British Jihadis Should Be Killed Says Rory Stewart

Fox new often ranks as the number 1 cable news outlet in the US. Popularity doesn't make a news outlet great, it just gives them more power to flex and twist stories to suit their agenda.

Also he didn't generalise all DM readers but the ones that share the opinion that it is has been right about every issue and is the voice of the people.
 
Chris Wilson said:
I think you are getting confused, Littlejohn was speaking of our knuckle dragging Neanderthal home brew jihadists, he's certainly not one of them, or writing to appease them. ;) It really is a ridiculous and childish generalisation to call all the readers of the most popular UK daily newspaper knuckle dragging Neanderthals.
Click to expand...
About as ridiculous and childish generalisations you have of anyone who is an immigrant or not of a white British genes.

Like I said it’s a great paper for you knuckle draggers out there, seems like it’s hit a raw nerve with you. Don’t worry Christopher there isn’t any law stopping you from reading such rubbish but please do everyone a favour and stop trying to convince us that it’s a decent non biased paper.
 
Amp34 said:
I don’t necessarily think the distinction should be much different to the way armed police work. Most criminals are arrested, tried and jailed, but if they are a present threat then they can be killed if absolutely required. Just being in Syria fighting for ISIS isn’t a present threat.

While you’re right, some intelligence may not be enough to get them convicted, why is that much different to the way we treat murderers in the UK? We put violent, vicious people through the justice system and release them if they are considered not guilty (or not enough evidence), even if the police are sure they have the right guy. With the arguments being used in thread why do we not just kill them without trial?



Isn’t there a mismatch with what the minister said and what the opinion piece was about? The OP was just a link and run to an opinion piece.



No, I’m saying I don’t see why we should expend limited resources on assasinating people of limited military value just because they are British, while also saying that if they do happen to try returning to the UK (or another nation with extradition treaties with the UK) they should be arrested, tried and jailed.

While they’re in Syria they should be treated like any other ISIS fighter, rather than being promoted as a target over a potentially more useful military target that just so happen not to be from the UK.
Click to expand...
Do you know how much military value they hold though? Relatively to any other objective that is? Our forces don't exclusively target brits anyway.
 
RoboCod said:
Do you know how much military value they hold though? Relatively to any other objective that is? Our forces don't exclusively target brits anyway.
Click to expand...

Well, both us and the Americans had Special Forces looking for Jihadi John.

We also have to remember that ISIS is dominated by large numbers of foreign fighters who hold high positions and are said to be the most fanatical, taking them out is cutting the heads off the snake.
 
dowie said:
Well they're in the U.K. and it is feasible to arrest them for a start. But I suppose that in the case of some committed terrorist or some mass murderer who does pose a threat to the point where they can legally be shot by the police then it probably is preferable IMO that they are shot.

I'd disagree the just being in Syria fighting for ISIS isn't a threat. I think there is a legitimate argument for killing ISIS fighters in general, if they happen to be British too then even more so.
Click to expand...

How about rules of engagement then? The ones followed in Iraq and Afghanistan, which broadly follow the same terms. The point I’m trying to get across is there are two seperate parts. A clear and present threat (e.g the person is about to execute people, or is attacking “friendly” combatants), and just being a fighter in Syria.

I’m also not saying the fighter isn’t a threat, I’m saying that they are likely to be no more a threat than any other ISIS fighter, so I don’t see the need to go out of our way and target them while they are fighting in Syria. If they’re a militarily relevant target then sure. If they’re grunt 5436 away from anything militarily relevant then not so much.

A fair chunk of the reasoning, at least in this thread, appears to be based on revenge rather than anything else. Personally I don’t think revenge should be part of military or judicial strategy.

Besides, there are questions about whether the majority of returning fighters are actually a threat. This appeared on my newsfeed this morning.

https://globalnews.ca/news/3821510/isis-fighters-return-canada/

As for foreign fighters returning from Syria and Iraq, Fuller said they’re likely to come back “disillusioned and mainly concerned with their own safety and their own future,” more than they’re worried about posing a threat.

Nevertheless, he said there’s a possibility that some will return to violence when they come home.

“I don’t think many of these people do constitute a threat,” Fuller said.

“But how many does it take?”
Click to expand...

Something that I think is worthy of debating and I’m sure has a fair chunk of info about by now.
 
