ISIL, ISIS, Daesh discussion thread.

RoboCod · 7 Sep 2015 at 18:56

Amp34 said:
In both situations they were in the act (or in the case of gibraltar - believed to be in the act) of carrying out an attack. There is no evidence to suggest those two were (at least that we have seen).

There is some evidence that you have already seen. There is also some we have not seen, for obvious reasons.

setter · 7 Sep 2015 at 19:13

Amp34 said:
In both situations they were in the act (or in the case of gibraltar - believed to be in the act) of carrying out an attack. There is no evidence to suggest those two were (at least that we have seen).

I'm not necessarily suggesting that they shouldn't have been targeted here but the whole "OORAH" attitude seen by many in this thread is bypassing legitimate questions that should be asked in situations like this.

I can only summise that the government had some sort of evidence that they represented a clear threat to uk security. Perhaps they planned to return to the UK to carry out attacks. I guess we will maybe never know.

joeyjojo · 7 Sep 2015 at 19:38

Amp34 said:
What was it then? They were targeted and blown up, no different to putting a bomb under a police officers car, or shooting someone who is not currently a threat.

They weren't "in the vicinity" of a target, the missiles were meant for them. Much like Bin Laden was executed and many of the leading ISIS/ Al queda members were. I'm not against execution per SE, but let's call it what it was.

I'm inclined to agree with you Amp34.

The US has been getting into deeper and deeper water legally-speaking by using drones to execute American citizens abroad. They're known as "extra-judicial killings", accurately IMO, because they're based on secret evidence and authorised by one man outside of the law system (Obama).

It's a very sad day IMO that the UK has followed in its footsteps.

The govt killing Britons by remote control based on secret evidence and without trial? I almost can't believe this is the news today.

setter said:
I can only summise that the government had some sort of evidence that they represented a clear threat to uk security. Perhaps they planned to return to the UK to carry out attacks. I guess we will maybe never know.

This simply isn't good enough. It's very nearly the equivalent to allowing persons suspected of planning to commit a crime to be shot in the street. Doesn't that sound like a dystopian novel/film? The only difference is that these men were abroad.

Amp34 · 7 Sep 2015 at 19:38

setter said:
I can only summise that the government had some sort of evidence that they represented a clear threat to uk security. Perhaps they planned to return to the UK to carry out attacks. I guess we will maybe never know.

So you're allowed to kill people in self defence for something in the future? I don't think that's classed as self defence in the British legal system.

I'm sure it was lawful in some form by I'm guessing a self defence argument is not what they would have used.

If it truly was a UK killing then an investigation may follow, much like I'm pretty sure I remember one followed the Gibraltar incident.

scorza said:
Hmm, I think an ITV News reporter just let the cat out of the bag - one of the plots that the security services was the 4th July celebrations, presumably at the US embassy.

So basically it may have been the U.S. Killing these men, but the UK taking the credit. Would solve a lot of issues for the British government but allow Cameron to take the credit.

Dis86 · 7 Sep 2015 at 19:42

Amp34 said:
So you're allowed to kill people in self defence for something in the future?

How the hell else does self defence work? Lol. Muppet. If you get them after the event it's hardly any use is it? Catch them during and it's already too late!

No1newts · 7 Sep 2015 at 19:43

Must admit I find it strange we have people calling for an enquiry for people who have joined a terrorist organisation who has been quite frank in its views that westerners should be killed.

They left the UK, for starters that by default should have revoked their citizenship, that aside they went into an active war zone to fight an thus they were killed. They asked for it, simple.

I fail to see the whole Han wringing that happens every time we try to protect national interests, it is propagated by the media and opposition to score points and it's pathetic. Let's say the British government done nothing and they later attacked the UK killing X amount of people. Who would accept the "well we didn't want to infringe their human right yo" argument then? That's right, no one. They were scum and hopefully they died knowing that their pathetic goals of murdering innocents would never come to fruition and their sky pixies were not about to whisk them off to some magical heaven. Good riddance, burn in hell.

scorza · 7 Sep 2015 at 19:43

Amp34 said:
So basically it may have been the U.S. Killing these men, but the UK taking the credit. Would solve a lot of issues for the British government but allow Cameron to take the credit.

It may have been, equally the jihadis may have been hit by a lightning bolt from the sky :rolleyes:

John40 · 7 Sep 2015 at 19:43

Tears being shed on here by some posters because a couple of terrorists were blown up is staggering.

RDM · 7 Sep 2015 at 19:44

joeyjojo said:
I'm inclined to agree with you Amp34.

The US has been getting into deeper and deeper water legally-speaking by using drones to execute American citizens abroad. They're known as "extra-judicial killings", accurately IMO, because they're based on secret evidence and authorised by one man outside of the law system (Obama).

It's a very sad day IMO that the UK has followed in its footsteps.

The govt killing Britons by remote control based on secret evidence and without trial? I almost can't believe this is the news today.

This simply isn't good enough. It's very nearly the equivalent to allowing persons suspected of planning to commit a crime to be shot in the street. Doesn't that sound like a dystopian novel/film? The only difference is that these men were abroad.

It was a military operation rather than one by the security services. The people killed were members of an opposing military force planning attacks in the UK. Looks more like a military operation than an extra judicial killing. The military killing enemy commanders is sort of their role.

dowie · 7 Sep 2015 at 19:46

John40 said:
Tears being shed on here by some posters because a couple of terrorists were blown up is staggering.

yup... then again you get posts after Islamist terror attacks claiming said attack was 'nothing to do with Islam'

lafemmefatale · 7 Sep 2015 at 19:48

Amp34 said:
British government executing British citizens without trial...

Discounting the ISIS side of things we weren't even doing that when the IRA were bombing the mainland (AFAIK). I'm surprised that's even legal.

In the last ten years, Azelle Rodney, Mark Duggan and Anthony Grainger would suggest it's perfectly legal. Not forgetting John Charles De Menezes of course.

dowie · 7 Sep 2015 at 19:59

scorza said:
Sickening scenes on the news from Cardiff, where "friends" of the dead jihadi were calling for an investigation and for "questions to be answered". Uh-uh - you don't get to ask questions when your mate turns out to be a wrong'un, and had to be put down.

they're a bit delusional

on one hand you get people happy to say that they're against terrorism.... then news that this guy was killed came back and there were prayers in the mosque for him:

http://www.ibtimes.co.uk/uk-isis-jihadist-cardiffs-reyaad-khan-confirmed-killed-1518235

The family informed worshippers at the Jalalia mosque in Riverside of his death at the Friday prayers. The secretary of the mosque, Mokaddus Mia told BBC that prayers were said for Khan after they were told of the news by the family.

I mean its like he's just seen as some good boy who's just been lead astray... not that he's chosen to join this group.

I mean suppose some British guy had defected to Nazi Germany in WW2 to join the SS knowing that Jews were being mass murdered*, suppose he was then featured in leaflets/propaganda dropped over the UK - if he got killed in an RAF bombing raid what are the odds of his local church saying prayers for him?

As much as it is a (not all that tiny) minority who endorse the actions of ISIS, a lot of the 'moderates' need to buck their ideas up a bit.

(*extent of this wasn't known till the end of the war but hypothetically...)

dowie · 7 Sep 2015 at 20:04

Amp34 said:
British government executing British citizens without trial...

Discounting the ISIS side of things we weren't even doing that when the IRA were bombing the mainland (AFAIK). I'm surprised that's even legal.

The claim is related to a potential attack on the UK and we have 'executed' people before when intelligence of an attack was available:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_Flavius

Operation Flavius (also referred to as the "Gibraltar killings")[1][2] was a controversial military operation in which three members of the Provisional Irish Republican Army (IRA) were shot dead by the British Special Air Service (SAS) in Gibraltar on 6 March 1988. The three—Seán Savage, Daniel McCann, and Mairéad Farrell—were believed to be mounting a bombing attack on British military personnel in Gibraltar. SAS soldiers challenged them in the forecourt of a petrol station, then opened fire, killing them.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Loughgall_ambush

The Loughgall ambush took place on 8 May 1987 in the village of Loughgall, Northern Ireland. An eight-man unit of the Provisional Irish Republican Army (PIRA) launched an attack on the village's Royal Ulster Constabulary (RUC) base. Three IRA members drove a digger with a bomb in its bucket through the base's perimeter fence, while the rest of the unit arrived in a van and fired on the building. As the bomb exploded, the IRA unit was ambushed and killed by a 36-man unit of the British Army's Special Air Service (SAS). The British Army and RUC had received detailed intelligence about the IRA's plans and had been waiting in hidden positions. A civilian was also killed by the SAS after unwittingly driving into the ambush zone. The joint SAS and RUC operation was codenamed Operation Judy.[4][5] It was the IRA's greatest loss of life in a single incident during the Troubles.[6]

chief barker · 7 Sep 2015 at 20:04

lafemmefatale said:
In the last ten years, Azelle Rodney, Mark Duggan and Anthony Grainger would suggest it's perfectly legal. Not forgetting John Charles De Menezes of course.

