British Jihadist killing.

[Jim44]

What's the feeling on this one? I personally feel it's justifiable if intelligence offered indisputable evidence that they were orchestrating attempted terrorist attacks in the UK and actively recruiting British extremists.

[Wembley67]

What's the feeling on this one? I personally feel it's justifiable if intelligence offered indisputable evidence that they were orchestrating attempted terrorist attacks in the UK and actively recruiting British extremists.

I cannot possibly see how anyone can argue against your point Jim (but they will). :greengrin

[CropleyWasGod]

What's the feeling on this one? I personally feel it's justifiable if intelligence offered indisputable evidence that they were orchestrating attempted terrorist attacks in the UK and actively recruiting British extremists.

The big "if". :agree:

Call me old and cynical, but I'm past the stage of believing anything any Government tells me, without seeing the evidence for myself.

koff...WMD...koff.

[HUTCHYHIBBY]

What's the feeling on this one? I personally feel it's justifiable if intelligence offered indisputable evidence that they were orchestrating attempted terrorist attacks in the UK and actively recruiting British extremists.

Nae great loss.

[--------]

As far as these guys are concerned, Cameron states that intelligence sources indicated that Reyaad Khan was plotting "a barbaric attack" against the UK and UK citizens. If that were so (and it may well have been) then I can fully understand why our government and security forces would see a pre-emptive strike to kill him as justified. Preferable to a successful bombing attack against a London Underground train or an airliner, for example. Or the taking of hostages for torture and execution, which is clearly enough one of ISIL's nastier habits, and one which Khan presumably approves of.

On the wider scale, I have very strong reservations about 'surveillance' of target areas by UAVs, armed or unarmed.

The whole concept of drone warfare is highly questionable, surely? I would have thought it constitutes a terrorist threat against an entire population regardless of guilt or innocence, involvement or non-involvement? And I would think that in terms of winning over hearts and minds it must be totally counter-productive?

http://www.aljazeera.com/programmes/specialseries/2015/07/living-beneath-drones-150719090817219.html

[Jim44]

As far as these guys are concerned, Cameron states that intelligence sources indicated that Reyaad Khan was plotting "a barbaric attack" against the UK and UK citizens. If that were so (and it may well have been) then I can fully understand why our government and security forces would see a pre-emptive strike to kill him as justified. Preferable to a successful bombing attack against a London Underground train or an airliner, for example. Or the taking of hostages for torture and execution, which is clearly enough one of ISIL's nastier habits, and one which Khan presumably approves of.

On the wider scale, I have very strong reservations about 'surveillance' of target areas by UAVs, armed or unarmed.

The whole concept of drone warfare is highly questionable, surely? I would have thought it constitutes a terrorist threat against an entire population regardless of guilt or innocence, involvement or non-involvement? And I would think that in terms of winning over hearts and minds it must be totally counter-productive?n

http://www.aljazeera.com/programmes/specialseries/2015/07/living-beneath-drones-150719090817219.html

Are you talking about the hearts and minds of innocent Muslims or the hearts and minds of the terrorists? I trust it's the former as the latter are lost causes with no decent feelings and, in my opinion, irreversibly so.

[Moulin Yarns]

I will no doubt get shot down (excuse the pun) for this, but, were the 'targets' of the drone strike guilty of a crime? As far as I can see they were 'suspected' of plotting an act of terrorism on UK soil.

If so were they given a fair trial, either in Britain or The Hague?

Capital Punishment was abolished in the UK in 1965, yet the UK government saw fit to 'execute' the 'targets' without trial.

The terrorist that drove a car into Glasgow airport was guilty of a terrorist act, but was imprisoned, after trial for 32 years.


I am not condoning terrorism, or Daech, but I am certainly not supporting the UK government in acting in isolation as prosecution, judge, jury and executioner.

[Gatecrasher]

What's the feeling on this one? I personally feel it's justifiable if intelligence offered indisputable evidence that they were orchestrating attempted terrorist attacks in the UK and actively recruiting British extremists.

Agree, given that IS has declared war on most of the world, killed many people and chased away many more from their homes. I have no problems in the RAF taking these ****bags out.

[--------]

Are you talking about the hearts and minds of innocent Muslims or the hearts and minds of the terrorists? I trust it's the former as the latter are lost causes with no decent feelings and, in my opinion, irreversibly so.


Drones don't make any distinction between the general population of the country we're 'surveilling' and those engaged in jihad.

In fact, the underlying assumption in many minds seems to be that everyone is potentially a jihadist so everyone takes his or her chance under the drones.

And one sure way of turning an 'innocent Muslim' into a 'lost cause with no decent feelings' is to have a military-style computer-gaming geek sitting in Nevada or Lincolnshire put a remote-controlled smart bomb through his roof and kill his family.

Which has happened more than once since we started flying those abominations over Iraq and Afghanistan.

[Berwickhibby]

Terrorists at the end of day

Sent from my GT-I9100 using Tapatalk 2

[Pete]

What's the feeling on this one? I personally feel it's justifiable if intelligence offered indisputable evidence that they were orchestrating attempted terrorist attacks in the UK and actively recruiting British extremists.

I'm all for the intelligence and evidence being discussed but it shouldn't be in a public fashion that might jeopardise the gathering of any future intelligence.

Personally, I think it's justifiable for our government to kill any member of that "group" who have declared war on anyone who doesn't fit into their ideology. It's not going to happen but I'd prefer us to go in on the ground and and finish the **** rather than pull "our citizens" out of there and back to Britain to try them under UK criminal law as some others have suggested.

[Just Alf]

In one way it's a difficult question... If they'd gone over there and "simply" operated their twitter and Facebook accounts and suchlike (as has been reported in some circles as their main role) then I'd be a bit uneasy, however they have clearly decided to bear arms against us (and made a point of sharing photos to that effect) so in that sense they have decided to side with an organisation that is at war with the west.... On those terms they are 100% legitimate targets..... If they'd come across that brave sole on the other thread during the night on his way to help refugees would they have just stood aside and let him go past?

I suspect not.

[DaveF]

My only complaint is that this missile only killed 2 of them. Maybe next time they could have a group huddle so we taxpayers get value for money.

I saw some quotes where the Aberdeen boy said he would be happy with Allah in death. Smile on boy.

[snooky]

As far as these guys are concerned, Cameron states that intelligence sources indicated that Reyaad Khan was plotting "a barbaric attack" against the UK and UK citizens. If that were so (and it may well have been) then I can fully understand why our government and security forces would see a pre-emptive strike to kill him as justified. Preferable to a successful bombing attack against a London Underground train or an airliner, for example. Or the taking of hostages for torture and execution, which is clearly enough one of ISIL's nastier habits, and one which Khan presumably approves of.

On the wider scale, I have very strong reservations about 'surveillance' of target areas by UAVs, armed or unarmed.

The whole concept of drone warfare is highly questionable, surely? I would have thought it constitutes a terrorist threat against an entire population regardless of guilt or innocence, involvement or non-involvement? And I would think that in terms of winning over hearts and minds it must be totally counter-productive?

http://www.aljazeera.com/programmes/specialseries/2015/07/living-beneath-drones-150719090817219.html

:agree: Killed 2 terrorists but possibly created a lot more by this action. That's my big worry.

[PeeJay]

What's the feeling on this one? I personally feel it's justifiable if intelligence offered indisputable evidence that they were orchestrating attempted terrorist attacks in the UK and actively recruiting British extremists.


Difficult for me to see how a society can be happy with a state placing people on a Kill List" because they "might" attempt some heinous act and then killing them with drones beforehand with due process of law being circumvented: personally, that makes me very uneasy! The UK intelligence service, I mean do they have a mandate to arbitrarily assassinate people abroad without trial by their peers? From whom? How credible is the intelligence service and its information collecting/analysing ability? Remember the claims about Iraq's WMD: the wording of "information" when presented by the Government to the populace at large, can easily be twisted to suit "somebody's" purpose, any purpose to justify an act, any act. How do we know that such evidence is not simply fabricated? Or are we simply supposed to believe that GCHQ and its buddies know what's best for us; should we simply "trust" them: the very guys listening in to all and sundry, in the UK and elsewhere, without any right to do so, maybe on "somebody's" behalf, but most certainly not mine. Haven't we learned our lessons about the so-called intelligence services?

[PatHead]

Must admit my fear is that David Cameron decided that his decision was better than the decision that was made by MPs in the House of Commons that we would not carry out air attacks in Syria. I have real reservations about the Prime Minister over-riding parliament. Put it another way I don't trust him as far as I could throw him.

On a second point what was he trying to hide by announcing it when he was meant to be talking about refugees?

[Colr]

I will no doubt get shot down (excuse the pun) for this, but, were the 'targets' of the drone strike guilty of a crime? As far as I can see they were 'suspected' of plotting an act of terrorism on UK soil.

If so were they given a fair trial, either in Britain or The Hague?

Capital Punishment was abolished in the UK in 1965, yet the UK government saw fit to 'execute' the 'targets' without trial.

The terrorist that drove a car into Glasgow airport was guilty of a terrorist act, but was imprisoned, after trial for 32 years.


I am not condoning terrorism, or Daech, but I am certainly not supporting the UK government in acting in isolation as prosecution, judge, jury and executioner.

They are enemy combatants as far as I can see.

[Hibrandenburg]

They decided to join an organisation that declared war on our civilization and in doing so made themselves legitimate targets. I won't be losing sleep.

[liamh2202]

They decided to join an organisation that declared war on our civilization and in doing so made themselves legitimate targets. I won't be losing sleep.

Correct and if we can take them out using drones or offshore submarines etc that remove the risk of military casualties then its a winwin in my eyes

[Thief]

Taking a life as a result of intelligence gathering is a very dangerous path to go down, and not one I agree with.
Where do we draw the line and who determines the accuracy of the information?
Make no mistake, this government is 'testing the water' here to gauge public reaction.

[speedy_gonzales]

A state sponsored execution of foreign nationals on another sovereign states soil,,,,do we really want to go down that road?
Been reported elsewhere that the pair were suspected of the terrorism threat behind the VE day celebrations, if so, why wait so long after the threat was received to just kill them. Maybe read to many Chris Ryan books but they could have been extracted properly and questioned before being tried in a court if laws had been broken.

[DaveF]

Make no mistake, this government is 'testing the water' here to gauge public reaction.

Of course they are and I suspect a large proportion of Joe Public will not be too fussed. Had a small chat with a couple of people today - none of whom vote tory - but no one had any complaints.

[CropleyWasGod]

As someone said on the radio earlier, it's notable that Cameron seems to want to conflate the refugee issue with Daesh. It's almost like he's saying "you don't want dead children? Allow me to bomb Syria ".

Sent from my GT-I9505 using Tapatalk

[Sylar]

Of course they are and I suspect a large proportion of Joe Public will not be too fussed. Had a small chat with a couple of people today - none of whom vote tory - but no one had any complaints.

Joe Public shouldn't be used as a yardstick for military action.

I definitely won't lose sleep knowing there are two less people alive on earth who would wish harm against British citizens, however, I'm quite sure there are people in the UK who aren't Muslim that are planning heinous acts against British citizens...are the government going to start sending hit-squads door to door whenever they receive "intelligence" of a planned attack.

