UK forces kill own citizens in Syria

KomradeBishop · 08-09-2015 12:31PM

Fukuyama wrote: »

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?

You want to literally throw away the rulebook and have no rules at all. That's just idiocy.

A rulebook that has been developed, after WWII - the most devastating war in history - and where the rules have lasted 70 years, is a rulebook based on hard-learned experience, and not to be thrown away.

Seriously - would you throw away the rules on biological/chemical or even nuclear warfare? By the sounds of it you don't want there to be any rules at all.

Your only argument left is "we must do something!" - well, no, we don't have to do anything...we should stay the hell out of it, because western nations have created the whole mess, and are only making it worse.

KomradeBishop · 08-09-2015 12:33PM

CruelCoin wrote: »

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.

What are you waffling about? You seem to be being deliberately obtuse here. There are well known international laws for declaring war - which is the legal way to attack foreign armies - very obvious that that's what I'm talking about.

Gatling · 08-09-2015 12:34PM

KomradeBishop wrote: »

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.

Never said you support mass murder ,

But the SAS killings 14 ira members set the agenda at home or abroad terrorists will actively be chased down and be wiped out exactly what happened here ,
Would you rather they sent men to there deaths by trying to arrest members of the so call britani brigade in syria and iraq

KomradeBishop · 08-09-2015 12:34PM

Old Jakey wrote: »

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

Actually, no - they didn't. They didn't lose any legal rights when they joined ISIS - incredibly naive to think otherwise.

If you want their rights stripped for joining ISIS, you have to do it in a legal way, not just go out and kill them.

KomradeBishop · 08-09-2015 12:37PM

Fukuyama wrote: »

: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

Eh? Yes you are saying "lets rip up the Human Rights Charter".

Article 10 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights is explicitly about citizens having the right to due process...

Jesus wept...people don't even have a clue what they are arguing for...

08-09-2015 12:39PM

KomradeBishop wrote: »

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

Ah, the "we are roasting this guy alive in a cage because...because...because the Americans are making us do it..." defence.

KomradeBishop · 08-09-2015 12:40PM

Also:

Fukuyama wrote: »

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

Well if you give a government the ability to host a massive drone fleet, with the ability to arbitrarily decide to kill their own citizens, then no - you don't have totalitarianism - you have 'turnkey totalitarianism', where democracy and the entire country are under threat of totalitarianism 'at the turn of a key' - that's where you want the UK to head.

Old Jakey · 08-09-2015 12:41PM

KomradeBishop wrote: »

Actually, no - they didn't. They didn't lose any legal rights when they joined ISIS - incredibly naive to think otherwise.

If you want their rights stripped for joining ISIS, you have to do it in a legal way, not just go out and kill them.

So a nation doesn't have a right to self defence?

If I joined an organisation that hated Ireland and wanted to kill Irish people, you really think the government doesn't have a right to kill me?

CruelCoin · 08-09-2015 12:42PM

KomradeBishop wrote: »

What are you waffling about? You seem to be being deliberately obtuse here. There are well known international laws for declaring war - which is the legal way to attack foreign armies - very obvious that that's what I'm talking about.

You're talking about Cassus Belli.

Well, ISIS cares not for that. And Britain gained same by dint of its people/stuff being destroyed.

You're incredibly naieve to think that can/should only happen upon a declaration by both parties.

This isn't a schoolground "I wasn't ready yet! quit it!". This is more akin to being punched in the back of the head by a stranger. What now? You're proposing the two parties should agree to fisticuffs? Ridiculous.

lawred2 · 08-09-2015 12:45PM

snubbleste wrote: »

http://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2015/sep/07/uk-forces-airstrike-killed-isis-briton-reyaad-khan-syria
Is this state-sanctioned death penalty without trial? Extra-judicial murder by a western democracy?
It strikes me as completely wrong, no matter what the individuals did.
Where do you draw the line?

seriously?

no matter what the individuals did? really?

Fukuyama · 08-09-2015 12:46PM

KomradeBishop wrote: »

You want to literally throw away the rulebook and have no rules at all. That's just idiocy.

A rulebook that has been developed, after WWII - the most devastating war in history - and where the rules have lasted 70 years, is a rulebook based on hard-learned experience, and not to be thrown away.

Seriously - would you throw away the rules on biological/chemical or even nuclear warfare? By the sounds of it you don't want there to be any rules at all.

Your only argument left is "we must do something!" - well, no, we don't have to do anything...we should stay the hell out of it, because western nations have created the whole mess, and are only making it worse.

More idiocy.

ISIS are not an army. They are not a country. The west cannot got to "war" with them. "War" does not exist the same way it did in 2000, let alone 1945.

If the US/UK/France/Russia/China wanted to they could guide a missile right to your laptop or mobile phone. That's how accurate drones are. And yet, you want them to follow a guidebook that says "sorry. You have to launch a full scale invasion because that's what the books says war is".

Look at Crimea and Eastern Ukraine. 10 years ago the idea of hybrid warfare didn't even exist. Russia developed it AFTER the Arab Spring when they seen what social media, mass protest and a few well placed tanks can do.

Now look at the UN. It's old, has Alzheimers and hasn't had a decent success in doing anything since the Korean War.

War is different. Chemical weapons won't be used again. Not because there's a law that bans them but because

a) It's NATO that will take them off you if you try to use them, not the UN.
b) If NATO wanted to neutralize a civilian population, all they have to do is turn off a power station with the press of a button, knock off the water supply, set off an EMP (almost did it in 2003 in Iraq for Baghdad) etc... etc...

We share the same view of a world where the rights of civilians are held in a higher regard than anything else. We differ in terms of implementation.

If you join an organisation that respects basic human rights like East Ukraine Pro- Russia rebels, the IRA or FARC columbian rebels then you deserve a trial.

If you join ISIS, where cutting off heads, burning people alive and killing aid workers is par for the course then you deserve a cruise missile.

By adopting such crude methods the West will not become what they hate the most. The West has done this for years. Look at WWII, the war that brought about the UN. The US dropped the Nuke, the UK developed special forces, everyone got very good at torture.

War is hell. If ISIS want to start a war then I hope the UK/US/NATO give them hell.

KomradeBishop · 08-09-2015 12:48PM

Fukuyama wrote: »

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.

I think you're views are more dangerous to the host countries - the UK/US and western nations - than they are to ISIS to be honest; you don't seem to have any concept of the danger your views would create, to democracy both at home and around the world.

You don't even seem to see the concept, that what you advocate will just make ISIS grow even more.

The entire point of international rules on war, is that you don't just tear them up when one side does - otherwise you might as well just have no rules at all...

What are you talking about - Iraq, was a stable country 4 years ago? That's utter bollocks. Fairly notable how you just omitted that from your post.

ISIS have killed 'millions' of people have they? You're the one being hysterical here.

The west also inherently bears responsibility for every death performed at the hands of ISIS as well, for creating them.

What a stupid idea - thinking that more war/fighting, is going to lead to less people dying.

ISIS are going to create a brutal and horrible state, with a severely regressive society - and no amount of bombing now is going to stop that - you can thank western nations for it too, for creating them.

If you want millions of people to die, start an even bigger war - if you want a lower death toll, suck it up and engage in diplomacy, once their borders have settled.

KomradeBishop · 08-09-2015 12:51PM

Gatling wrote: »

Never said you support mass murder ,

But the SAS killings 14 ira members set the agenda at home or abroad terrorists will actively be chased down and be wiped out exactly what happened here ,
Would you rather they sent men to there deaths by trying to arrest members of the so call britani brigade in syria and iraq

They should stay out of it, because they are going to make ISIS even bigger, by drawing even more people to support them - what on earth do you think motivated people to join ISIS in the first place? Western wars in the middle east.

Playboy · 08-09-2015 12:52PM

BoJack Horseman wrote: »

Medical science should investigate whether a bleeding heart starves oxygen to the rational parts of the brain......

Extremists order east London Muslims to boycott election vote in Tower Hamlets

Islamic extremism concerns at Tower Hamlets school

Police raid unlicensed Islamic school in east London

UK police raid ‘illegal’ Islamic school suspected of terror links

Oh I forgot the rule... guilty by association. There are some bad people in Tower Hamlets (one of the most deprived boroughs in London) so therefore all of Tower Hamlets is bad. Sounds similar to your and many other on here rants about Muslims. I'm wondering when ye are going to migrate to another group. There are some black people who are bad too.. lots in jail in the USA and you know that hippety hoppety music isnt doing the world any favours.

Gatling · 08-09-2015 12:53PM

KomradeBishop wrote: »

I think you're views are more dangerous to the host countries - the UK/US and western nations - than they are to ISIS to be honest; you don't seem to have any concept of the danger your views would create, to democracy both at home and around the world.

You don't even seem to see the concept, that what you advocate will just make ISIS grow even more.

The entire point of international rules on war, is that you don't just tear them up when one side does - otherwise you might as well just have no rules at all...

What are you talking about - Iraq, was a stable country 4 years ago? That's utter bollocks. For notable how you just omitted that from your post.

ISIS have killed 'millions' of people have they? You're the one being hysterical here.

The west also inherently bears responsibility for every death performed at the hands of ISIS as well, for creating them.

What a stupid idea - thinking that more war/fighting, is going to lead to less people dying.

ISIS are going to create a brutal and horrible state, with a severely regressive society - and no amount of bombing now is going to stop that - you can thank western nations for it too, for creating them.

If you want millions of people to do, start an even bigger war - if you want a lower death toll, suck it up and engage in diplomacy, once their borders have settled.

You keep referencing rules of war ,
The rules of war only work if both sides agree to the rules .
As we seen from the 2nd gulf war to east Ukraine and the Crimea the rules in my opinion are no longer applicable in this day and age .
People go on about the Geneva convention again it means nothing anymore

KomradeBishop · 08-09-2015 12:53PM

Deleted User wrote: »

Ah, the "we are roasting this guy alive in a cage because...because...because the Americans are making us do it..." defence.

Don't put words in my mouth, thanks - pointing out the fact that western nations led to the creation of ISIS, does not mean defending ISIS, or their actions.

KomradeBishop · 08-09-2015 12:54PM

Old Jakey wrote: »

So a nation doesn't have a right to self defence?

If I joined an organisation that hated Ireland and wanted to kill Irish people, you really think the government doesn't have a right to kill me?

What the....can you point out to me where ISIS attacked the UK?

Really unbelievable how gullible people are, that they are swallowing up all of the 'terrorist' scaremongering in the media.

Fukuyama · 08-09-2015 12:54PM

KomradeBishop wrote: »

Also:

Well if you give a government the ability to host a massive drone fleet, with the ability to arbitrarily decide to kill their own citizens, then no - you don't have totalitarianism - you have 'turnkey totalitarianism', where democracy and the entire country are under threat of totalitarianism 'at the turn of a key' - that's where you want the UK to head.

Drones are operated by pilots. No different than a country having a fleet of F15s.

Don't be afraid of technology. For every government computer technician there are ten civilians that are smarter than them. And there always will be.

Revolutions happen. Big deal. Maybe the next one won't involve gun fire, bombs and chemicals. Maybe it'll mean taking down a military's IT infrastructure without a shot being fired. Or reducing a government ability to communicate, operate and influence their people.

You're never going to see another WWII just like you'll never see another Iraq 2003. War has changed and it's changing faster everyday.

Your rulebook is useless. Imagine going back to 1945 and banning muskets. Because that's what you're doing when you talk about international borders with regard to terrorist organisations, chemical weapons and "declaring" war.

KomradeBishop · 08-09-2015 12:55PM

CruelCoin wrote: »

You're talking about Cassus Belli.

Well, ISIS cares not for that. And Britain gained same by dint of its people/stuff being destroyed.

You're incredibly naieve to think that can/should only happen upon a declaration by both parties.

This isn't a schoolground "I wasn't ready yet! quit it!". This is more akin to being punched in the back of the head by a stranger. What now? You're proposing the two parties should agree to fisticuffs? Ridiculous.

Did I say that war 'can only happen if declared by both parties'? No.

Can you give a single good reason, why the UK should not pursue an actual legal route, if they want to go to war?

By definition, you're talking about an illegal war otherwise...(you know, the kind of war that created this whole mess, and led to the creation of ISIS)

CruelCoin · 08-09-2015 12:55PM

KomradeBishop wrote: »

what on earth do you think motivated people to join ISIS in the first place? Western wars in the middle east.

Really? ISIS aren't fighting a single foreign entity. It's just them and the locals.

That desire for a caliphate is hard-baked and was always present. The weakening of control caused ISIS to blossom, as people jumped at the chance to create their promised land. There were no western wars responsible for the weakening of control.

The rebel groups and Assad did that all by their lonesome.

Fukuyama · 08-09-2015 12:56PM

KomradeBishop wrote: »

What the....can you point out to me where ISIS attacked the UK?

Really unbelievable how gullible people are, that they are swallowing up all of the 'terrorist' scaremongering in the media.

Sup with the quotes?

If ISIS don't fit the bill for terrorist organisation, I don't know what does.

Fukuyama · 08-09-2015 12:58PM

KomradeBishop wrote: »

Did I say that war 'can only happen if declared by both parties'? No.

Can you give a single good reason, why the UK should not pursue an actual legal route, if they want to go to war?

By definition, you're talking about an illegal war otherwise...(you know, the kind of war that created this whole mess, and led to the creation of ISIS)

Because they don't want to go to war.

They want to contain it over there. A dead man split into 1000 pieces can't board a plane back to the UK. Even if he has a UK passport.

KomradeBishop · 08-09-2015 12:58PM

Fukuyama wrote: »

More idiocy.

ISIS are not an army. They are not a country. The west cannot got to "war" with them. "War" does not exist the same way it did in 2000, let alone 1945.

If the US/UK/France/Russia/China wanted to they could guide a missile right to your laptop or mobile phone. That's how accurate drones are. And yet, you want them to follow a guidebook that says "sorry. You have to launch a full scale invasion because that's what the books says war is".

Look at Crimea and Eastern Ukraine. 10 years ago the idea of hybrid warfare didn't even exist. Russia developed it AFTER the Arab Spring when they seen what social media, mass protest and a few well placed tanks can do.

Now look at the UN. It's old, has Alzheimers and hasn't had a decent success in doing anything since the Korean War.

War is different. Chemical weapons won't be used again. Not because there's a law that bans them but because

a) It's NATO that will take them off you if you try to use them, not the UN.
b) If NATO wanted to neutralize a civilian population, all they have to do is turn off a power station with the press of a button, knock off the water supply, set off an EMP (almost did it in 2003 in Iraq for Baghdad) etc... etc...

We share the same view of a world where the rights of civilians are held in a higher regard than anything else. We differ in terms of implementation.

If you join an organisation that respects basic human rights like East Ukraine Pro- Russia rebels, the IRA or FARC columbian rebels then you deserve a trial.

If you join ISIS, where cutting off heads, burning people alive and killing aid workers is par for the course then you deserve a cruise missile.

By adopting such crude methods the West will not become what they hate the most. The West has done this for years. Look at WWII, the war that brought about the UN. The US dropped the Nuke, the UK developed special forces, everyone got very good at torture.

War is hell. If ISIS want to start a war then I hope the UK/US/NATO give them hell.

Your entire post is a straw-man, with a deliberately narrow interpretation of what I'm saying.

Can you prove that there is no legal route, for engaging in a war against ISIS, or not?

CruelCoin · 08-09-2015 12:58PM

KomradeBishop wrote: »

Did I say that war 'can only happen if declared by both parties'? No.

Can you give a single good reason, why the UK should not pursue an actual legal route, if they want to go to war?

By definition, you're talking about an illegal war otherwise...

Sigh. Its been mentioned before that ISIS is not a state, nor is it an army.
Its a messy group of many, many factions, loosely cobbled together.

Who should the declaration of war be sent to? The leaders I imagine. Funny though, how nobody seems to know who the leaders are, it being chaotic and all that.

So, presuming war be declared. Who against and who do we send it to? Both are impossible.

Old Jakey · 08-09-2015 01:00PM

KomradeBishop wrote: »

What the....can you point out to me where ISIS attacked the UK?

Really unbelievable how gullible people are, that they are swallowing up all of the 'terrorist' scaremongering in the media.

They will, only a matter of time. Why would you wait for an organisation that hates you to strike first when you have a chance to inflict a blow on them? That's bizarre, in fact I don't even know why you're in such a flap over this.

However, if a couple of isis boys getting wasted hurts your feelings that much you can always start an e-petition to have Dave Cameron arrested.

CruelCoin · 08-09-2015 01:00PM

KomradeBishop wrote: »

Can you give a single good reason, why the UK should not pursue an actual legal route, if they want to go to war?

Because they're defacto at war already? Whats the point of a redundant declaration?

Fukuyama · 08-09-2015 01:03PM

KomradeBishop wrote: »

Your entire post is a straw-man, with a deliberately narrow interpretation of what I'm saying.

Can you prove that there is no legal route, for engaging in a war against ISIS, or not?

It really isn't. It's quite accurate and has a few solid concrete points in there. Go ahead an ignore what is a reality in 2015 though.

You're still thinking as though it's 2005 and they found no WMDs.

The UK doesn't care if there is a legal route. I've already said that they're breaking the law. The difference is that nobody, not even the UN, gives a fiddlers this time around.

ISIS have been going strong for 2 years now. It's time they were wiped off the surface of the earth so that aid organisation can actually get into what is now a fcuking disaster zone.

KomradeBishop · 08-09-2015 01:03PM

Gatling wrote: »

You keep referencing rules of war ,
The rules of war only work if both sides agree to the rules .
As we seen from the 2nd gulf war to east Ukraine and the Crimea the rules in my opinion are no longer applicable in this day and age .
People go on about the Geneva convention again it means nothing anymore

You literally want to throw away the rules of war, is what you're saying here.

The idea that the rules of war only work 'if both sides agree' is ridiculous, and is not how international law regarding wars has worked, ever...

Many people, usually neocons, would like the Geneva convention to just disappear/go-away, but it's still there and any attempt at sidestepping it should be fought and stopped.

There is a reason these laws exist - they were put in place after WWII, to try and help avoid any kind of large-scale war like that happening again - discard those laws, and we'll be heading right back in the same direction as the previous world wars, given enough decades passage.

Fukuyama · 08-09-2015 01:06PM

It's worth noting that Russia is supplying Assad with armored vehicles, tanks and sophisticated weaponry. A man who gassed his own people.

Did Russia go through the UN to get approval? Nope.

And yet the UK conduct a precision strike against an ISIS member and KomradeBishop think's they're the bad guys. :pac:

KomradeBishop · 08-09-2015 01:07PM

Fukuyama wrote: »

Drones are operated by pilots. No different than a country having a fleet of F15s.

Don't be afraid of technology. For every government computer technician there are ten civilians that are smarter than them. And there always will be.

Revolutions happen. Big deal. Maybe the next one won't involve gun fire, bombs and chemicals. Maybe it'll mean taking down a military's IT infrastructure without a shot being fired. Or reducing a government ability to communicate, operate and influence their people.

You're never going to see another WWII just like you'll never see another Iraq 2003. War has changed and it's changing faster everyday.

Your rulebook is useless. Imagine going back to 1945 and banning muskets. Because that's what you're doing when you talk about international borders with regard to terrorist organisations, chemical weapons and "declaring" war.

No actually drones are increasingly automated these days. They are completely different to F-15's, and anyone who thinks otherwise really isn't keeping up with the technology.

If people are too stupid to see how dangerous future massive fleets of drones are, to the democratic integrity of their own country, then they will pay pretty heavily for that stupidity, when such a fleet gets used against the countries citizens, and used for political control.

The future of totalitarianism, is going to be drones; we might not see it in western nations first, but that's the logical conclusion of this technology, if the proper safeguards aren't in place - and people need to realize the danger, so they don't throw away such obvious safeguards as due process, over the - mostly propagandized - threat of 'terrorists'.

UK forces kill own citizens in Syria

Comments