ISIL, ISIS, Daesh discussion thread.

MrKnifey said:
I don't understand what he wanted to happen really? Send Mr Policeman over and arrest him?
Click to expand...

Obviously that's not possible. But people are still missing the point so I'll try and be very clear.

The problem is that the UK and US governments are making the rules up as they go along.

A government operate for its citizens, so when it hands out punishment it has to be legal and accountable. In this case this guy (a Brit) got no trial, no way to plead his case, and was punished by death (which was abolished for murder in the 1960s). The intelligence is secret, and the decision to kill him was made in secret.

Few people are making a fuss because of his high-profile murders, and the media circus. But what about handing this justice out to other murderers on the run? Should the army just use drone strikes on any most-wanted criminal? Or is it only if you behead someone?

Maybe this was the only way to deal with him, but at least make it clear what the rules are, or it's extrajudicial. The alternative is slipping further into the world of Fahreheit 451, Nineteen Eighty-Four, and Minority Report.
 
Last edited:
joeyjojo said:
Obviously that's not possible. But people are still missing the point so I'll try and be very clear.

The problem is that the UK and US governments are making the rules up as they go along.

A government operate for its citizens, so when it hands out punishment it has to be legal and accountable. In this case this guy (a Brit) got no trial, no way to plead his case, and was punished by death (which was abolished for murder in the 1960s). The intelligence is secret, and the decision to kill him was made in secret.

Few people are making a fuss because of his high-profile murders, and the media circus. But what about handing this justice out to other murderers on the run? Should the army just use drone strikes on any most-wanted criminal? Or is it only if you behead someone?

Maybe this was the only way to deal with him, but at least make it clear what the rules are, or it's extrajudicial. The alternative is slipping further into the world of Fahreheit 451, Nineteen Eighty-Four, and Minority Report.
Click to expand...

I think this "Brit" lost all rights when he turned his back on the country and started cutting innocent people's heads off.
 
joeyjojo said:
Obviously that's not possible. But people are still missing the point so I'll try and be very clear.

The problem is that the UK and US governments are making the rules up as they go along.

A government operate for its citizens, so when it hands out punishment it has to be legal and accountable. In this case this guy (a Brit) got no trial, no way to plead his case, and was punished by death (which was abolished for murder in the 1960s). The intelligence is secret, and the decision to kill him was made in secret.

Few people are making a fuss because of his high-profile murders, and the media circus. But what about handing this justice out to other murderers on the run? Should the army just use drone strikes on any most-wanted criminal? Or is it only if you behead someone?

Maybe this was the only way to deal with him, but at least make it clear what the rules are, or it's extrajudicial. The alternative is slipping further into the world of Fahreheit 451, Nineteen Eighty-Four, and Minority Report.
Click to expand...

When they have gone against something that is the cornerstone of society the law (only really for middle and lower class people, we all know you can get away with anything at the higher end of society) then it is hard to understand. he problem being there is no international law and he was in a society that would have taken the action of killing him anyway when he committed the crimes ie. The middle east.
 
It would have been ideal to have him captured, prison forever. It wasn't practical, risking so many lives to snatch his worthless carcass. Other potential Jihadist's have been watching this, thinking should I, shouldn't I?.

Here is their latest news-flash, expect the weather in Syria to be cloudy with a chance of JDAM's/Hellfire missiles. Where you thought you were untouchable/beyond reach, you are not. Where you thought you could stick your middle finger up to your former countries and their allies killing citizens of those countries at your leisure and getting away with it, you can't. If his death and the others in previous weeks/months helps stop people joining these barbarian idiots then as distasteful as the killings are, they are worth that price.
 
Why the hell should we pay to put him in prison? The Syrian Army would have executed him anyways. He executed his victims and thus being executed himself without getting to spout his dribble is the exact kind of justice he deserved. They never gave the hostages a chance to speak. Indeed they were bound and forced to read out a statement thinking it might save thier lives. To make them read it and then butcher then shows just how much evil was inside the man. A drone strike for these people is too soft.


Just like prison we had to fork out a fortune on a drone missile to kill him, And he would not even of felt being vaporized unlike the people forced to gargle with thier head being severed. Some of you people.... You need to look in the mirror and stop pretending to be like some modern say Jesus. JJ deserved to be impaled on a spike Vlad style.


It worked on the Ottomans, Romania is still Romania.
 
Last edited:
byeo said:
I think this "Brit" lost all rights when he turned his back on the country and started cutting innocent people's heads off.
Click to expand...

Damn straight.

I can't say I believe in heaven, or hell, but if it does indeed exist I would like to think he's enjoying having his rodent sized knackers being roasted in hell right about now.
 
Rofflay said:
Why the hell should we pay to put him in prison? The Syrian Army would have executed him anyways. He executed his victims and thus being executed himself without getting to spout his dribble is the exact kind of justice he deserved. They never gave the hostages a chance to speak. Indeed they were bound and forced to read out a statement thinking it might save thier lives. To make them read it and then butcher then shows just how much evil was inside the man. A drone strike for these people is too soft.
Click to expand...

Because as a muslim guy interviewed on the telly earlier stated, killing him makes him a martyr for the cause. Keeping him banged up for life doesn't have the same impact on Believers.
 
Blackjack Davy said:
Because as a muslim guy interviewed on the telly earlier stated, killing him makes him a martyr for the cause. Keeping him banged up for life doesn't have the same impact on Believers.
Click to expand...

Also makes it an objective to get him released - the plot that was thwarted this week involved taking hostages to demand the release of a jihadi leader.
 
joeyjojo said:
Obviously that's not possible. But people are still missing the point so I'll try and be very clear.

The problem is that the UK and US governments are making the rules up as they go along.

A government operate for its citizens, so when it hands out punishment it has to be legal and accountable. In this case this guy (a Brit) got no trial, no way to plead his case, and was punished by death (which was abolished for murder in the 1960s). The intelligence is secret, and the decision to kill him was made in secret.

Few people are making a fuss because of his high-profile murders, and the media circus. But what about handing this justice out to other murderers on the run? Should the army just use drone strikes on any most-wanted criminal? Or is it only if you behead someone?

Maybe this was the only way to deal with him, but at least make it clear what the rules are, or it's extrajudicial. The alternative is slipping further into the world of Fahreheit 451, Nineteen Eighty-Four, and Minority Report.
Click to expand...

This is fine as a principle if it was in the UK and he was easy to capture.

But this was in an area which is in a state of civil war. Nothing else could have been expected. Being British doesn't provide him with immunity from the actions of parties to that war. They are not extrajudicial killings in that sense.

The same argument being made for the killing of people not actively fighting in a war zone, that I can perhaps understand.
 
I say we also have a moral duty to protect civilians over there from terrorists of UK nationality who was actively engaged in atrocities.

If he had been shot on the streets of the UK in the middle of a terrorist attack nobody would have batted an eye lid.

Good job guys.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom