Man of Honour
I can't believe that the BBC are giving him so much air time. Probably already got a job offer in the post.
ISIL, ISIS, Daesh discussion thread.
- Thread starter RoboCod
- Start date
I can't believe that the BBC are giving him so much air time. Probably already got a job offer in the post.
Right, isn't this the point?
All this gnashing of teeth and wailing at 'those pandering to the terrorists'
is not that at all.Parliament voted against action in Syria, now we have taken military action in Syria, with the Government saying 'It was legally justified' - without the AG actually giving the OK.
So all the other parliamentarians are saying is, Ok show us the evidence it was legally justifiable, then no problem.
Or are you wanting us to just accept you at your word?.... (lol)
Funny isn't it, probably very few of you would trust what a politician says 99% of the time, but here, all they have to say is 'they were planning attacks' and you all lap it up!
I think holding the governments actions to justifiable account is a cornerstone of our democracy and bears no relevance to ones stance against terrorism.
Soldato
no proof..apart from their videos and own words
Caporegime
Wait, is this the same Reyaad Khan from Cardiff that was boasting to have killed prisoners, or a completely different one?
This **** is just a standard ISIS sympathiser, plenty of them about.
Cooked your goose.
Caporegime
Right, isn't this the point?
All this gnashing of teeth and wailing at 'those pandering to the terrorists'
Parliament voted against action in Syria, now we have taken military action in Syria, with the Government saying 'It was legally justified' - without the AG actually giving the OK.
So all the other parliamentarians are saying is, Ok show us the evidence it was legally justifiable, then no problem.
Or are you wanting us to just accept you at your word?.... (lol)
Funny isn't it, probably very few of you would trust what a politician says 99% of the time, but here, all they have to say is 'they were planning attacks' and you all lap it up!
I think holding the governments actions to justifiable account is a cornerstone of our democracy and bears no relevance to ones stance against terrorism.
There's other, better ways of dealing with it without undermining the authority of the government. It's a shameful way of making political capital.
It's much easier to dismiss the debate by claiming "Isis sympathiser!"...Right, isn't this the point?
All this gnashing of teeth and wailing at 'those pandering to the terrorists'
Parliament voted against action in Syria, now we have taken military action in Syria, with the Government saying 'It was legally justified' - without the AG actually giving the OK.
So all the other parliamentarians are saying is, Ok show us the evidence it was legally justifiable, then no problem.
Or are you wanting us to just accept you at your word?.... (lol)
Funny isn't it, probably very few of you would trust what a politician says 99% of the time, but here, all they have to say is 'they were planning attacks' and you all lap it up!
I think holding the governments actions to justifiable account is a cornerstone of our democracy and bears no relevance to ones stance against terrorism.
Soldato
- Joined
- 27 Apr 2013
- Posts
- 4,095
Right, isn't this the point?
All this gnashing of teeth and wailing at 'those pandering to the terrorists'
Parliament voted against action in Syria, now we have taken military action in Syria, with the Government saying 'It was legally justified' - without the AG actually giving the OK.
So all the other parliamentarians are saying is, Ok show us the evidence it was legally justifiable, then no problem.
Or are you wanting us to just accept you at your word?.... (lol)
Funny isn't it, probably very few of you would trust what a politician says 99% of the time, but here, all they have to say is 'they were planning attacks' and you all lap it up!
I think holding the governments actions to justifiable account is a cornerstone of our democracy and bears no relevance to ones stance against terrorism.
Whether he was planning an attack or not is actually of no consequence to me. He was embedded with ISIL forces, which makes him a legitimate target. There was no question these men needed to die.
You cannot fly the Jolly Roger and then cry foul when the RN sinks you.
Caporegime
Planning an attack or not, is irrelevant from where i'm sitting. Look back at some of the guff they were posting on Twitter, or saying in recruitment videos. They were vermin.
Soldato
Sorry but they had this coming - I wouldn't have even bothered telling everyone how they died if I were the PM. I'm sure treason is still a crime so pin that on them and everyone who goes to join them
Posters who think every time we take some sort of military action the public need to know the full details and evidence etc. are extremely naïve.
Might not suit some posters agenda but sometimes some things simply have to be kept secret for a multitude of reasons.
I imagine the lawyers are already in Cardiff pushing for a human rights challenge funded by the tax payer.
Might not suit some posters agenda but sometimes some things simply have to be kept secret for a multitude of reasons.
I imagine the lawyers are already in Cardiff pushing for a human rights challenge funded by the tax payer.
Probably because no one really has any legitimate answer to stopping this mess any time soon.
Also an interesting article on the legality of the strike in the guardian this morning.
Was it lawful for UK forces to kill British ISIS fighters in Syria?
http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2015/sep/07/lawful-uk-forces-british-isis-fighters-syria
One (of many) interesting points to note, based on previois discussions:
It appears the government have a legal responsibility to tell the UN "immediately" in incidents like this.
It's also a major propaganda coup for Cameron and a warning to other British people contemplating joining ISIS.
No not every time, just the ones where parliament had already voted against military action
Who is saying the Public need to know, I'm more concerned the other parliamentaraians (or judiciary) have an oversight of the 'facts'
Let me guess, all you guys believed in WMD and the 45 min claim too
Soldato
- Joined
- 27 Apr 2013
- Posts
- 4,095
They voted against attacking Assad. It was a very specific vote.
Soldato
Why are the BBC news trying to find out all the legalities of these airstrikes!
Can't they get it into there thick heads that it's top secret Intel which puts other people's life's at risk.
Start supporting our government in there actions!
Can't they get it into there thick heads that it's top secret Intel which puts other people's life's at risk.
Start supporting our government in there actions!
Last edited:
No not every time, just the ones where parliament had already voted against military action
Who is saying the Public need to know, I'm more concerned the other parliamentaraians (or judiciary) have an oversight of the 'facts'
Let me guess, all you guys believed in WMD and the 45 min claim too
The Govt. had intelligence that immediately required individuals to be taken out, you may not believe it that's your prerogative.
Some things can't wait, even for you.
Soldato
im sure the isis fighters are happy to hang about while we have a parlimentary debate, or get a judge out of bed to decide whether we can bomb them or not
PJHQ have the legallaities for scenarios like this worked out in advance - they dont take action unless they think they can justify it afterwards
PJHQ have the legallaities for scenarios like this worked out in advance - they dont take action unless they think they can justify it afterwards