Did youyou expect anything less? Any excuse to hold an opposing opinion. It's "clever".
No.
ISIL, ISIS, Daesh discussion thread.
- Thread starter RoboCod
- Start date
Did youyou expect anything less? Any excuse to hold an opposing opinion. It's "clever".
No.
Caporegime
Ah ah ah. They've broken into your house with a knife - but haven't and aren't in the act of using it in your example. Can you prove they intend to use it in the future? No you can't, but you'd be well within your rights to whack them upside the head from reasonable suspicion that they'd harm you.
Suggest you look up the meaning of self defence yourself - there is nothing in the definition that says it cannot be pre-emptive. Infact the legal definition uses the term 'impending'. Impending means it HASN'T HAPPENED YET. Ergo it is in the future.
Are these people in an active warzone? Yes.
Have they gone there to participate in illegal activity? Yes.
Have they gone against the legal advice of the government? Yes.
Are innocents likely to have been harmed as a result of their actions? Yes.
It's hard to have a decent discussion with someone who isn't trying to have one themselves. You're simply trying to be a cool, edgy, radical.
Everyone with half a brain can see the world is a better place without these people who intended nothing but to hurt innocents.
So other than revoking their passport, what else would you suggest?
Unfortunately the internet is packed with people who don't even have half a brain.
Soldato
Let's accept for a moment that there was a threat, for the sake of this discussion let's take it on faith that there was.
At what point, in your mind, is the British government allowed to protect its citizens from being murdered? Genuine question and would be interested in your answer.
Caporegime
From his logic, the moment that they're pulling the trigger.
Soldato
Terrorists don't play by any rules, neither should we. Once they sign up for isis....**** em.
I can guess that Amps viewpoint is one of concern over the manner in which this strike has been carried out. It was done in secret, in what may seem a dirty underhand way and perhaps he is worried about the precedence it sets? However, my response to that is so what of the alternatives?
Boots on the ground. Much more loss of life. Or maybe even send in a team to go after him, which is incredibly difficult and highly unlikely to result in a positive outcome where he doesn't just evade and disappear forever after.
Mind you, given the amount of money spent on doing these strikes I said you could give me £1m and I'd happily walk down his Street and shoot him for old DC myself
Boots on the ground. Much more loss of life. Or maybe even send in a team to go after him, which is incredibly difficult and highly unlikely to result in a positive outcome where he doesn't just evade and disappear forever after.
Mind you, given the amount of money spent on doing these strikes I said you could give me £1m and I'd happily walk down his Street and shoot him for old DC myself
At least two of which had major inquests afterwards.
With Gibraltar the SAS unit thought they had positioned the bomb car and were moments from blowing it up, it was infact a blocking car. Afterwards there was an inquest.
The Loughgall ambush occurred when the IRA blew up a bomb and started shooting up a police station. Not sure why that one was any different to police taking out someone shooting up a school (as an example). It doesn't appear to be that relevant to this situation, unless they were launching an ICBM?!
.Either way there was no inquiry but:
This backs up the argument of people asking for an investigation.
As I've said multiple times I don't think the British government have broken the law, they wouldn't be that stupid. However I think there is a legitimate issue to be discussed regarding the legitimacy of this and where the line can be drawn with the British government extra judicially killing British citizens in a country where there they have no mandate to fight in.
Could they use this legal basis to gun down British citizens in Paris, because they may commit a terrorist act in a few weeks/months for example?
No, we are debating two dead British citizens (even if you don't want them to be, they are still British citizens). What organisation they were part of is irrelevant to the discussion.
Caporegime
The organisation they're part of is the reason they died. I'd say it's a central part of the discussion...
nah being members of ISIS is pretty relevant
They are British in name only, they hate this country with a passion, shed no tears for them.
Soldato
At least two of which had major inquests afterwards.
With Gibraltar the SAS unit thought they had positioned the bomb car and were moments from blowing it up, it was infact a blocking car. Afterwards there was an inquest.
The Loughgall ambush occurred when the IRA blew up a bomb and started shooting up a police station. Not sure why that one was any different to police taking out someone shooting up a school (as an example). It doesn't appear to be that relevant to this situation, unless they were launching an ICBM?!
Either way there was no inquiry but:
This backs up the argument of people asking for an investigation.
As I've said multiple times I don't think the British government have broken the law, they wouldn't be that stupid. However I think there is a legitimate issue to be discussed regarding the legitimacy of this and where the line can be drawn with the British government extra judicially killing British citizens in a country where there they have no mandate to fight in.
Could they use this legal basis to gun down British citizens in Paris, because they may commit a terrorist act in a few weeks/months for example?
That was the question I asked you tha you didn't respond too. Can they/should they, what, in your mind, is an acceptable stage at which to "pull the trigger" concerning suspected terrorist attacks?
an attack they knew about in advance and which wasn't going to kill anyone
and these ISIS guys were planning an attack too apparently - tis not like we can just pop over and arrest them
also sends out a good message - these ISIS types are all over twitter, trying to encourage people but now they know they're much more likely to be targeted... a western ISIS fighter trying to encourage attacks in the west is going to be a higher priority than most
Pray tell, can anyone actually tell me what Scotza actually said in his post then?
I assumed it was fairly obvious the knife would be out with the intent on using it... Anyway, I don't care. As far as I know the government are not using self defence as an argument for this action...
No I'm trying to ask questions and discuss an event rationally, while pointing out why some are asking for an investigation into it. Unfortunately I keep forgetting that there is no way to actually have a rational debate with most people on this forum about anything to do with Muslims/immigration or the Middle East.
That's irrelevant to the questions I was asking.
Caporegime
Pray tell, can anyone actually tell me what Scotza actually said in his post then?
I assumed it was fairly obvious the knife would be out with the intent on using it... Anyway, I don't care. As far as I know the government are not using self defence as an argument for this action...
No I'm trying to ask questions and discuss an event rationally, while pointing out why some are asking for an investigation into it. Unfortunately I keep forgetting that there is no way to actually have a rational debate with most people on this forum about anything to do with Muslims/immigration or the Middle East.
That's irrelevant to the questions I was asking.
Ignoring the (legal) definition of self defence that I provided there...smoothly done.
The trouble is your rationale and logic is flawed.
The fact they are members of ISIS is the whole reason they were there so is entirely pertinent. To discard that fact is to discard the very origin of this discussion and the very reason that they were killed. One can't have a rational debate by discarding facts that they don't like.
Soldato
amp I will have a reasoned discussion with you like you are asking, just answer my question.
At what point do you consider it acceptable for the government to step in and stop a potential terrorist attack?
At what point do you consider it acceptable for the government to step in and stop a potential terrorist attack?