Drone Strike authorised by Cameron

Binners – isn’t this a place where opinions and voices can be heard without prejudice? Did you read any of the comments i quoted? To what extend do you disagree or agree with them?

“Based on the article linked to below and the governments own advice then yes it was legal.”

read the article critically it does not actually lead to the conclusion that the killing was legal just that it might have been . Have a look at the Canadian gun boat case referred to there was an obvious relatively immediate threat that could justify an attack here it is less clear particularly as Cameron seeks to justify the need for the killing as participation in plans to that had already failed to attack at events that had already passed without incident.

wrecker – Member
because it’s really hard fighting people hiding among the civilian population.

It really is, always amazes me how the security services were utterly shit at stopping IRA bombs, but manage to thwart about 99% of islamic attacks! 😆

Either they’ve improved immeasurably, or we’re dealing with extremely dimwitted jihadis(4 lions must have been a documentary! :lol:) or what we’re discussing here is essentially propaganda.

The same people who said invading Iraq was legal?

No Lord Goldsmith stepped down in 2007 and there have been another 2 Attorney Generals before the present one.

Either they’ve improved immeasurably,

Technological age innit? Interwebs, emails, mobile phones.

Legal analysis by former government lawyer[/url]

wobbliscott + 1
We’re engaged in a war with IS, two IS fighters lost their lives.
They had British passports, although getting them to trial and a life sentence at the tax payers expense may have been preferable, military expediency chose the-diplomacy-by-other-means route.

Although I am quite liberal I am getting a bit tired of liberal hand-wringing about some poor ickle IS fighters who support a murderous regime that have no respect for any laws beyond the one’s they are making up.

Problem with this is you will never know the details. And the legality is all in the details.
On the PMs desk there would have been a report detailing all the Ins and outs about these individuals, how this information was gathered, by whom and what methods where used.

I would imagine the majority of it would have been human intelligence led, use of informants, covert surveillance all coupled with effective signals intelligence. Disclosing all that information to the general public would most likely leave a great many people happy with the decision.

However, it would confirm the presence of individuals who could really do without appearing on the next IS youtube video, it would compromise those who inform on these animals and more importantly it would arm IS with the information to effectively counter the methods used to effectively target them.

I know many of you will, no matter what is said and done, refuse to believe this was legal and/or justified, who will continue to debate from the position of an armchair quarterback, mostly in part to their hatred of government and the military. I wish more information could be shared and it wasn’t left down to a ‘you’ll have to trust us’ statement. But sometimes that is what is needed to keep a great many other people safe.

I don’t agree with it, but I understand and respect the need for it.

seosamh77 – Member
It really is, always amazes me how the security services were utterly shit at stopping IRA bombs, but manage to thwart about 99% of islamic attacks!

Either they’ve improved immeasurably, or we’re dealing with extremely dimwitted jihadis(4 lions must have been a documentary! :lol:) or what we’re discussing here is essentially propaganda.

Little off the mark there me old fruit. Politics hampered the rates of successful operations against the IRA. We were brutal in the early days, beaten confessions and the like, so as should happen, the elected officials pulled the reigns. Problem was they pulled too hard and that tight leash ended up making us pamper to them. Hence why so many convicted murderers of civilians walked free under the good Friday agreement. Sad, but true.

wobbliscott + 1
We’re engaged in a war with IS

Except we’re not though, are we? Since Iraq, you can’t just go to war without the approval of parliament. For very good reason.

If Dave wants to got to war, which he clearly does, thats fine. He needs to put it before parliament, say ‘we want to start bombing ISIS in Syria’, debate it properly, and put it to a vote. Thats what happens in democracies. Supposedly.

But this looks like taking us to war by the back door, without recourse to the democratic process. Does anyone seriously think this is a one off? Or the first of many?

If you believe in taking on the Jihadi’s, and you want the British military to launch another middle eastern adventure… fine… lets have it put before parliament, and see what everyone else thinks. See how enthusiastic everyone is for that?

FFS are me and binners agreeing?

It’s all semantics binners. Technically we’re at war with IS, but you cannot really be at war with an organisation. IS and their affiliates are a threat to the security of most western democracies, so as and when required the government will authorise strikes using military hardware against specific targets.

I get your points, and no matter what I say you will have your stance on it. Which I respect because it ensures balance. I just wish more information could be made available but for many more reasons than I could type it won’t.

As for a ground campaign. It won’t work because mission creep and politics will take over. Of late we don’t have a good track record of making a plan and auctioning it. We flick from one idea to the next, with no consistency. All that does is get people killed and piss off the people we’re supposed to be helping.

If only we had applied the same standards a few years ago

Files obtained by the website Wikileaks have revealed that the US believed many of those held at Guantanamo Bay were innocent or only low-level operatives.

The files, published in US and European newspapers, are assessments of all 780 people ever held at the facility.

They show that about 220 were classed as dangerous terrorists, but 150 were innocent Afghans and Pakistanis.
Thats a lot of innocent people

It’s all semantics binners. Technically we’re at war with IS, but you cannot really be at war with an organisation. IS and their affiliates are a threat to the security of most western democracies, so as and when required the government will authorise strikes using military hardware against specific targets.

I don’t care whether its semantics or not. We as a nation, appear to be embarking on another middle eastern adventure. Without being consulted, without any parliamentary debate, without any judicial oversight, and being asked to take their word as to the evidence.

Maybe we’ve just got a bit complacent? What with all the previous escapades having worked out so well?

Maybe we’ve just got a bit complacent? What with all the previous escapades having worked out so well?

1 Empire – that was **** massive and awesome
2 World Wars
1 World Cup

Who can argue at the size of our dicks

I agree with Binners if you look at it very black and white, they have executed and now we have.

However, it appauls me that the Western World is prepared to kill people, because its legal. The ‘legal’ thing is all about appeasing us Westerners in to justifying what will happen, and ultimately to try and not loose the Government/President the next election.

To me if your going to have a war, its b@llocks all about legal justification. It’s whether the country is impassioned to want to do some thing about a situation.

Me personally, all the talk of taking migrants in is pointless unless something is done about the situation at home. The only way to change things in their own country is to start killing a few people.

Mike – you put it so more eloquently than I ever could, but you’re bang on! 😉

Me personally, all the talk of taking migrants in is pointless unless something is done about the situation at home. The only way to change things in their own country is to start killing a few people.

I think the question we need to be asking ourselves, dispassionately, is what will our involvement actually achieve? We’ve not got a good track record on improving matter through military involvement, have we?

Syria is in the midst of a bloody civil war with lots of participants, all as mental as each other, and all sorts of regional powers playing out their own agendas through proxies.

How is our presence, militarily, going to improve matters?

Its hardly likely too. Its just another party getting in there and throwing bombs around. Theres probably enough of those already

**** you binners, not that eloquent 😉

but hey why don’t we all just get on with it and execute who we want.

Fair point, but surely it would be cheaper just to drone strike Cardiff directly?

Would have caused a lot less complaints.

We should have a poll, choose the next destination I reckon..

Thing is we cannot just intervene in Syria. Even though IS are operating there, it would be an invasion. Assad is still the leader of that country, he has Russian and China in his corner. It would never happen, even with UN resolutions. Not one single politician in the UK would dare propose something like that.

IEven with a clear and coherent goal, many people would die. Regular forces will always be at a disadvantage against insurgents. We have rules to follow, they don’t. And I am not even going down the road like some who call for those rules to be abandoned. You can never defeat an insurgency by military might alone.

Would the Russians helping Assad out really be such a problem?
We have learnt that sometimes a complete bastard is needed to maintain stability.
Was Libya worse under Daffy or Iraq under saddam?

Although I am quite liberal I am getting a bit tired of liberal hand-wringing about some poor ickle IS fighters who support a murderous regime that have no respect for any laws beyond the one’s they are making up.

I don’t think anyone gives a shit about the IS fighters particularly, it’s more about not just making up rules as you go along because you’re the ‘good guys’.

And those calling for military action against IS – it was our last little military adventure over there that created them in the first place. Then we supplied them/their allies with weapons and support to fight Assad. As winners says our track record isn’t really that great.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/world/middle_east/the-hidden-hand-behind-the-islamic-state-militants-saddam-husseins/2015/04/04/aa97676c-cc32-11e4-8730-4f473416e759_story.html

Grum – I get all that, but the fact is there is now a problem with Migrants spilling out of the region.

Ultimately something needs to change.

What is everyones answer?

Should we supply arms to the ‘good’ migrants who are coming our way and tell them to go back and fight for their own country?

Should we go in and kill a few people?

Should we stand back and do nothing?

There is no easy answer is there….

I think the answer to migrants fleeing a war is to drop more bombs !!!!

Absolutely Dunc, bit f everything? But at this moment if we go in and kill people if goes bad if we do nothing it goes bad. Perhaps there is a chance that the people in the region can work this one out, perhaps they are allowed to hate us, perhaps if we stop **** with them it might help…

Funny how no one batted an eye lid previously when we were bombing ISIS in Iraq, putting in the SAS to get on the ground intelligence and also flying recon missions over both Iraq and Syria. Killing a couple of bad guys in Syria is hardly mission creep, we aren’t planning to invade anytime soon.

IMO if you’ve messed up in the past all the more reason to help, not just run away and let ISIS crack on with genocide.

IMO if you’ve messed up in the past all the more reason to help, not just run away and let ISIS crack on with genocide.

Help is s funny word isn’t it. Do you mean go in with great intentions but no real plan or to fix something with no idea how to?

And those calling for military action against IS – it was our last little military adventure over there that created them in the first place.

Ah, OK, so we’ll just rewind the clock and pretend that never happened then, and everything will be alright?

“Well, I wouldn’t start from here” doesn’t help anyone

FFS there’s some wilful naivety on here

appear to be embarking on another middle eastern adventure.

And just when did our previous little middle eastern adventures start and stop…
was it the fall of the Ottoman Empire, the ‘Aden Emergency’, Yom Kippur, Gulf War 1 or 2
Or are they part of a continuum of conflict between the Shiite and Sunni kingdoms that we have an interest in due to our continued reliance on black gold?

We now have a further interest as many people, some refugees & others migrants from across the Arab world, would prefer to live in Europe.

Much like the Arab world itself we’re not sure whether we should.

However, should Dave be able to assassinate people willy nilly? That probably does need discussing in parliament. I guess in the past special forces would’ve just made them have an accident – so I wonder why Dave had to come clean?

Do I care about those two so called British Citizens? Errm that’ll be a no. It’s just that we stopped the death penalty for traitors back in the 90’s (I think). Otherwise it would clearly be legal.

There is no easy answer is there….

No.

IMO if you’ve messed up in the past all the more reason to help, not just run away and let ISIS crack on with genocide.

What do you suggest we do?

Kimbers, ironically (tragically) it is. If we do nothing IS will grow in the region thereby causing more to flee. I really don’t see what the problem is with that logic? Do you not agree that if IS captures more territory then more people will flee?

Binners, in response to your last comment on my comment (can’t seem to suss out how to quote) we are at war with IS. How else do you define war. They’re trying to kill us, and we are trying to kill them….except in Syria. We are, are we not, bombing at will IS positions in Iraq and other areas in that region? If these two guys were the other side of the boarder this wouldn’t have even hit the headlines. If fact we wouldn’t have even had to justify it on the basis of evidence.

I really don’t see why the argument over the technicalities – it’s just political point scoring ahead of the Labour Leadership contest and the worry of the contenders coming out disagreeing with Corbyn. OK, if it turns out the evidence is shakey, then there is an issue about integrity of how we’re using inteligence. That is a seperate issue and would need to be tackled. But really, on what basis should we not be looking to kill these people? You can call it what you will, assasination, murder, war. A rose by any other name, one mans freedom fighter is another mans liberator and all that, but at the end of the day these people are trying to kill us. How else do you propose we tackle them….I guess we could, somehow, round them all up and put them in a compound, lets see, maybe somewhere nice like Cuba, and process them there… oh hang on, that wasn’t acceptable either.