These people 'defected' (so to speak) and joined an organisation hell-bent on imposing a barbaric ideology on our country (along with the rest of the Western world) and it's an organisation I'd like to see wiped off the face of the map in its entirety - however, these were young and impressionable men - what's to say they couldn't have been captured, tried and rehabilitated via a legal channel? I get that capturing anyone on foreign shores is no easy task but reigning death from above from thousands of miles away is not a morally acceptable answer for me.

[DaveF]

Couple of points.

If there are people in this country planning attacks that the authorities are aware of then I suspect they would be arrested rather than blown to bits?

As for capturing and trying those 2, I can't imagine that would have been possible in an entirely hostile city \ area. If it is, I'd love to hear how.

[johnbc70]

I see a Human Rights group are now taking legal action against the government wanting to know more about the evidence that was the basis for the strikes.

I am convinced that the guys that were killed in the drone strikes would likely murder you and your family in a heart beat if given a chance, so I have no problem with the action taken at all. If there is more then they are legitimate targets, get them before they get us.

[cabbageandribs1875]

well done the uk government, taking out cowardly terrorist s*um is all good, just try and get more of the cowards in the next attack :agree:

[Scouse Hibee]

Yes enough of this mamdy pandy approach, fight fire with fire and take out these horrible erses before they get the chance to kill innocent civilians. They don't play by any rules of war or justice systems so **** them.

[PatHead]

To me it is a bit like assisted suicide. If it were ever to be allowed there has to be clear guideline, rules and regulations. This seems like the prime minister was told these were dangerous people and had them killed.

It is a dangerous precedent which should not be followed again.

Remember intelligence lead to us going to war under B Liar. It was flawed and caused the death of hundreds of soldiers not to mention thousands of innocent civilians. There are laws in place to ensure prime ministers and governments do not abuse their power for a reason.

I think he overstepped the mark here and will continue to do so until there is proof these guys were a threat.

[Pretty Boy]

I think the issue with this kind of approach is that you are quite literally killing an individual and not the ideology.

This form of Islamist extremism is a constantly evolving beast. By the time Osama Bin Laden was killed his power and influence was largely eroded and his death was largely inconsequential, outwith the good PR opportunity for Obama. Extremism didn't die with Bin Laden it simply changed, indeed had already changed, in the same way the Mujihadin evolved into Maktab all Khidamat and Al Qaeda.

Whilst I don't mourn the death of this man and as an isolated incident have no real problem with it, I'm unsure that this kind of action is a long term solution. One man has been killed, another thousand believe the same as him and continue to believe their warped ideology. You can't kill that with bullets. It's a war that has to be won as much with education as military force.

[Sir David Gray]

I'm sorry but are we supposed to be feeling sorry for anyone who has been killed after choosing to join this evil, barbaric organisation? Especially when they would not bat an eyelid at the thought of cutting someone's head off for deeming them to be an apostate or chucking someone off the top of a high building because they've been outed as homosexual.

My only regret is that there were only two of them killed.

I find it incredible that any right minded person in this country could disagree with the action taken. I was watching the news headlines this morning and was hearing it described as "controversial" which I really just don't understand.

These people do not understand democracy or peaceful negotiations, there's only one way of dealing with filth like this and that's the way that the British Government has chosen.

Here's to the next lot to be taken out - 'mon the drones. :aok:

[cabbageandribs1875]

I'm sorry but are we supposed to be feeling sorry for anyone who has been killed after choosing to join this evil, barbaric organisation? Especially when they would not bat an eyelid at the thought of cutting someone's head off for deeming them to be an apostate or chucking someone off the top of a high building because they've been outed as homosexual.

My only regret is that there were only two of them killed.

I find it incredible that any right minded person in this country could disagree with the action taken. I was watching the news headlines this morning and was hearing it described as "controversial" which I really just don't understand.

These people do not understand democracy or peaceful negotiations, there's only one way of dealing with filth like this and that's the way that the British Government has chosen.

Here's to the next lot to be taken out - 'mon the drones. :aok:


but but but human rights blah blah blah

[ronaldo7]

Taking a life as a result of intelligence gathering is a very dangerous path to go down, and not one I agree with.
Where do we draw the line and who determines the accuracy of the information?
Make no mistake, this government is 'testing the water' here to gauge public reaction.

I just hope the people gathering the "Evidence", are not the same as those who did on the guy who "looked like" John Charles De Menezes.

[andyf5]

I'm sorry but are we supposed to be feeling sorry for anyone who has been killed after choosing to join this evil, barbaric organisation?

I find it incredible that any right minded person in this country could disagree with the action taken. I was watching the news headlines this morning and was hearing it described as "controversial" which I really just don't understand.

These people do not understand democracy or peaceful negotiations, there's only one way of dealing with filth like this and that's the way that the British Government has chosen.

Here's to the next lot to be taken out - 'mon the drones. :aok:

If we carpet bombed all the IS areas that would solve the refugee problem and get rid of this barbaric organisation? The government should also be allowed to take the same action against people before they leave the UK? We can track which web sites they look at and gather intelligence on attacks which provides the legal justification as they are enemy combatants. We need to take the handcuffs off the security services as they know who these people are. The human rights act can be abolished asap because these criminals just use it against us. How many of these people are embedded with the refugees? Letting 20,000 into the UK can't be right - how do we know who they are?

2 people from UK go to Syria and 4,000 Syrian refugees a day are arriving on Kos.....

It's frightening how easily I can write the above. We are supposed to be the good guys and therefore we need to demonstrate lawful action.

[MyJo]

For me its as simple as "you live by the sword you die by the sword"

these guys have chosen to participate in a hate-fuelled war on the side of a terrorist organisation who do not hesitate to kindap and publicy murder innocent journalists, workers and humanitarian volunteers. Storm office buildings and tourist beaches with machine guns killing dozens of civilians and many many other atrocities across the world, if they end up on the wrong end of a RAF missile then thats just tough.

It could be worse they could be held prisoner for months on end and then have thier head hacked off with a knife dying a slow, painful and humiliating death for no reason

[PatHead]

I'm sorry but are we supposed to be feeling sorry for anyone who has been killed after choosing to join this evil, barbaric organisation? Especially when they would not bat an eyelid at the thought of cutting someone's head off for deeming them to be an apostate or chucking someone off the top of a high building because they've been outed as homosexual.

My only regret is that there were only two of them killed.

I find it incredible that any right minded person in this country could disagree with the action taken. I was watching the news headlines this morning and was hearing it described as "controversial" which I really just don't understand.

These people do not understand democracy or peaceful negotiations, there's only one way of dealing with filth like this and that's the way that the British Government has chosen.

Here's to the next lot to be taken out - 'mon the drones. :aok:

Trig

I would like to consider myself a right minded person and I have concerns about the action taken. As I have said above it is not as simple as killing 2 "terrorists". It is the principle of taking action which had expressly been voted against in the house of commons I have a problem with.

There are more ways that this could be resolved than dropping bombs. The war in Northern Ireland was not solved by the army but by negotiation. The same could be said about Afganistan. How could we complain if a foreign country came here and killed someone who disagreed with their policies?

With regard to the boy from Aberdeen I heard his best mate interviewed today and he was saying he was a normal boy that went his house for his dinner 2 days before going to Leicester to embark on a trip to Mecca. It was when he was there he was radicalised. If he was that impressional he may well have been "radicalised" back to our beliefs of right and wrong. It isn't always so black and white.

[The Pointer]

My only complaint is that this missile only killed 2 of them. Maybe next time they could have a group huddle so we taxpayers get value for money.

I saw some quotes where the Aberdeen boy said he would be happy with Allah in death. Smile on boy.


:aok:

Delighted that for the first time in ages we have politicians with enough balls to deliver this very unsubtle message. It's good to lob one back at them and I hope it's just the start of a very long shopping list.

He'll be up there with his 72 virgins so what's not to like?

[Sir David Gray]

Trig

I would like to consider myself a right minded person and I have concerns about the action taken. As I have said above it is not as simple as killing 2 "terrorists". It is the principle of taking action which had expressly been voted against in the house of commons I have a problem with.

There are more ways that this could be resolved than dropping bombs. The war in Northern Ireland was not solved by the army but by negotiation. The same could be said about Afganistan. How could we complain if a foreign country came here and killed someone who disagreed with their policies?

With regard to the boy from Aberdeen I heard his best mate interviewed today and he was saying he was a normal boy that went his house for his dinner 2 days before going to Leicester to embark on a trip to Mecca. It was when he was there he was radicalised. If he was that impressional he may well have been "radicalised" back to our beliefs of right and wrong. It isn't always so black and white.

I would argue that the problem posed by Islamic State is much different to the problems faced in Northern Ireland from the IRA. For a start, Islamic State believes that they are fighting for a higher being and for the world's one true religion. They believe in a form of Islam that states quite clearly that non-believers should be killed and that they are not equal to that of a Muslim. The IRA wanted a united Ireland and whilst their actions were utterly reprehensible, and I do not support the IRA in any way, shape or form, I don't believe they ever took humanitarian workers hostage, paraded them on TV and then broadcasted their murders live on the internet.

As I said before, these people who make up Islamic State do not understand negotiations. People tried to negotiate with them and make them see sense last year when they were threatening to murder Alan Henning, a British aid worker who had gone out to the Middle East with the sole intention of helping the Syrian people. We even had fairly radical preachers back here in the UK saying that it would be "un-Islamic" for this man to be killed and pleaded with his captors to let him go.

Yet they showed absolutely no mercy towards him and carried out his brutal beheading anyway. There is absolutely no way that they can be negotiated with.

As for the friend of the guy from Aberdeen, these people always seem to be normal, run of the mill characters when their friends and families are interviewed after they've been revealed. The guy was 26 years of age, not 13. If he did not realise by the age of 26 that it's wrong to blow up innocent civilians and take people hostage just because they don't share the same beliefs as him then I would argue that that person is far from "normal".

[Big Ed]

Well The Super Soaraway Sun think it's good news: https://twitter.com/suttonnick/status/640998724467052544

Only the other day, they were claiming that Labour's leadership candidates were cowards for not bombing Syria, only for the PM to display the necessary balls to show these ****ers who is boss.

Unfortunately, it appears that the Americans had already beaten him to it: www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/terrorism-in-the-uk/11754384/Jihadist-who-wanted-to-be-Britains-first-Asian-PM-killed-in-drone-strike.html

Once again we are about to embark on military action, directed by a cretin at the behest of his Neo-Con paymasters.

Still, what's not to like, eh?

[Mr White]

I would argue that the problem posed by Islamic State is much different to the problems faced in Northern Ireland from the IRA. For a start, Islamic State believes that they are fighting for a higher being and for the world's one true religion. They believe in a form of Islam that states quite clearly that non-believers should be killed and that they are not equal to that of a Muslim. The IRA wanted a united Ireland and whilst their actions were utterly reprehensible, and I do not support the IRA in any way, shape or form, I don't believe they ever took humanitarian workers hostage, paraded them on TV and then broadcasted their murders live on the internet.