Amp34 said:
How about rules of engagement then? The ones followed in Iraq and Afghanistan, which broadly follow the same terms. The point I’m trying to get across is there are two seperate parts. A clear and present threat (e.g the person is about to execute people, or is attacking “friendly” combatants), and just being a fighter in Syria.
Click to expand...

rules of engagement can and do vary (from say only being able to shoot if there is an immediate threat to life in say Iraq through to there are no civilians in this area, only insurgents shoot anyone who moves type scenarios that occurred in certain areas at certain times in Afghanistan)- I'm not familiar with the rules of engagement drone operators need to follow but I'm going to assume, given that they do seem to have targeted ISIS in the past with drone strikes, that they don't need to wait until the people being targeted are just about to attack someone or immediately present a threat to life... I'm happy to be corrected though
 
RoboCod said:
Do you know how much military value they hold though? Relatively to any other objective that is? Our forces don't exclusively target brits anyway.
Click to expand...

That’s not really relevant to this discussion though. We are discussing targeting Brits because they are British.

As I already said if they are a legitimate military target them I have no issues.
 
dowie said:
rules of engagement can and do vary (from say only being able to shoot if there is an immediate threat to life in say Iraq through to there are no civilians in this area, only insurgents shoot anyone who moves type scenarios that occurred in certain areas at certain times in Afghanistan)- I'm not familiar with the rules of engagement drone operators need to follow but I'm going to assume, given that they do seem to have targeted ISIS in the past with drone strikes, that they don't need to wait until the people being targeted are just about to attack someone or immediately present a threat to life... I'm happy to be corrected though
Click to expand...

In this situation it’s not the rules of engagement of the drone operator being discussed. If they’re specifically targeting a British citizen for being a British citizen then they will have been told to do so by someone higher up presumably.

Edit: perhaps I’m not being clear. In a warzone I’d also class a military leader or people manning a checkpoint as being “a clear and present danger”. I’m trying to use the police and rules of engagement to show there are different scenarios where suspects can legitimately be killed and scenarios where they can’t.:)
 
Last edited:
Yas786 said:
Lol I suppose if you are a knuckle dragging Neanderthal then you are right.
Click to expand...

I really shouldn't have to explain, comrade, But Daily Mail readers are NOT the problem in this country. When we had the riots a few years back by the dregs of society, it was those fine decent people from Daily Mail reading families who went out to the streets to tidy up.
 
Amp34 said:
In this situation it’s not the rules of engagement of the drone operator being discussed. If they’re specifically targeting a British citizen for being a British citizen then they will have been told to do so by someone higher up presumably.

Edit: perhaps I’m not being clear. In a warzone I’d also class a military leader or people manning a checkpoint as being “a clear and present danger”. I’m trying to use the police and rules of engagement to show there are different scenarios where suspects can legitimately be killed and scenarios where they can’t.:)
Click to expand...

I'm not really sure what your point is then? If you're happy with them being targeted and legally killed then what is the issue?
 
Gravitas said:
I really shouldn't have to explain, comrade, But Daily Mail readers are NOT the problem in this country. When we had the riots a few years back by the dregs of society, it was those fine decent people from Daily Mail reading families who went out to the streets to tidy up.
Click to expand...
Did they really survey who was doing the clearing up to determine which national newspaper they read?

Well, you learn something new every day.
 
Gravitas said:
I really shouldn't have to explain, comrade, But Daily Mail readers are NOT the problem in this country. When we had the riots a few years back by the dregs of society, it was those fine decent people from Daily Mail reading families who went out to the streets to tidy up.
Click to expand...
Really?? Wow well colour me surprised then :eek:

I don’t ever recall all daily mail readers going out and cleaning the streets as you put it.

But like Von just said above, you learn something fake everyday.
 
Amp34 said:
That’s not really relevant to this discussion though. We are discussing targeting Brits because they are British.

As I already said if they are a legitimate military target them I have no issues.
Click to expand...
You brought up the topic of their military value.

They are legitmate military targets. If they weren't then they wouldn't be in the target set and therefore could not be targeted under UK military law of armed conflict. So you shouldn't really dwell on it too much.
 
HarryJ said:
Don't agree with Rory Stewart at all. I think these people who have been brainwashed and groomed by these people need help. We need to speak to them, rehabilitate them and understand their grievances. Deradicalise them for integration. Saying "just shoot them" is typical uneducated right wing populist nonsense.
Click to expand...

Typical Leftie living in cloud cuckoo land.
 
Gravitas said:
Then you won't be aware that Littlejohn is Britain's finest columnist and has been for decades. And that's why The Editor always refers to him as "peerless".

"The Peerless Littlejohn".
Click to expand...

I AM aware that he’s Britain’s finest columnist in YOUR opinion, and I’m now aware that the editor of the Mail refers to him as “peerless”, according to you.
Personally, I’m of the opinion that he couldn’t live with Christopher Hitchens, Charlie Brooker, Matthew Parris, or Simon Jenkins.
One man’s columnist is another man’s supercilious nonentity.
I still find it quite easy to generally agree with his proposal for eliminating British jihadis, if that makes me bad in your eyes, I’ll try to get over it.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom