UK forces kill own citizens in Syria

Fukuyama · 08-09-2015 11:41AM

asherbassad wrote: »

Ah well, armed drones are already patrolling the skies over the US now and will soon be "taking out" US citizens in car chases, protests, etc. As you know the police don't need a trial or even a warrant to shoot somebody there so it's only a matter of time before the guy piloting the drone will determine that the guy walking along the street posed a "threat" to someone/something and needed to be eliminated with a hellfire missile.

asherbassad wrote: »

Wait a minute. If they just said it was perfectly legal to kill your mother would you be fine with that? No reason or anything...they just "said" it was legal and above board, would you just accept that?

Both perfectly reasonable examples. I can definitely see how they would stem from targeted strikes against a group who want to be considered military targets.

Well done.

asherbassad · 08-09-2015 11:46AM

darkpagandeath wrote: »

How so ? The people were combatants in a combat zone not in Wales.

First of all, unless the UK has declared war on Syria (the only way to do so legally is to get UN approval) then it is illegal for UK forces to be IN Syria or for UK aircraft to fly over Syria and fire onto Syrian soil. Now I'm sure you will swat away such things when you don't want to acknowledge them but if you're going to ignore something as inconvenient as the LAW then don't then hypocritically apply it to others. It doesn't make you sound very convincing.

Fukuyama · 08-09-2015 11:47AM

KomradeBishop wrote: »

Uh, yea there's a big difference between the US killing UK citizens, and the US killing US citizens.

Read up on Anwar al-Awlaki - a US citizen killed by the US government, without due process; generating a big controversy, and setting a very worrying precedent.

Anyone who doesn't give a toss about stuff like this, and just labels it "anti-Brit" or "anti-US" is an idiot frankly.

You don't give governments the power, to kill their own citizens without trial - it should be obvious to anyone with even the smallest bit of sense, that this is an incredibly stupid idea, and is enormous dangerous to the democratic integrity of a country.

If I joined the IRA, a known terrorist organisation, and organised an ambush against Irish troops or British police or whatever, then it'd be justified to kill me in combat.

If you sign up to be a professional government soldier, a rebel, a terrorist or a freedom fighter then you agree to play with the big boys. You should know that a bullet or missile might have your name on it one day. Simple as.

IS are not a gang in Croydon. They have taken over vast swathes of multiple countries. They have sophisticated US made tanks and weapons. And they list the US and UK as their enemies. If you join that group then you're going to war. You're taking the risk.

Unlike ISIS, the UK did not execute anyone in Syria. An execution means that they arrested him and, instead of a trial, they just killed him. It wouldn't be possible to arrest someone in Syria when they're surrounded by their ISIS buddies. So, in my opinion, the next best thing is to turn him into dust before he can do any more damage.

I think some people on here see war as the same as an everyday police arrest. :pac:

KomradeBishop · 08-09-2015 11:50AM

BlaasForRafa wrote: »

Due process? LMFAO, what due process are Daesh giving to anyone.

So according to you, a couple of members of Daesh were denied their human rights? Well boo-f*****g-hoo, my heart bleeds for them. By their actions Daesh have effectively declared war on humanity, thus is should be incumbent on humanity to crush them utterly.

Wow - so the rule of law means nothing then? What on earth do you think the entire point of the law is, if a government can just flagrantly discard it?

If the UK want to legally engage in killing its own citizens in a foreign army, then the internationally accepted way to justify this, is to declare war - the UK have not done this.

You can't have it both ways - the law has to be followed, otherwise you end up with ridiculously dangerous precedents, where governments are able to:
1: Kill their own citizens without any legal restraint.
2: Are able to muddy the definition of what is considered a 'battle zone' and who constitutes 'enemy combatants' - and this can be stretched to breaking point, so that even parts a countries national soil (the UK) can be arbitrarily declared a 'battle zone'.

This really doesn't take much effort, to put two and two together here: Drones used to kill citizens in a 'battle zone' over in Syria, can be used to kill citizens in the home country as well - that is why all of this is so massively controversial.

Pretty soon in the future, countries will have massive fleets of drones, that can be turned around and used on the national population with no real modification - and peoples thick-headed interpretation of these events in Syria, completely misses that allowing this precedent to pass, significantly erodes any legal protections against governments using drones to attack their own citizens.

asherbassad · 08-09-2015 11:52AM

BlaasForRafa wrote: »

Due process? LMFAO, what due process are Daesh giving to anyone.

So according to you, a couple of members of Daesh were denied their human rights? Well boo-f*****g-hoo, my heart bleeds for them. By their actions Daesh have effectively declared war on humanity, thus is should be incumbent on humanity to crush them utterly.

Are you saying that due process should be completely suspended/abolished and if so then what are you going to do to protect yourself and your family?

KomradeBishop · 08-09-2015 11:54AM

CruelCoin wrote: »

Are they meant to hold a trial every time they launch a plane/drone/missile?

Should they be holding a trial for british terrorists and no trial for the others?
Because somehow, british hands holding an ak47 while he massacres some more minorities is different from a non-british person doing the same...

Citizen or no, they became the enemy the moment they joined a terrorist organisation and went off for a bit of raping.

Are they meant to be allowed kill their own citizens with impunity, in an army that the UK have not even declared war on? Fúck no.

If you want this done, do it properly - declare war.

Fukuyama · 08-09-2015 11:55AM

asherbassad wrote: »

First of all, unless the UK has declared war on Syria (the only way to do so legally is to get UN approval) then it is illegal for UK forces to be IN Syria or for UK aircraft to fly over Syria and fire onto Syrian soil. Now I'm sure you will swat away such things when you don't want to acknowledge them but if you're going to ignore something as inconvenient as the LAW then don't then hypocritically apply it to others. It doesn't make you sound very convincing.

I think what you're missing is that everyone KNOWS that what the UK did was illegal. But nobody gives a fcuk when its morally right.

The UN can shove its poxy rulebook up its arse. It hasn't been updated since WWII when going to war meant entire nations in pitched battles. Toothless bunch of time wasters that couldn't stop a fistfight let alone a war.

ISIS are scum. As a BBC journalist once put it, they "make the IRA look like the gentlemen of terrorism". They try to hide behind borders, laws and civilians. I say let them play soldiers out in the open so drones, fighter jets and special forces can pick them off.

As a final point - Assad is happy that the UK and US are operating in Syria. They share the same enemy FFS. :rolleyes:

KomradeBishop · 08-09-2015 11:57AM

It's actually really weird/scary to see how so many otherwise normal people here, have been brainwashed into adopting US-style 'terrorist' hysteria/hype, and are totally missing that what they are cheering on, is the same erosion of civil liberties that happened in the US after 2001.

What the hell?

People used to be smarter than that, and understand how fúcked up the US was becoming, yet here are people adopting exactly the same mindset now...

Really shows you how quickly media hype/coverage can change people.

KomradeBishop · 08-09-2015 11:59AM

Fratton Fred wrote: »

Yes, it is a violation of their rights as British citizens. However, a far bigger violation would have been allowing them to carry out their plans and kill a greater number of British citizens.

Killing these two was, from a government perspective, the lesser of two evils.

That's bollocks. You don't throw away a countries laws, just because some idiots 'might' successfully carry out a terrorist attack - that's ridiculously reckless/dumb.

KomradeBishop · 08-09-2015 12:01PM

This quote really comes to mind, reading this thread:
"Those who would give up essential Liberty, to purchase a little temporary Safety, deserve neither Liberty nor Safety."

In this case, the liberty not to be killed by your own government, without due process...amazing that people don't seem to 'grok' what they are cheering on.

asherbassad · 08-09-2015 12:01PM

cnocbui wrote: »

Oh, really? "• the action of betraying someone or something"
In what way does killing your fellow countrymen en masse, at the behest of a hostile foreign entity, not fit that definition?

Because it doesn't fit that definition. Stamp your feet all you want and try to make his would-be actions fit into the treason meme. Is Dylann Roof guilty of treason? What about the Columbine killers? It seems that rational thought has gone out the window. Any old term will do now for anything. A North Korean soldier patrolling the border is a now a "terrorist". I even heard US politicians calling for Julian Assange to be executed for treason. When it was pointed out that Assange was Australian (so first off he doesn't qualify on the treason charge against the US since he's not American) these politicians just stared blankly and dumbfounded but still didn't grasp the stupidity of their statements.

:pac:

Fukuyama · 08-09-2015 12:02PM

KomradeBishop wrote: »

2: Are able to muddy the definition of what is considered a 'battle zone' and who constitutes 'enemy combatants' - and this can be stretched to breaking point, so that even parts a countries national soil (the UK) can be arbitrarily declared a 'battle zone'.

Um...ever read a history book? Because the UK never declared war on the old IRA during the War of Independence in a conflict zone which was UK soil. Same deal for NI.

How can you declare war against ISIS with the UN when

a) they're not a country
b) they're not an army

Even if they were, the UN would say "NO!" and ISIS would grow, and grow, and grow.

Fact is - ISIS grew quickly and basically took over two countries within a few months. It's no coincidence that the first sign of retreat came the day US, UK and Arab League jets appeared overhead.

You're delusional if you think that the US, UK, Russia or China have to play by the rulebook. Particularly when the rulebook is useless.

jon1981 · 08-09-2015 12:02PM

The pictures of them with guns and the ****e they were preaching online is evidence enough for me.

More bombs please.

Let it be a warning to all the other little GI Jihadis out there!

KomradeBishop · 08-09-2015 12:03PM

asherbassad wrote: »

Ah well, armed drones are already patrolling the skies over the US now and will soon be "taking out" US citizens in car chases, protests, etc. As you know the police don't need a trial or even a warrant to shoot somebody there so it's only a matter of time before the guy piloting the drone will determine that the guy walking along the street posed a "threat" to someone/something and needed to be eliminated with a hellfire missile.

Ya exactly - people really need to take stock of what this precedent actually means, by looking at where the US is taking it.

Gatling · 08-09-2015 12:07PM

Anyone one delusional to say various drone strikes against terrorist scum sets a dangerous president but yet the SAS killed 14 from Northern Ireland to Gibraltar.
But then again when People embrace and support mass killing it's to be expected

Fukuyama · 08-09-2015 12:08PM

KomradeBishop wrote: »

It's actually really weird/scary to see how so many otherwise normal people here, have been brainwashed into adopting US-style 'terrorist' hysteria/hype, and are totally missing that what they are cheering on, is the same erosion of civil liberties that happened in the US after 2001.

What the hell? People used to be smarter than that, and understand how fúcked up the US was becoming, yet here are people adopting exactly the same mindset now...

Really shows you how quickly media hype/coverage can change people.

Ah yeah. You're the enlightened one. We're all '1984' sheeple who are glued to FOX news. :rolleyes:

Nobody like UK/US intervention. We're all familiar with the past.

However, even Al Qaeda and The Taliban think ISIS are atrocious. I can't believe I'm actually saying this but it'd be better to have the Taliban in power than ISIS. That's how bad ISIS are.

I've seen horrifying Live Leak videos of what they do over there, en masse. The populations, hell, even the Iraqi/Syrian armies, cannot fight them. NATO forces are the only ones with the capabilities to knock out their strategic targets, leaders and assets so that ground forces (Syrian/Iraqi/Kurdish/Tribal) can mop up the rest of the ****ers.

CruelCoin · 08-09-2015 12:08PM

asherbassad wrote: »

Then why was Britain arming ISIS in Libya? They've opened a Pandora's Box and are powerless to halt the shtstorm they've unleashed. The chaos in the Middle East and the whole refugee crisis engulfing Europe is a direct consequence of the neocon foreign policy of regime change, invasion and pushing "democracy" at the barrel of a gun. A child could see this but it seems most adults who don't like to hear uncomfortable truths would rather call you a bleeding heart for pointing this out instead of stepping back and intelligently taking stock of the situation.

They never armed ISIS.

They armed the rebel groups that were the pre-cursor to ISIS.

Past-tense != current tense

Also, the civil war in Syria was well underway before any western intervention.

asherbassad · 08-09-2015 12:08PM

Fukuyama wrote: »

Wars are not what they used to be. IS is a group which has claimed its own (ever expanding) borders and have, surprisingly, managed to hold ground. Terrorist groups take advantage of international borders to hide. Much like the IRA attacking a patrol up the north and then scurrying away across the boarder.

From a pragmatic approach, it would have been justified for the UK to send jets or special forces (the latter they often did) into the Republic to catch, detain or kill the IRA fighters.

It would have been illegal under international law but when a state such as Syria or Ireland is incapable or unwilling to take on terrorist groups within their territory then it's up to other countries to sort them out.

AFAIK, the UK are not attacking Syrian Army targets. Just ISIS in Syria. Big difference.

Go back to 2011 and the whole world was calling for the rebels to be armed in Libya. What was the west supposed to do when hundreds of thousands of people in Libya were begging for help.

It got to a point where Ghadaffi was shelling protests and arresting hundreds every day.

The rebels were the "Good Guys" and for the most part they were.

If you want to see the real problem in the Middle East, particularly concerning ISIS, look Saudi Arabia. They don't give a fcuk about Iraq and Syria. They arm and financially support ISIS directly.

The world is a small place these days. The UK and US, as members of NATO, have a responsibility to protect their smaller members who are getting pulled into this mess. How long can Turkey hold out with ISIS knocking at it's door and just a thin line of Kurds (who they themselves despise) in border towns like Kobani, effectively, defending them!!??

The situation can't be ignored. The West did that in Rwanda in the early 90s and look how that turned out. If we're to blame anyone let's blame the nutjobs who have no problem burning people alive in cages, cutting of heads, summarily executing whole towns and hanging Christians.

Fukuyama, they weren't begging for help. That was the same propaganda nonsense as Saddam's soldiers throwing babies out of incubators, and all the other crocks that make people get in line when the war drums start to beat. Do some research into the Libyan episode. Dig a little deeper than the BBC.

KomradeBishop · 08-09-2015 12:09PM

Fukuyama wrote: »

If I joined the IRA, a known terrorist organisation, and organised an ambush against Irish troops or British police or whatever, then it'd be justified to kill me in combat.

If you sign up to be a professional government soldier, a rebel, a terrorist or a freedom fighter then you agree to play with the big boys. You should know that a bullet or missile might have your name on it one day. Simple as.

IS are not a gang in Croydon. They have taken over vast swathes of multiple countries. They have sophisticated US made tanks and weapons. And they list the US and UK as their enemies. If you join that group then you're going to war. You're taking the risk.

Unlike ISIS, the UK did not execute anyone in Syria. An execution means that they arrested him and, instead of a trial, they just killed him. It wouldn't be possible to arrest someone in Syria when they're surrounded by their ISIS buddies. So, in my opinion, the next best thing is to turn him into dust before he can do any more damage.

I think some people on here see war as the same as an everyday police arrest. :pac:

It's as simple as this: You must follow the law, always.

What you are arguing for, is a cessation of the law, and allowing governments to kill their own citizens, without due process.

If you want to kill these guys in ISIS, and they are your own citizens, there are legal ways to do this - those ways must be followed, and nobody should ever accept a government stepping outside of the law, in a way that is as serious as this. Not ever.

asherbassad · 08-09-2015 12:11PM

Fukuyama wrote: »

Ah yeah. You're the enlightened one. We're all '1984' sheeple who are glued to FOX news. :rolleyes:

Nobody like UK/US intervention. We're all familiar with the past.

However, even Al Qaeda and The Taliban think ISIS are atrocious. I can't believe I'm actually saying this but it'd be better to have the Taliban in power than ISIS. That's how bad ISIS are.

I've seen horrifying Live Leak videos of what they do over there, en masse. The populations, hell, even the Iraqi/Syrian armies, cannot fight them. NATO forces are the only ones with the capabilities to knock out their strategic targets, leaders and assets so that ground forces (Syrian/Iraqi/Kurdish/Tribal) can mop up the rest of the ****ers.

Of course sooner or later some other bogeyman will come along that will be worse than ISIS to terrify us all all over again. This usually occurs when it turns out the whole spectre of Taliban/Al-Qaeda/ISIS has worn off or been exposed as an exaggeration.

KomradeBishop · 08-09-2015 12:12PM

Fukuyama wrote: »

I think what you're missing is that everyone KNOWS that what the UK did was illegal. But nobody gives a fcuk when its morally right.

The UN can shove its poxy rulebook up its arse. It hasn't been updated since WWII when going to war meant entire nations in pitched battles. Toothless bunch of time wasters that couldn't stop a fistfight let alone a war.

ISIS are scum. As a BBC journalist once put it, they "make the IRA look like the gentlemen of terrorism". They try to hide behind borders, laws and civilians. I say let them play soldiers out in the open so drones, fighter jets and special forces can pick them off.

As a final point - Assad is happy that the UK and US are operating in Syria. They share the same enemy FFS. :rolleyes:

Yea lets just piss away international laws, and let countries with a past history of imperialism/colonialism loose, to bomb the crap out of whoever they like, without even declaring war :rolleyes:

That will end nicely. Not a chance that that will (or has recently led...) to the destabilization of entire regions, such as the middle east, through illegal wars...no, nothing like that has happened anytime recently...

Fukuyama · 08-09-2015 12:14PM

KomradeBishop wrote: »

It's as simple as this: You must follow the law, always.

What you are arguing for, is a cessation of the law, and allowing governments to kill their own citizens, without due process.

If you want to kill these guys in ISIS, and they are your own citizens, there are legal ways to do this - those ways must be followed, and nobody should ever accept a government stepping outside of the law, in a way that is as serious as this. Not ever.

Great argument there. Definitely seems applicable to the current day situation.

You're effectively holding up a 70 year old rule book and DEMANDING it gets applied to today. No matter how many more civilians die at the hands of ISIS in the process.

So tell me - how were they to kill him?

He joined ISIS. He should expect to be killed. The same way anyone who joins the IRA should expect to be killed in combat. They're combat orientated organizations - not book clubs.

Going by your logic, NATO should not have intervened in Serbia. None of our business sure, right?

KomradeBishop · 08-09-2015 12:17PM

Fukuyama wrote: »

Um...ever read a history book? Because the UK never declared war on the old IRA during the War of Independence in a conflict zone which was UK soil. Same deal for NI.

How can you declare war against ISIS with the UN when

a) they're not a country
b) they're not an army

Even if they were, the UN would say "NO!" and ISIS would grow, and grow, and grow.

Fact is - ISIS grew quickly and basically took over two countries within a few months. It's no coincidence that the first sign of retreat came the day US, UK and Arab League jets appeared overhead.

You're delusional if you think that the US, UK, Russia or China have to play by the rulebook. Particularly when the rulebook is useless.

Everyone has to play by the rulebook, and when the rules are discarded, people should take that as a massive warning sign, and fight it - you don't piss away international laws on war.

Do you want to throw away the laws on chemical/biological warfare? Nuclear weapon treaties?

No - because there's a bloody good reason for having these laws in the first place...

What should the US and other countries do? Stop fúcking around in the middle east - they created ISIS, and the more they fight in the middle east, the bigger they are going to make ISIS; they will never win that war; they tried, and for the last 10 years they've been failing, and will never succeed. Get out and stay out - and maybe in half a century or more, the middle east might have a chance at peace...but for now, thanks to these western nations, it's a mess for the next generation or three.

CruelCoin · 08-09-2015 12:19PM

KomradeBishop wrote: »

Are they meant to be allowed kill their own citizens with impunity, in an army that the UK have not even declared war on? Fúck no.

If you want this done, do it properly - declare war.

What do you think a "declaration of war is" ?

One man slapping his glove across the face of his noble opponent ?

A war does not need a two-way declaration. When Germany invaded Poland, did the Polish stop to think, "Well, we should declare war in return", which is plainly nonsense since they were being invaded. A state of war was already in effect declaration or no.

By executing British civilians and by destroying British property/interests, ISIS had by simple act of aggression declared war on Britain.

This isn't a boxing match, where both opponents must agree to fight. Don't be naieve.

inforfun · 08-09-2015 12:20PM

asherbassad wrote: »

You sound like the deluded generals who thought dropping nuclear bombs on Vietnam from the Mekong Delta to Hanoi was a brilliant idea. Or that bombing entire towns of civilians in Iraq and Afghanistan in the vain hope of killing a single "enemy combatant" would not result in any kind of negative consequences.

Or you should just try to read what i really wrote.

Try it again before accusing me.

Old Jakey · 08-09-2015 12:20PM

KomradeBishop wrote: »

I already stated - the due process rights afforded to all citizens of a country. If you want to supercede that in this case, you need to show the UK being in an official state of war - which they are not.

They lost their rights when they went to join ISIS. Fuk em.

Fukuyama · 08-09-2015 12:20PM

asherbassad wrote: »

Of course sooner or later some other bogeyman will come along that will be worse than ISIS to terrify us all all over again. This usually occurs when it turns out the whole spectre of Taliban/Al-Qaeda/ISIS has worn off or been exposed as an exaggeration.

:pac:

The difference between ISIS and Al Quaeda is that ISIS makes its own propaganda. They're proud of what they do.

You're wrapping yourself in the UN flag. Feel free to do so. Nobody can knock you off that Helen Lovejoy High Horse.

Rules are rules. Sure. Nobody is saying lets rip up the Human Rights Charter. But the world is a fcuked up place and I couldn't care less if ISIS get blown to pieces - legally or illegally.

The UK and US are not totalitarian regimes. And those that claim they are need to do a little more reading up

KomradeBishop · 08-09-2015 12:20PM

Gatling wrote: »

Anyone one delusional to say various drone strikes against terrorist scum sets a dangerous president but yet the SAS killed 14 from Northern Ireland to Gibraltar.
But then again when People embrace and support mass killing it's to be expected

Are you trying to imply that because I disagree with the killing, that I support mass murder?

The entire point of setting a precedent, isn't to just 'give up' after the first precedent has been set, but to fight it down whenever the same thing happens again - just because the law has been discarded in the past, doesn't mean we should accept it being discarded again in the present.

That's so ridiculous an idea that you'd have to be deliberately missing the point.

KomradeBishop · 08-09-2015 12:25PM

Fukuyama wrote: »

Ah yeah. You're the enlightened one. We're all '1984' sheeple who are glued to FOX news. :rolleyes:

Nobody like UK/US intervention. We're all familiar with the past.

However, even Al Qaeda and The Taliban think ISIS are atrocious. I can't believe I'm actually saying this but it'd be better to have the Taliban in power than ISIS. That's how bad ISIS are.

I've seen horrifying Live Leak videos of what they do over there, en masse. The populations, hell, even the Iraqi/Syrian armies, cannot fight them. NATO forces are the only ones with the capabilities to knock out their strategic targets, leaders and assets so that ground forces (Syrian/Iraqi/Kurdish/Tribal) can mop up the rest of the ****ers.

Eh Al Qaeda regularly co-operated with ISIS :rolleyes:

People must not have gotten the memo, that bombing the crap out of nations is what created ISIS - and doing the same again, is going to lead to an even bigger mess, drawing more people into their ranks.

Fukuyama · 08-09-2015 12:29PM

KomradeBishop wrote: »

Everyone has to play by the rulebook, and when the rules are discarded, people should take that as a massive warning sign, and fight it - you don't piss away international laws on war.

Do you want to throw away the laws on chemical/biological warfare? Nuclear weapon treaties?

No - because there's a bloody good reason for having these laws in the first place...

What should the US and other countries do? Stop fúcking around in the middle east - they created ISIS, and the more they fight in the middle east, the bigger they are going to make ISIS; they will never win that war; they tried, and for the last 10 years they've been failing, and will never succeed. Get out and stay out - and maybe in half a century or more, the middle east might have a chance at peace...but for now, thanks to these western nations, it's a mess for the next generation or three.

You're being hysterical.

Your first point is Ironic because that's exactly what I support doing. ISIS tore up the rulebook when they started burning POWs to death and slicing off heads of civilians who wouldn't swear allegiance to their caliphate. So yeah, I think we should "fight that".

There were no western presence in Syria, Tunisia, Egypt, the Yemen etc.. when all this kicked off. Those countries had been independent for decades and many were quite wealthy. Look at Libya and Syria - really accessible (often free) universities. No extremely oppressive anti-female laws like the ones in Saudi Arabia.

Their civilians started this as an act of protest and their leaders started to massacre them with shelling, gunfire and chemical weapons.

And, even though you think the US wants to throw out the chemical weapon rulebook, it was they who made Assad hand over all his chemical and biological weapons.

What you're proposing is idiocy. You're suggesting that en entire region of the world should burn to the ground and ISIS take over. They were stable, prosperous (although not ideal) countries just four years ago.

You think you're the morally superior type by thinking the west is an evil imperialist. And yet you advocate allowing millions of people to die while the West turns its head and looks the other way.

Cop on. Bullies need to be obliterated in WAR. Not put on trial.

UK forces kill own citizens in Syria

Comments