questions about timing and motivation- how convenient that he could announce this on the same day as the refugee crisis response!

(at the same time! Genuine wtf about that. And in the midst of a typically dishonest statement to the house, which inspires lots of confidence in his reliability and trustworthiness on all things such as executions)

ISIS are the forces that were armed to fight the Assad regime, you seem as confused as British foreign policy.

a long overdue strike, I applaud the government for finally growing a pair.

IS needs to be defeated and if UK citizens take up with IS then they are fair game,
would people pleading for the rule of law, be arguing thus if these jihadists had been killed whilst trying to kill Aylan in kobani?

I saw a report claiming that the pilots of the drones are more prone to PTSD as they are watching from a high res camera from a much slower aircraft so it ends up being much more personal.

One thing I do find funny about all this drone stuff is we have had cruise missiles for a long time, yes they were horrendously expensive which limited use, but they were also very much blunt instruments that could decimate a huge area and still miss the target person. But drones are really attracting a lot of negative press and i think a lot of it goes back to this impression of being much more personal, being able to loiter and wait for your target and follow and strike and capture everything on camera. I guess there is something quite sinister about the possibility of having hundreds of these things circling a country waiting to spot someone on the "wanted list". Could make for an interesting novel.

bloody hell, if all it takes to appear on the drone-strike-hit-list is a beard, then ssuk2016 is off to a shaky start...

we (the west, whatever) have been killing brown people (with beards too, probably) using drones, for what feels like decades now. The fact that one of them was British doesn't make it worse. He is not somehow more worthy of our concern simply because he was born in Cardiff.

i'm all for a better solution, some way of extending our system of justice (flawed as it is) to distant parts of the world.

any suggestions?

How serious must a threat be before we react? - The truth in this case was probably somewhere between 'no threat at all' and 'he blew himself up in a branch of Boots yesterday'.

This guy was targeted, questions were asked, decisions were made, and we got told about it. I understand this is naive, but i find it reassuring that a process exists - hopefully we're not just shooting at people who look a bit 'muslamic'.

would people pleading for the rule of law, be arguing thus if these jihadists had been killed whilst trying to kill Aylan in kobani?

What if they were killed while trying to kill Donald Duck in Disneyland Paris?

Thats how democracy works. Awkward isn't it? So lets just dispense with the whole democratic process, do it anyway,

Afraid that's how parliament is setup, there is no requirement for the government (that were voted in democratically) to go to the house for approval.

I'm struggling to see why anyone is surprised by any of this, there has been plenty of stuff in the papers previously (e.g. that Guardian from July I linked to).

No they aren't. Completely different bunch. ISIS killed a lot of the original groups.

Of course they were just hanging around doing nothing making weapons from plants and sand until the opportunity arose to mercilessly kill all the heavily armed freedom fighters that our government backed. 🙄 😆

Oh good... the point of view from the red-faced, shouty tabloid reader at the bar, 5 pints in, has arrived. With all the thought and careful consideration which that generally entails

aimed at me...?

If so, just my opinion, granted probably not popular on STW. I imagine however that I'm at least as qualified as you to comment on world affairs....

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?

No but we do help the monarchy out at times of need

You're right. In your man-of-the-people role, you've clearly spent a lot of time thinking through the long term implications of the UK now endorsing the extra-judicial killing of its own citizens, without any oversight, and the implications for both parliamentary democracy, or it inflaming further the situation in Syria and the wider middle east

I do apologise. Carry on....

Oh... can you get me some crisps while you're at the bar.

Of course they were just hanging around doing nothing making weapons from plants and sand until the opportunity arose to mercilessly kill all the heavily armed freedom fighters that our government backed.

I say go for it. Now I'm hopefully past the age of conscription it's about time we stopped pissing about and had a bloody proper war. One that lasts years and requires women to wear overalls. You know, baddies over there, us over here 3,2,1 BRITISH BULLDOGS! That'd stop these young uns robbing poundland and give 'em something to think about, eh? I've always fancied an anderson shelter, what say you?

No they aren't. Completely different bunch. ISIS killed a lot of the original groups.

we (the west, whatever) have been killing brown people (with beards too, probably) using drones, for what feels like decades now. The fact that one of them was British doesn't make it worse. He is not somehow more worthy of our concern simply because he was born in Cardiff.

+1

I don't really see how the fact they had a British passport makes it any worse or better.