Yeah all killed on British soil. Crane your neck in.

McBain · 7 Sep 2015 at 20:07

RoboCod said:
Now announced

RAF killed two Britons in Syria strike, PM tells MPs

Like I said, go to Syria to instigate terrorist acts, prepare to die.

Delicious.

lafemmefatale · 7 Sep 2015 at 20:08

chief barker said:
Yeah all killed on British soil. Crane your neck in.

It sets an insiduous precedent that our government and security services can do these things with impunity. That seeps into the public consciousness, hence the popular no-questions-asked view of last month's events in Al-Raqqa.

Arazi · 7 Sep 2015 at 20:27

No1newts said:
Must admit I find it strange we have people calling for an enquiry for people who have joined a terrorist organisation who has been quite frank in its views that westerners should be killed.

They left the UK, for starters that by default should have revoked their citizenship, that aside they went into an active war zone to fight an thus they were killed. They asked for it, simple.

I fail to see the whole Han wringing that happens every time we try to protect national interests, it is propagated by the media and opposition to score points and it's pathetic. Let's say the British government done nothing and they later attacked the UK killing X amount of people. Who would accept the "well we didn't want to infringe their human right yo" argument then? That's right, no one. They were scum and hopefully they died knowing that their pathetic goals of murdering innocents would never come to fruition and their sky pixies were not about to whisk them off to some magical heaven. Good riddance, burn in hell.

Hear Hear, Well said.

Amp34 · 7 Sep 2015 at 20:28

Dis86 said:
How the hell else does self defence work? Lol. Muppet. If you get them after the event it's hardly any use is it? Catch them during and it's already too late!

May be worth looking up what self defence is, generally its stopping someone in the act of carrying something out. It's why police in the UK can't just shoot someone because they think they are going to do something, they have to believe they are an imminent threat, Ie have a gun out and in a threatening position.

As an example someone entering your house with a knife and you lampung them with a cricket bat - self defence. Overhearing someone discussing breaking into your house and pre emptively lampung them with aforementioned bat is not self defence.

Either way, is the government even using a self defence argument? I'm pretty sure the DG will have provided a far more bulletproof legal backing for the government to work with.

Rather than being abusive why not have a decent discussion about this Instead?

Skunkworks · 7 Sep 2015 at 20:30

Are we really debating 2 dead ISIS? /facepalm

Amp34 · 7 Sep 2015 at 20:41

No1newts said:
Must admit I find it strange we have people calling for an enquiry for people who have joined a terrorist organisation who has been quite frank in its views that westerners should be killed.

They left the UK, for starters that by default should have revoked their citizenship, that aside they went into an active war zone to fight an thus they were killed. They asked for it, simple.

I fail to see the whole Han wringing that happens every time we try to protect national interests, it is propagated by the media and opposition to score points and it's pathetic. Let's say the British government done nothing and they later attacked the UK killing X amount of people. Who would accept the "well we didn't want to infringe their human right yo" argument then? That's right, no one. They were scum and hopefully they died knowing that their pathetic goals of murdering innocents would never come to fruition and their sky pixies were not about to whisk them off to some magical heaven. Good riddance, burn in hell.

We are a country of laws and order. Both the government and public need to abide by the laws of the land. If they don't agree with the law the government need to change it. At the moment there is no way of rescinding their citizenship (for example).

scorza said:
It may have been, equally the jihadis may have been hit by a lightning bolt from the sky

Sorry what was the rolleyes for? I obviously got the wrong end of the stick with your post...?

John40 said:
Tears being shed on here by some posters because a couple of terrorists were blown up is staggering.

You've obviously got completely the wrong end of the stick...