Where did I say we (the military) love bombing brown people - only you seem to be articulating that.
ISIL, ISIS, Daesh discussion thread.
- Thread starter RoboCod
- Start date
Where did I say we (the military) love bombing brown people - only you seem to be articulating that.
You're just simply ill-informed and unsighted on what exactly is happening here. Instead of just shutting up though you seem intent on some rant based on your own false conjecture. It must be an online ego thing.
Bless your little assumptions
If I could send of photo of where I'm sat right now.
Kids 
And who on earth would pretend to be the green slime? Jesus.
And who on earth would pretend to be the green slime? Jesus.
Much more assumption, which still adds nothing to do with the topic of discussion and proof that some of our lower echelons are more interested in swinging their epeens whilst possessing the equivalent intellect of a chimp (you're embarrassing).
Yes but you only have to look back through this thread to see that some people really don't care. They welcome all out indiscriminate bombing by Russia and mock the west for not doing the same. Apparently, using direct fire weapons and low collateral policy is perceived as the wrong approach.
He is a member of ISIL, he was acting to orchestrate recruitment and attacks. As a member of ISIL he is a legitimate target as outlined by the Target Set in the Targetting Directive. Assassination is the wrong term. He was a valid military target.
Indeed.
Those people criticising the strike still offer no alternatives. Perhaps, just perhaps, there were no alternatives like DC said.
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.
Go on... Amuse me.
Can we move away from the Muslim = bad conversation. It's becoming tedious.
Interesting that you class our foreign policy as disgraceful and murderous, yet aspects of Islam just "no good".
Didnt help France though did it.
Heck if they released a report on what they've stopped I'd be more trusting. Value for money.
Reportedly 7 smaller attacks on the UK have been prevented this year. Seems like good value to me, would you agree?
Depends if the prevention was actually GCHQs involvement in spying or luck and police passed the details onto them.
Heck if it stops these people keep throwing money at them but I dont think they'll stop the next one
Fortunately GCHQ deal in much more than just Internet surveillance.
That isn't correct. Sure, the slitty throats bit is, the rest is not.
He wasn't a front line combatant. He was actively recruiting and plotting for further attacks on the UK though. As such he is still classed as "fighting". The fact he still posed a threat is exactly the reason why the UK could legally carry out a military strike against him. If he was just the PR man and not fighting (however you wish to class that statement) then the UK would not have struck him.
He certainly wasn't kept out of danger - his demise is proof of that.
Sorry, you're incorrect. Unless of course you have an over simplified meaning of what "fighting" is.
disregard
I also agreed with Dowie that JJ was not a front line combatant, I said that above. I disagree that he was merely a PR poster boy though. I know he wasn't just a PR poster boy. JJ fell within the target set of our targeting directive policy - which made him a militant and a fighter for ISIL. You don't have to be a "grunt" to be considered a fighter - we all know this.
So the Turkish were booing and chanting Alluh-Akbar during the minute silence of the Turkey-Greece friendly? Classy.