ISIL, ISIS, Daesh discussion thread.

RDM said:
I disagree, I think having a judge have to OK every military operation would be a very good way to completely hamstring our military. The people in question were working for a military force that we are currently at war with. That makes them legitimate targets as far as the military are concerned.
Click to expand...

This operation was agreed months ago by the National Security Council. They used military assets but it wasn't a military operation in the traditional sense.

https://www.gov.uk/government/organisations/national-security/groups/national-security-council

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_Security_Council_(United_Kingdom)

Note the council members, none of which are military, although military members can be part of meetings.

True, a General having to go through a judge before launching a military operation would cause some issues. That however is just irrelevant in this case.
 
FoxEye said:
I sometimes wonder exactly what agenda the BBC are pushing, or if they are all pulling in different directions.

Sometimes they will spread the govt's propaganda, like advocating action against Assad, calling him a brutal dictator, and presenting the case for war.

Now they want to challenge the legality of the UK's air strikes on ISIS members.
Click to expand...

So what you're saying is that they are a fairly impartial news agency, much like several other news organisations publishing similar stories and asking similar questions on this matter.

Perhaps, outside of this thread, there are actually a lot of people interested in what, why and how this happened, rather than just cheering about a couple of dead ISIS members?
 
ubersonic said:
The US weren't at war with Pakistan when they sent in a team to assassinate Osama. Doesn't stop it being the right course of action.
Click to expand...

no but they were involved in active operations inside Pakistan at the time against the Taliban and paying the Pakistani government large amounts of monies to facilitate this.
They didn't just invade foreign airspace (yes I'm aware Pakistan didn't know about the osama raid before it happened)

Russians are now in syria anyway, be funny if we accidentally bombed them instead of isis or assads forces
 
Last edited:
ubersonic said:
The US weren't at war with Pakistan when they sent in a team to assassinate Osama. Doesn't stop it being the right course of action.
Click to expand...

It was hardly the right course of action, for someone like Osama a Hague trial would have been leagues more aggravating than a quick death...

Now we know nothing other than what the US wants to tell us, sometimes assassinations become less about killing a dangerous man and more about saving your own ass. (In this case the CIA had to prove it could actually do its job, i imagine it was close to being totally reshuffled after 9/11)
Amazingly they allowed him to die a martyr...
 
Last edited:
Play with fire, you get burned.

These 'boys' might have been having the time of their life killing innocent people for their belief or lack of belief in their narrow version of Islam.

I do not think it really matters if they were planning to cause mayhem in the UK. Causing mayhem they certainly were, in Syria.
 
I wonder though... if we can closely track two targets in a country we are 'officially' not involved in...why the hell cant we track targets here in the UK?
 
StriderX said:
I wonder though... if we can closely track two targets in a country we are 'officially' not involved in...why the hell cant we track targets here in the UK?
Click to expand...

It's quite obvious, lack of operating restrictions in the ME. What you're essentially asking is why can't the government conduct mass surveillance of its own citizens. I'm sure you're against that.
 
joeyjojo said:
You just explained it perfectly. They would have been arrested and tried, in a court with a judge. Since they were in a lawless region though where our government couldn't get at them they went straight to "execution by missiles" instead.

Even worse, the decision seems to have been taken by Cameron and Hammond with no other legal backing than the attorney general saying there was a "legal basis" which they've refused to share in parliament.

The BBC paraphrasing Kat Craig (Reprieve) puts it succinctly: 'the prime minister "has given himself a secret, unreviewable power" to kill anyone anywhere in the world at any time'.



Have you read 1984? This is thought-policing.
Click to expand...

Please.
 
joeyjojo said:
You just explained it perfectly. They would have been arrested and tried, in a court with a judge. Since they were in a lawless region though where our government couldn't get at them they went straight to "execution by missiles" instead.

Even worse, the decision seems to have been taken by Cameron and Hammond with no other legal backing than the attorney general saying there was a "legal basis" which they've refused to share in parliament.

The BBC paraphrasing Kat Craig (Reprieve) puts it succinctly: 'the prime minister "has given himself a secret, unreviewable power" to kill anyone anywhere in the world at any time'.

Have you read 1984? This is thought-policing.
Click to expand...

I really don't understand people such as yourself. The 2 people they killed are seen on film and in photos holding AKs with Islamic militants and you seriously think our government should have to explain and justify what it's done? Like, for reals? I bet you didn't post as much criticism of the killers in Paris, or lee rigbys murderers.

Sometimes I really do wonder what side some people are on.
 
Amp34 said:
This operation was agreed months ago by the National Security Council. They used military assets but it wasn't a military operation in the traditional sense.

https://www.gov.uk/government/organisations/national-security/groups/national-security-council

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_Security_Council_(United_Kingdom)

Note the council members, none of which are military, although military members can be part of meetings.

True, a General having to go through a judge before launching a military operation would cause some issues. That however is just irrelevant in this case.
Click to expand...

I find it really hard to care too much about this to be honest.

Joined a foreign military we are actively fighting against, plotting attacks against the UK, in an effectively stateless part of the world, they seem to me to be legitimate targets and the sort of people we should be targeting.
 
Lima said:
I really don't understand people such as yourself. The 2 people they killed are seen on film and in photos holding AKs with Islamic militants and you seriously think our government should have to explain and justify what it's done? Like, for reals? I bet you didn't post as much criticism of the killers in Paris, or lee rigbys murderers.

Sometimes I really do wonder what side some people are on.
Click to expand...

He already accepted that they were in a lawless region where our government couldn't get at them. So I ask him and those that oppose the decision, what would they have done in the position of power?

RDM said:
I find it really hard to care too much about this to be honest.

Joined a foreign military we are actively fighting against, plotting attacks against the UK, in an effectively stateless part of the world, they seem to me to be legitimate targets and the sort of people we should be targeting.
Click to expand...

Yup, they were 100% Legitimate.
 
Bubo said:
Rayeed Khan looked like an Ewok
Click to expand...

He looks like a typical teenager, baby faced at that, trade those clothes he has on for normal attire or even a uniform and he could be sat outside any school or college in the country. That is a concern, young people whose closest call with an AK47 is a game of COD, turned into real killers. Cold, calculating fanatics who would take great pleasure in butchering the people they grew up with.

They are not the people who they were, the people who knew them all their lives may and probably do find what happened to them hard to take in. The truth is if they had the chance while they were alive they would have caused death and destruction in their home streets. Their minds are twisted and they are beyond being dragged off to prison due to their location.

To take away all the mystery and cloak and dagger rumours the government need to be clear. If anyone leaves this country to fight with IS the immediately become a legitimate target in the war against IS.

The government also need to show that they have no bias in the way they fight IS. An IS fighter is a target, regardless of country or origin, it cannot be that anyone from Britain is allowed to think they become untouchable by their own country. We cannot have possible IS recruits over here all of a sudden believing that if they do go to IS they are beyond reach of our armed forces. That could be used as yet another recruiting tool of IS (come to us, and fight, we will spread you through our ranks, your role is very important, the UK can't hit us anywhere you might be).
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom