It will be comedy gold when they hack it.
Nah that guy died
http://www.mirror.co.uk/news/world-news/junaid-hussain-dead-isis-computer-6326361
It will be comedy gold when they hack it.
Why is it the wests problem?
Because we went in and destroyed the Iraq military and killed sadam paving the way for a weak government to get toppled by these scum.
Because we went in a destroyed the Libyan military and killed gadafi, now Libya has 2 factions of 'government' battling to take control meanwhile Isis setup in Libya.
Because we armed the Rebels battling Assad, most of which were the people that are now fighting for isis.
We never had a problem 'risking our peoples lives' on these stupid political decisions.
The Middle East has a lot to answer for, you are correct and countries like Saudi should play a bigger part, but fact is, it is 100% our fault that this situation is happening right now.
I appreciate it wouldn't be easy to eradicate them fully but the wests military power could put an end to this in a fortnight if they wanted to.
So how do you define people that regularly burn others alive, throw people to their deaths for potentially being homosexual, use rape as punishment?
Are they just misunderstood?
this wouldn't have happened as it has without western foreign policy, end of. You have your opinion I'll have mine.
However bad Saddam Hussein was, his Iraq was a better place than what it is now.
The US and the UK went in to Afghanistan and Iraq removed what was a stable governing system (compared to today) and the fall out has been creating ISIS which is a far bigger threat than the Taliban and even Al Qaeda.
True. Not so good for the Kurds, but at least it was stable.
Try and answer with a yes or no without giving an unwanted history lesson filled with snide comments to anyone that disagrees with you.
I never 'insisted' dictators are a good thing....please try again
Not sure what your third paragraph is about... I know you are the one disagreeing (although not actually sure what you are disagreeing with exactly).
So you couldn't give a simple yes or no to my question?....cool.
I absolutely agree with you. What the people in this violent hell hole needed was a ruthless dictator who knew how to keep them all in check. What the west has done is gone in and killed these people that knew how to keep a lid on the whole mess.
I tend to agree to an extent. At the time the second Iraq war started, I was very much of the opinion it was a good thing. I didn't care if the WMD thing was a lie as I thought it would be good to get rid of brutal leaders. Thing is, years later and some hindsight has made me change my opinion on the subject. I would still support the war if we concluded it properly but as it stands we pulled troops out too early and it's become a huge mess. I think we should finish what we started.
Tefal your 2 quotes don't highlight contradiction. What I've been trying to get at is that whilst I don't fundamentally agree with how these dictators go about their business, I'd much rather they were still in place than have what is basically a huge cult running a muck across several countries.
I've not been keeping up with this tosh as per usual. But surely at some point, something will happen over here? It's only a matter of time.
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.
Edit: just seeing the above posts, I think it's perfectly legitimate to be asking for more information when the British government target British citizens. It would be a totally different matter if they were "collateral" damage from an attack on an ISIS target IMO.
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).
Are we really debating 2 dead ISIS? /facepalm
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.
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)....
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..
In his address to the Commons, the prime minister also said:
The strike had been approved at a meeting of "the most senior members" of the National Security Council, and authorised by Defence Secretary Michael Fallon
The UK acted under the "inherent right of self-defence" contained in the Charter of the United Nations, based on evidence from intelligence agencies
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!
no proof..apart from their videos and own words
I think holding the governments actions to justifiable account is a cornerstone of our democracy and bears no relevance to ones stance against terrorism.
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?
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.