ISIL, ISIS, Daesh discussion thread.

[Amp34]

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.

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

Spot on.

For starters I'd argue there should be some kind of judicial oversight in it before the killing. Perhaps a judge looking at the evidence and agreeing, or even a trial by jury (with the accused not in court). This may have happened, it may not- it could have just been the Home Secretary authorising based on being asked by "xyz". Obviously it would depend on the immediacy of the threat (which we don't know) and what the threat actually was (were they coming to the UK to bomb somewhere or was it outside the UK for example)? Perhaps they could have arrested him when they had the possibility (travelling through a more stable country getting to the target), although they run the risk of losing them.

Personally I think we should go into Syria hard and clear it out, let's force ISIS back into Iraq where it came from. I understand though that t would be political suicide both because it would be another war and because we would have to work with Assad to do it successfully (and perhaps have to organise an alternative to execution for Assad and his head honchos, so they could be persuaded to leave power - perhaps exile in Russia?)

Obviously it's not my area of expertise, it may have been the best option, there may have been other alternatives, I was just bringing up the question as it's an interesting debating point. It's also clear that there may actually be some president for an inquiry/investigation into the killings.

 

[Amp34]

They are British in name only, they hate this country with a passion, shed no tears for them.

I'm not shedding any tears. See robocods post for a clearer picture.

 

[StriderX]

I suspect if we go anywhere near Syria, Russia will move on Kiev hard themselves.

We risk too much nowadays.

 

[Amp34]

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.

I wasn't, both my examples were correct so there was no need to discuss it. You couldn't stand up in front of a judge and say you beat someone up because you heard they were going to attack you next week.

Tbh I have an issue with government (or anybody in power) using different definitions of law/legislation than others can for their own needs.

My point about the ignoring the fact they were part of Isis is because they could have been part of the IRA, the far right or random nutters. It doesn't change the way they were killed or why they were killed, or I assume, the legislation behind why they were killed.

 

[StriderX]

I wasn't, both my examples were correct so there was no need to discuss it. You couldn't stand up in front of a judge and say you beat someone up because you heard they were going to attack you next week.

Tbh I have an issue with government (or anybody in power) using different definitions of law/legislation than others can for their own needs.

My point about the ignoring the fact they were part of Isis is because they could have been part of the IRA, the far right or random nutters. It doesn't change the way they were killed or why they were killed, or I assume, the legislation behind why they were killed.

Welcome to reality?

 

[Dis86]

No. I proved using a single quote of the definition of the word which you'd brought up that you were wrong.

 

[Housey]

**** em, good riddance. Next.

 

[Amp34]

I suspect if we go anywhere near Syria, Russia will move on Kiev hard themselves.

We risk too much nowadays.

Probably pretty accurate unfortunately. I also think our foreign policy in the last 12 years has been more positive for Isis than ourselves. First Iraq, giving breathing space for them to form in the cess pit that formed after we toppled Saddam and withdrew. Then Libya, toppling Gadaffi and leaving a massive power vacuum which has allowed the to flourish and expand into places like Mali (at least the French were successful!), and finally Syria, first arming the "Rebels" and helping destabilise Assad, then not going in and allowing ISIS to move in instead.

I can't see an end for a very long time now. From a British standpoint the best option we can hope for is a couple of secular warlords taking over and kicking ten bells out of the extremists. I'm sure it won't be good for the locals though!

 

[RDM]

Spot on.

For starters I'd argue there should be some kind of judicial oversight in it before the killing. Perhaps a judge looking at the evidence and agreeing, or even a trial by jury (with the accused not in court). This may have happened, it may not- it could have just been the Home Secretary authorising based on being asked by "xyz". Obviously it would depend on the immediacy of the threat (which we don't know) and what the threat actually was (were they coming to the UK to bomb somewhere or was it outside the UK for example)? Perhaps they could have arrested him when they had the possibility (travelling through a more stable country getting to the target), although they run the risk of losing them.

Judicial oversight for military operations? Seems like a good way to cripple the armed forces.

 

[Amp34]

Welcome to reality?

Doesn't mean I have to like it, or agree with it.

No. I proved using a single quote of the definition of the word which you'd brought up that you were wrong.

You couldn't stand up in front of a judge and say you beat someone up because you heard they were going to attack you next week.

So a judge would let you off with your quote in this situation?

 

[Amp34]

Judicial oversight for military operations? Seems like a good way to cripple the armed forces.

But the British military isn't in Syria. This specific incident was pretty unique, or at least it hopefully will be. I'm not suggesting it should be standard for assassinations/killings.

Besides the British military have had to deal with judicial oversight/rules of engagement in many theatres of war.

 

[Housey]

Judicial oversight for military operations? Seems like a good way to cripple the armed forces.

Quite. It's all very well sitting on a sofa debating every single element of every single action until you are blue in the face, but sometimes you have to make a call and appreciate that some people will be ****** off at it. This forum shows that if you spend your life discussing every element of every argument you conclude nothing. Leadership is about listening, considering and then simply doing what you think is best. That is why we vote for leadership and why we have Directors of companies, someone needs to own the big calls when the 'norms' with all the answers go in circles, convinced they would do it better but actually never solving anything. Of course they will have a million reasons why we should not do something, or why the leaders did it wrong, but that isn't the point really.

 

[RDM]

But the British military isn't in Syria. This specific incident was pretty unique, or at least it hopefully will be. I'm not suggesting it should be standard for assassinations/killings.

Besides the British military have had to deal with judicial oversight/rules of engagement in many theatres of war.

They are only really assassinations if you ignore the fact that they were part of a military organisation we are currently at war with. If you accept we are at war with ISIS then it is a military operation.

 

[dowie]

But the British military isn't in Syria. This specific incident was pretty unique, or at least it hopefully will be. I'm not suggesting it should be standard for assassinations/killings.

Besides the British military have had to deal with judicial oversight/rules of engagement in many theatres of war.

it isn't that unique... we're actively targeting ISIS in Iraq, we have had limited action over Syria - this time the guys happen to be British

we've also killed Taliban members in Afghanistan who happen to be British

 

[jl10000]

Its not hard to see why people are a bit shocked; The RAF has just targeted and killed two British citizens, young men born in this country. If they had been droned in Cardiff for thought crimes then yes it would be shameful. But travelling to Syria to support and fight for ISIS? Dangerous young men, I'm not sad they are dead.

 

[StriderX]

Cant wait until the Taranis drones are operational, just sit back and watch the kill counter.

 

[gettothechopper]

We really have painted ourselves into a corner, to the point that people can't get their heads around even a fully justified action anymore.

 

[Hitman_Leon]

With the things they do on a daily basis, they might as well expect a missile, bomb, SAS or any other allied SO unit to take them to their virgins at any moment.

The government should just make it quite clear, you go fight with these people against our wishes and the good of the country and our allies, you become target. No misunderstandings and no second chance, you go join a war against us and we can and will kill you if we have the opportunity.

 

[FoxEye]

We really have painted ourselves into a corner, to the point that people can't get their heads around even a fully justified action anymore.

The BBC interviewed a former councillor from the area where one of the deceased had lived, before moving to Syria.

I was not surprised to hear him focus on two areas: that he wanted an inquiry into the justification behind the killing; that the family of the deceased was deeply distressed at his death.

Not a single mention of the fact that the deceased was fighting for ISIS - a group that has brutally murdered and tortured innocent civilians.

The ex-councillor's tone was one of mourning for the deceased. I thought that told a story, really.

The ex-councillor's name, btw? Mohammad Islam.

 

[gettothechopper]

Omg foxeye he must be Isis as well !

Anyhow I've seen loads of stuff today from all different people that range from 'nuke them all' to cries of 'wtf illegal'
people are very confused where the line is now