ISIL, ISIS, Daesh discussion thread.

[scorza]

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.

What rules are the jihadis playing by in Paris tonight?

 

[RoboCod]

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.

Indeed.

Those people criticising the strike still offer no alternatives. Perhaps, just perhaps, there were no alternatives like DC said.

 

[byeo]

Indeed.

Those people criticising the strike still offer no alternatives. Perhaps, just perhaps, there were no alternatives like DC said.

Exactly, they will have been tracking him for months. They will have discussions about the best course of action. Do they capture him or take him out, weighed up the pros/cons saw they had a window and acted how they felt they should.

For all we know, he could have been thinking about going underground like Bin Laden did, how long did it take to find him...

 

[Raz]

What rules are the jihadis playing by in Paris tonight?

Then they're both wrong then?

Can't take the moral high ground when you make up the rules to suit your agenda.

 

[RoboCod]

Then they're both wrong then?

Can't take the moral high ground when you make up the rules to suit your agenda.

Of course we can, we aren't indiscriminately massacring innocent civilians.

 

[Danthus]

Of course we can, we aren't indiscriminately massacring innocent civilians.

Er, drone strikes do exactly that.

 

[Bar]

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.

There is a balance but the problem with your argument is that you want a framework that covers every situation. As we have seen countless times in law, the more prescribed you are the more people escape through legal technicalities. The government has enshrined powers that this killing fell within, it may not be prescriptive in the scenarios it can be used in, but fundamentally they have those powers.

 

[Raz]

Of course we can, we aren't indiscriminately massacring innocent civilians.

You've got a slightly skewed understanding of things I think.

No one here has the moral high ground. Not the Western Governments who have interfered with other nations for their own interests, leading to thousands of deaths of innocent civilians and not the Muslim terrorists who kill Muslims and Non-Muslims alike.

 

[scorza]

Then they're both wrong then?

Can't take the moral high ground when you make up the rules to suit your agenda.

I don't really care about taking the moral high ground any more, I just want to win.

 

[Danthus]

Define win.

 

[Raz]

I don't really care about taking the moral high ground any more, I just want to win.

Oddly enough, so do they.

And no one is going to win this. Islam and 'the West' wont be here forever, so the players will change but the game will go on.

 

[Terminal_Boy]

What rules are the jihadis playing by in Paris tonight?

Totaler Kreig.

 

[scorza]

Define win.

How about I define losing instead? Britain becoming an Islamic state.

 

[Raz]

How about I define losing instead? Britain becoming an Islamic state.

First people to leave would be the Muslims. Catholics might love the Pope, but not all would want to live with him.

 

[Danthus]

How about I define losing instead? Britain becoming an Islamic state.

No it isn't, do be ridiculous.

 

[Orionaut]

If this was 1939, the idea of allowing 100,000's (or even millions) of young fit German Men to enter the country as "Refugees" would be regarded with complete incredulity.

Indeed anybody even suggesting the idea would have their motives seriously questioned (At best) and might even have faced treason charges and ending up sharing a Gallows with Joyce! (At worst)

And yet, here we are....!

 

[Raz]

If this was 1939, the idea of allowing 100,000's (or even millions) of young fit German Men to enter the country as "Refugees" would be regarded with complete incredulity.

Indeed anybody even suggesting the idea would have their motives seriously questioned (At best) and might even have faced treason charges and ending up sharing a Gallows with Joyce! (At worst)

And yet, here we are....!

Because the Syrians are in the same position as the Germans were in 1939

 

[Chris Wilson]

If this was 1939, the idea of allowing 100,000's (or even millions) of young fit German Men to enter the country as "Refugees" would be regarded with complete incredulity.

Indeed anybody even suggesting the idea would have their motives seriously questioned (At best) and might even have faced treason charges and ending up sharing a Gallows with Joyce! (At worst)

And yet, here we are....!

Sheer madness, Liberally applied.

 

[Sankari]

hope Russia continue to bomb every moderate jihadist "rebels" / isis

Russia has been bombing the rebels. She's hardly touched ISIS. Aren't you at least vaguely concerned by the fact that she's now supporting Hezbollah, the most powerful and aggressive terrorist army in the entire region?

 

[Raz]

Russia has been bombing the rebels. She's hardly touched ISIS. Aren't you at least vaguely concerned by the fact that she's now supporting Hezbollah, the most powerful and aggressive terrorist army in the entire region?

You mean Hezbollah -

the Shia group which is ideologically opposed to ISIS?
the Shia group that has fought Israel and links the West to Israel's supposed crimes?
The West which Russia opposes