As I said before, these people who make up Islamic State do not understand negotiations. People tried to negotiate with them and make them see sense last year when they were threatening to murder Alan Henning, a British aid worker who had gone out to the Middle East with the sole intention of helping the Syrian people. We even had fairly radical preachers back here in the UK saying that it would be "un-Islamic" for this man to be killed and pleaded with his captors to let him go.

Yet they showed absolutely no mercy towards him and carried out his brutal beheading anyway. There is absolutely no way that they can be negotiated with.

As for the friend of the guy from Aberdeen, these people always seem to be normal, run of the mill characters when their friends and families are interviewed after they've been revealed. The guy was 26 years of age, not 13. If he did not realise by the age of 26 that it's wrong to blow up innocent civilians and take people hostage just because they don't share the same beliefs as him then I would argue that that person is far from "normal".

I suspect the bit in bold is the reason a lot of those involved have moved towards IS after witnessing first hand the effects of US and UK military operations.

[Pretty Boy]

I suspect the bit in bold is the reason a lot of those involved have moved towards IS after witnessing first hand the effects of US and UK military operations.

That's it for me. The gung ho shoot first ask questions never approach has been an unmitigated disaster for the last 15 years. Why is it going to be any more successful this time?

Afghanistan is still in a ridiculous state with a President about as corrupt as they come but he's UK and US backed so it's mission accomplished. The less said about Iraq the better. Thousands of dead soliders and tens of thousands of dead civilians and for what? An organisation far more horrific than anything that went before. Of course the fact there are strong suspicions this group are being funded by a regime that practices beheading in public every Friday and punishes 'sorcery' by death goes unmentioned. Oh as does the fact we sell them fighter jets.

There's an inevitability that further military action is going to happen now and it may well be necessary because of how deep we are in. However we have been bogged down in constant war for the best part of the last 15 years and are further away from 'victory' than when we started. I have my doubts about the likelihood of success with this current path we seem to be going down.

[SouthsideHarp_Bhoy]

That's it for me. The gung ho shoot first ask questions never approach has been an unmitigated disaster for the last 15 years. Why is it going to be any more successful this time?

Afghanistan is still in a ridiculous state with a President about as corrupt as they come but he's UK and US backed so it's mission accomplished. The less said about Iraq the better. Thousands of dead soliders and tens of thousands of dead civilians and for what? An organisation far more horrific than anything that went before. Of course the fact there are strong suspicions this group are being funded by a regime that practices beheading in public every Friday and punishes 'sorcery' by death goes unmentioned. Oh as does the fact we sell them fighter jets.

There's an inevitability that further military action is going to happen now and it may well be necessary because of how deep we are in. However we have been bogged down in constant war for the best part of the last 15 years and are further away from 'victory' than when we started. I have my doubts about the likelihood of success with this current path we seem to be going down.



Has it been an unmitigated disaster though?

If you look at it very pragmatically and coldly, Afghanistan was a major threat to the west (training and facilitating groups who could, and did strike out at the West). That is no longer the case, and Afghanistan the country is at least in as good a state as it was before we showed up, if not better.

Iraq, i agree was a failure, but you could (i wouldnt, but others might) make the case that an aggressive, destabilizing and relatively powerful force (that threatened and invaded Western allies) has been nullified.

Syria, well we have what must be the most barbaric, blood thirsty brutal bunch of absolute mentalists who are raping, pillaging, plundering, kidnapping, and committing genocide we have seen in modern times. They operate outside the norms of 'law' (although i don't really believe that international law exists, but that's another debate), are effectively a militia force invading a western client state and adding to Europe's refugee crisis. The despise us, not because of what we have done in the past, but because they are religious fundamentalists who believe we deserve to die for not following their backward religion. You cant negotiate with that, and why would we want to. We have the capability to destroy that threat (or at least degrade and contain it), then why shouldn't we. And if British people are stupid enough to join a foreign militia force and are killed while in that theatre, then that's tough on them. I wouldnt want them coming back to the UK, and the cost of that flight and missile was probably comparable with the cost of arresting, detaining and trying them if they came back here.

Plus they want to be martyred. Everybody's a winner surely.

[silverhibee]

Couple of points.

If there are people in this country planning attacks that the authorities are aware of then I suspect they would be arrested rather than blown to bits?

As for capturing and trying those 2, I can't imagine that would have been possible in an entirely hostile city \ area. If it is, I'd love to hear how.

Maybe the Government should stop gathering intelligence on these type of people, you know the ones, they behead execute torture and declared war on the world, just let them get on with it and see how long it takes for Jihadi John and his people to reek havoc in our country with suicide bombings or some nutter running the streets of London Birmingham Glasgow or even Edinburgh with a few high powered machine guns killing innocent people at random.

I wonder what folk would be saying then, "Government didn't do enough to stop it", "how did we not see that coming".

For the time being i will go with the Government and believe them when they say OUR country is a target for these people who have no problems about killing innocent people around the world and in the UK.

[silverhibee]

To me it is a bit like assisted suicide. If it were ever to be allowed there has to be clear guideline, rules and regulations. This seems like the prime minister was told these were dangerous people and had them killed.

It is a dangerous precedent which should not be followed again.

Remember intelligence lead to us going to war under B Liar. It was flawed and caused the death of hundreds of soldiers not to mention thousands of innocent civilians. There are laws in place to ensure prime ministers and governments do not abuse their power for a reason.

I think he overstepped the mark here and will continue to do so until there is proof these guys were a threat.

If you are talking about these people then David got it spot on.

http://i.huffpost.com/gen/3389558/thumbs/o-RUHUL-AMIN-570.jpg

[TrinityHibs]

I suspect the bit in bold is the reason a lot of those involved have moved towards IS after witnessing first hand the effects of US and UK military operations.

So was it Americans or UK forces operating in Aberdeen that caused this boy to go to Syria?

[Mr White]

So was it Americans or UK forces operating in Aberdeen that caused this boy to go to Syria?

:aok:

[Andy74]

I will no doubt get shot down (excuse the pun) for this, but, were the 'targets' of the drone strike guilty of a crime? As far as I can see they were 'suspected' of plotting an act of terrorism on UK soil.

If so were they given a fair trial, either in Britain or The Hague?

Capital Punishment was abolished in the UK in 1965, yet the UK government saw fit to 'execute' the 'targets' without trial.

The terrorist that drove a car into Glasgow airport was guilty of a terrorist act, but was imprisoned, after trial for 32 years.


I am not condoning terrorism, or Daech, but I am certainly not supporting the UK government in acting in isolation as prosecution, judge, jury and executioner.

Someone in the act of a crime that gets taken down by police doesn't get a trial either - its on that same lines isn't it?

[Spike Mandela]

So i guess it's fair game now for all countries like Russia, China, Saudi Arabia, Zimbabwe etc etc to kill any of their nationals on our streets that they don't like?

Hope no opponent of Putin's regime has sought refuge in a street near you:cb

[johnbc70]

So i guess it's fair game now for all countries like Russia, China, Saudi Arabia, Zimbabwe etc etc to kill any of their nationals on our streets that they don't like?

Hope no opponent of Putin's regime has sought refuge in a street near you:cb

These people where in Syria, which I sure you know is a little different to the streets of the UK. It was not a case of not liking them, it was a case of them plotting the mass murder of innocent UK citizens.

Did the Russians not kill someone in the UK a few years ago by poisoning him?

I am not sure why the UK government felt the need to publicise this action, would have thought it was better to keep it classified.

[Bristolhibby]

To me it is a bit like assisted suicide. If it were ever to be allowed there has to be clear guideline, rules and regulations. This seems like the prime minister was told these were dangerous people and had them killed.

It is a dangerous precedent which should not be followed again.

Remember intelligence lead to us going to war under B Liar. It was flawed and caused the death of hundreds of soldiers not to mention thousands of innocent civilians. There are laws in place to ensure prime ministers and governments do not abuse their power for a reason.

I think he overstepped the mark here and will continue to do so until there is proof these guys were a threat.

You could argue that "sexed up" intelligence set this whole sorry state of affairs we find ourselves in motion.

Imagine the world with Sadam, Assad and Gadaffi in power. Where would Isis be then?

It sits very uneasy that somebody who says "go on, do this" in a foreign country is killed without due process.

Problem is it will be 30 years before we found out what Intel really was there and by that time the horse will be long bolted.

J

[lord bunberry]

So i guess it's fair game now for all countries like Russia, China, Saudi Arabia, Zimbabwe etc etc to kill any of their nationals on our streets that they don't like?

Hope no opponent of Putin's regime has sought refuge in a street near you:cb
I would imagine it would be easier just to ask our police to arrest them.

[Sir David Gray]

So i guess it's fair game now for all countries like Russia, China, Saudi Arabia, Zimbabwe etc etc to kill any of their nationals on our streets that they don't like?

Hope no opponent of Putin's regime has sought refuge in a street near you:cb

If there's any Russian, Chinese, Saudi Arabian or Zimbabwean nationals going around in the UK who are taking people hostage, beheading people, throwing people from the top of high buildings, raping women and planning attacks on their own country then I suppose they are fair game, yes.

I highly doubt that's the case though.

[Pretty Boy]

If there's any Russian, Chinese, Saudi Arabian or Zimbabwean nationals going around in the UK who are taking people hostage, beheading people, throwing people from the top of high buildings, raping women and planning attacks on their own country then I suppose they are fair game, yes.

I highly doubt that's the case though.

Much of that reads like the actions of the Saudi regime.

Our Queen breeds racehorses with them, they sponsor some of our biggest horse races, we attend their state funerals and trade oil with them. Oh and sell them arms.

Do we only condemn beheading and rape when it affects Brits?

That's not a defence of IS by the way but our.government seem quite selective in their comdemnation of and action against brutality.

[Beefster]

I will no doubt get shot down (excuse the pun) for this, but, were the 'targets' of the drone strike guilty of a crime? As far as I can see they were 'suspected' of plotting an act of terrorism on UK soil.

If so were they given a fair trial, either in Britain or The Hague?

Capital Punishment was abolished in the UK in 1965, yet the UK government saw fit to 'execute' the 'targets' without trial.

The terrorist that drove a car into Glasgow airport was guilty of a terrorist act, but was imprisoned, after trial for 32 years.


I am not condoning terrorism, or Daech, but I am certainly not supporting the UK government in acting in isolation as prosecution, judge, jury and executioner.

Even ignoring the fact that these guys were plotting against the UK, they are part of the reason millions of people are having to flee Syria and Iraq. IMHO that's a good enough reason on its own.

[Sir David Gray]

Much of that reads like the actions of the Saudi regime.

Our Queen breeds racehorses with them, they sponsor some of our biggest horse races, we attend their state funerals and trade oil with them. Oh and sell them arms.

Do we only condemn beheading and rape when it affects Brits?

That's not a defence of IS by the way but our.government seem quite selective in their comdemnation of and action against brutality.

I have absolutely no time for the Saudi Arabian government, or their way of doing things and I do wish that the British government would be more vocal in their condemnation of them. The same goes for the Chinese.

However the point I was making was that the governments of these countries would not have the right to go around killing their own people on the streets of the UK, unless they were guilty of the sorts of things that members of IS are guilty of and clearly that's not the case.

[Pretty Boy]

I have absolutely no time for the Saudi Arabian government, or their way of doing things and I do wish that the British government would be more vocal in their condemnation of them. The same goes for the Chinese.

However the point I was making was that the governments of these countries would not have the right to go around killing their own people on the streets of the UK, unless they were guilty of the sorts of things that members of IS are guilty of and clearly that's not the case.

No I get your point and broadly agree with it.

It probably wasn't fair to quote your post as my point was a more general one about some peoples attitudes. Seems many support hard line action against IS but are happy to ignore the very cosy ties our government has with other relatively compartive regimes. I dare say the UK governement would be happy to have cordial relations with IS if it suited them and it was in their own best interests regardless of the human rights abuses. Ironically the threat to the UK public would be far less if funding to IS was stopped at source. Now where is that source? It begins with R and ends in iyadh. Best not mention those letters exchanged between Osama and the Crown Prince of the 'pro western force for good' either. The less said about the future world cup hosts the better as well.

[Betty Boop]

Much of that reads like the actions of the Saudi regime.

Our Queen breeds racehorses with them, they sponsor some of our biggest horse races, we attend their state funerals and trade oil with them. Oh and sell them arms.

Do we only condemn beheading and rape when it affects Brits?

That's not a defence of IS by the way but our.government seem quite selective in their comdemnation of and action against brutality.

At the same time as the enquiry into the assassination of Alexander Litvinenko is taking place, Cameron is signing off an execution in a foreign land. Deary me the lunatics have taken over the asylum.

[majorhibs]

At the same time as the enquiry into the assassination of Alexander Litvinenko is taking place, Cameron is signing off an execution in a foreign land. Deary me the lunatics have taken over the asylum.
Whose execution Are you glibly referring to here?

[Sir David Gray]

I suspect the bit in bold is the reason a lot of those involved have moved towards IS after witnessing first hand the effects of US and UK military operations.

That's a convenient excuse.

The truth is, these people would be doing this regardless of any UK or US military action. They believe they are fighting for Allah and for Islam. Most of their attacks are against fellow Muslims in their own land, so I don't see what military action from the West has to do with any of that.

[Mon Dieu4]

That's a convenient excuse.

The truth is, these people would be doing this regardless of any UK or US military action. They believe they are fighting for Allah and for Islam. Most of their attacks are against fellow Muslims in their own land, so I don't see what military action from the West has to do with any of that.

I don't know how I feel about the whole assassination thing, my mind keeps changing, but you are being very black and white, drone strikes alone have a civilian casualty rate of 15%-24% depending on the source, now if you add in on the ground military interventions then that creates a lot of mightily pissed off people that are ripe for the picking of these groups

[majorhibs]

No I get your point and broadly agree with it.

It probably wasn't fair to quote your post as my point was a more general one about some peoples attitudes. Seems many support hard line action against IS but are happy to ignore the very cosy ties our government has with other relatively compartive regimes. I dare say the UK governement would be happy to have cordial relations with IS if it suited them and it was in their own best interests regardless of the human rights abuses. Ironically the threat to the UK public would be far less if funding to IS was stopped at source. Now where is that source? It begins with R and ends in iyadh. Best not mention those letters exchanged between Osama and the Crown Prince of the 'pro western force for good' either. The less said about the future world cup hosts the better as well.
"Relatively comparative regimes"? Deary dear. Just stop it! Please you lot get real. How many "military" forces act like this lot? How many would be allowed? Everybody reckoned after the 2nd W.War all the worst war criminals cleared off to the likes of the F. Foreign Legion etc, got away with it, no questions asked & no history needed, now we've got a new outlet, all the baddies, psychos, bloodthirsties, & predators, hop on a transport to the hotspots, do your worst, your very worst, against humanity, & guess what? The bleeding heart liberals will be getting off your case cos they don't like the people trying to stop you! Wow- good deal for nutty aggressive murderous sexually aggressive paedo types, but they can always count on some support from somewhere. After all it MIGHT not be their fault their committing the worst atrocities on the biggest scale in most's living memories.

[Onceinawhile]

Planning to kill foreign nationals on foreign soil - terrorism.

Actually killing foreign nationals on foreign soil - not a problem though.

An incredibly impressive display of cognitive dissonance by the government and those backing them on this thread.

[Mr White]

That's a convenient excuse.

The truth is, these people would be doing this regardless of any UK or US military action. They believe they are fighting for Allah and for Islam. Most of their attacks are against fellow Muslims in their own land, so I don't see what military action from the West has to do with any of that.
I'm not excusing anything but if you're against the killing of innocent civilians then it's a simple fact that our government and the US have killed way more of them in the middle east over the last 40 years or so than extremist groups will ever kill here. Outrage about that has created a perfect environment for extremist groups to target impressionable young men wanting to take up arms against their perceived enemy.

[Sir David Gray]

I'm not excusing anything but if you're against the killing of innocent civilians then it's a simple fact that our government and the US have killed way more of them in the middle east over the last 40 years or so than extremist groups will ever kill here. Outrage about that has created a perfect environment for extremist groups to target impressionable young men wanting to take up arms against their perceived enemy.

I'm not saying you were personally making the excuses, I'm saying that it's a convenient excuse for people who are members of groups like IS to carry out their attacks etc and to explain why they are the way that they are.

[Pretty Boy]

"Relatively comparative regimes"? Deary dear. Just stop it! Please you lot get real. How many "military" forces act like this lot? How many would be allowed? Everybody reckoned after the 2nd W.War all the worst war criminals cleared off to the likes of the F. Foreign Legion etc, got away with it, no questions asked & no history needed, now we've got a new outlet, all the baddies, psychos, bloodthirsties, & predators, hop on a transport to the hotspots, do your worst, your very worst, against humanity, & guess what? The bleeding heart liberals will be getting off your case cos they don't like the people trying to stop you! Wow- good deal for nutty aggressive murderous sexually aggressive paedo types, but they can always count on some support from somewhere. After all it MIGHT not be their fault their committing the worst atrocities on the biggest scale in most's living memories.

Sorry but I'm not totally sure what point you are making here.

My comparitive regime comment was in reference to the Saudis and whilst not truly reflective it's not wholly inaccurate either.

I've no issue with trying to stop IS, I just don't believe the current path to doing so is the correct one and I also question our relationship with regimes such as the Saudis and Qataris and the blind eye some seem to turn to their failings.

[liamh2202]

Planning to kill foreign nationals on foreign soil - terrorism.

Actually killing foreign nationals on foreign soil - not a problem though.

An incredibly impressive display of cognitive dissonance by the government and those backing them on this thread.

Point 2 that stops point 1 is justifiable imo

[majorhibs]

Sorry but I'm not totally sure what point you are making here.

My comparitive regime comment was in reference to the Saudis and whilst not truly reflective it's not wholly inaccurate either.

I've no issue with trying to stop IS, I just don't believe the current path to doing so is the correct one and I also question our relationship with regimes such as the Saudis and Qataris and the blind eye some seem to turn to their failings.

What a politician you'd make with statements like that! And throwing in a twirl at the end, impressive, but us lot here trying to make sense of there? Comparitive regimes was imo way wild to say,but more importantly, thinking anyone from around here is even close to being on a wavelength to have a serious discussion on things, sorry but imo yer having a giraffe. Sorry, I just dont believe that at this moment, with the events of recent history, with the current regimes in place, & with the attitudes currently held, that even getting towards a middle ground is remotely feasible. At this moment there is an organisation carrying out attrocities unlike anything we have heard of for generations, unlike anything in my lifetime certainly, & they are being compared to regimes who run countries & societies where International laws seem to be recognised? Never mind individuals though here, but come on? This terrorist regime is without parralell in its disgusting behaviour & attitudes & morals in recent times, & cannot be defended. Nobody fom here can ever be on that wavelength. Foolish to even think so.

[Moulin Yarns]

Something that is lost in the murk of the war in Syria beteween Daesh and the Arab Gulf states is that Daesh are Sunni Muslims, and their sworn enemies are not western civilisations but they are involved in genocide against shi-ite muslims.

I found this quote enlightening.

shi-ites are more like traditional Catholics in venerating members of the holy family and attending at their shrines. Contemporary Salafi Sunni Islam is more like the militant brand of Protestantism of the late 1500s that denounced intermediaries between God and the individual and actually attacked and destroyed shrines to saints and other holy figures, where pleas for intercession were made - http://historynewsnetwork.org/article/934#sthash.abhSfHeB.dpuf

Ethnic cleansing and the formation of their "ISIS" is their main aim, (remember the Iraq war when ethnic cleansing almost wiped out the Kurds?) provided they are kept in check and continue trying to gain ground in Syria and Iran then the chances of attacks on the west are limited. IMO.

[Kato]

Planning to kill innocent foreign nationals on foreign soil - terrorism.

Actually killing armed, aggressive foreign nationals on foreign soil - not a problem though.

An incredibly impressive display of cognitive dissonance by the government and those backing them on this thread.

Hw does it read now?

[JimBHibees]

What a politician you'd make with statements like that! And throwing in a twirl at the end, impressive, but us lot here trying to make sense of there? Comparitive regimes was imo way wild to say,but more importantly, thinking anyone from around here is even close to being on a wavelength to have a serious discussion on things, sorry but imo yer having a giraffe. Sorry, I just dont believe that at this moment, with the events of recent history, with the current regimes in place, & with the attitudes currently held, that even getting towards a middle ground is remotely feasible. At this moment there is an organisation carrying out attrocities unlike anything we have heard of for generations, unlike anything in my lifetime certainly, & they are being compared to regimes who run countries & societies where International laws seem to be recognised? Never mind individuals though here, but come on? This terrorist regime is without parralell in its disgusting behaviour & attitudes & morals in recent times, & cannot be defended. Nobody fom here can ever be on that wavelength. Foolish to even think so.

Quite frankly nonsense many regimes have killed thousands its just that the media dont report it including many that we worked with including Saddam who suddenly became public enemy number one. The West have alot to answer for in how this has all turned out the lies to start the Iraq war where hundreds of thousands were killed and the place seems no better. The total double standards which are applied to any dealings with Israel have IMO created exactly the groundswell for extremists to prosper and influence the easily led. ISIS have to be confronted however lets not kid ourselves that an absolutely disastrous Western foreign policy hasnt caused a lot of the issues.

[Mr White]

Quite frankly nonsense many regimes have killed thousands its just that the media dont report it including many that we worked with including Saddam who suddenly became public enemy number one. The West have alot to answer for in how this has all turned out the lies to start the Iraq war where hundreds of thousands were killed and the place seems no better. The total double standards which are applied to any dealings with Israel have IMO created exactly the groundswell for extremists to prosper and influence the easily led. ISIS have to be confronted however lets not kid ourselves that an absolutely disastrous Western foreign policy hasnt caused a lot of the issues.

:agree:

[HappyHanlon]

It was well done.

Maybe it'll make anymore wannabe terrorists think twice before they leave to join ISIS.

Now get that drone back up in the skies and get more.

[CropleyWasGod]

This is Craig Murray's take on the legal perspective.

https://www.craigmurray.org.uk/archives/2015/09/exclusive-i-can-reveal-the-legal-advice-on-drone-strikes-and-how-the-establishment-works/

He's not the most popular of sources, of course, but it's interesting nonetheless.