Maybe i’m missing something but I just don’t think that trying to reason with these people is going to work. When has it ever worked in the past? We’ve sacrificed whole nations to vicious regimes in the past in the name of peace, and a World War and Genocide on an unprecidented scale was the result. So if we want to learn from the past, lets learn from the right past, and not the misguided mistakes of an egotistical and somewhoat mentally challenged US President.

Ooh, I haven’t been on Handwringingtrackworld for a while and look what I missed!

Personally I applaud the PM having the bollocks to authorise this strike. If nothing else, it may may others in the UK think twice before following that path. As for the bigger picture, that is only important if we start venturing into other areas, but a surgical strike on a vehicle with no collateral damage sounds pretty good to me.

Rockape63 – Member

If nothing else, it may may others in the UK think twice before following that path.

Or, it may radicalise others, and provide ISIS with some convenient british martyrs for their recruiting. Especially when it’s hung on a shoogly peg- “The british government kills our brothers without even a trial, they say they’re democratic and just but politicians and soldiers kill us without their people and judges having a say!” PR gold.

moose – Member
Little off the mark there me old fruit. Politics hampered the rates of successful operations against the IRA. We were brutal in the early days, beaten confessions and the like, so as should happen, the elected officials pulled the reigns. Problem was they pulled too hard and that tight leash ended up making us pamper to them. Hence why so many convicted murderers of civilians walked free under the good Friday agreement. Sad, but true.

Not really wanting to get into the specifics of the IRA, as that’s a murky conversation that will derail this thread.

My point was that if there was a true guerilla war we were facing we’d see far more successful attacks. I can’t think of any guerilla war where the success ratio is so high(particularly in a country as open and as easy to attack as our own). So, imo, ulimatley what were read and hear about is largely political posturing and not alot more. (I’m talking with regards to interal attacks, not terrorism in the likes of Iraq and Syria).

The wee guy from Aberdeen is a case in point, how the hell is someone with a face that well known going to be able to come here and carry out attacks? It’s utter nonsense and pure PR.

Or, it may radicalise others, and provide ISIS with some convenient british martyrs for their recruiting. Especially when it’s hung on a shoogly peg- “The british government kills our brothers without even a trial, they say they’re democratic and just but politicians and soldiers kill us without their people and judges having a say!” PR gold.

Who gives flying **** what ISIS think….they are beneath contempt for what they are doing to people. If others follow that path then fine, it puts them in a place we can safely attack them. Eradicate them like the vermin they are, is the only option.

We don’t want them here preaching death and destruction and carrying out various attacks.

Rockape63 – Member

Who gives flying **** what ISIS think…

Absolutely everyone who’s affected by what they think, I reckon.

Eradicate them like the vermin they are, is the only option.

And if they see death as the culmination with the ultimate reward to come just after?

Will it not just draw more?

Can we expect to see their families sueing us?

wobbliscott – Member
Kimbers, ironically (tragically) it is. If we do nothing IS will grow in the region thereby causing more to flee. I really don’t see what the problem is with that logic? Do you not agree that if IS captures more territory then more people will flee?

but assad has killed more civillians than IS

it would be great to irradicate the vermin but a decade of war in Afgahnistan and Iraq has failed to irradicate the vermin there, infact its helped create IS

the problem is that its a not a nice binary war there is
assad, backed by russia,
the USA/ ‘Saudi and all the brutal but western friendly dictatorships we arm in the middle east’ coalition,
the Kurds
Turkey
Iran
Israel (even fueling yemeni fighter now apparently!)

all opposed to IS but also hate each other with varying levels of paranoia and potential for conflict

who knew that toppling saddam would lead to the formation of AQ in Iraq, the end of Libya and Syria would mean the rise of Al-Nusra and the IS

IS recruits willing volunteers raised in the crucible of death we helped create in the middle east, the ripple sof the conflict so powerful that our own citizens are drawn to fight with them