UK forces kill own citizens in Syria

Alexis Sanchez · 08-09-2015 01:07PM

KomradeBishop wrote: »

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.

No, no they didn't. Islam created ISIS. They're trying to create a Caliphate and there's been several Caliphates in the history of Islam, long before America even existed. Is the West responsible 5 or so other Caliphates over the last 1400 years?

Fukuyama · 08-09-2015 01:07PM

KomradeBishop wrote: »

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.

Is there a law that says a country can't kill its own citizen if that citizen is fighting in a designated terrorist organisation?

I highly doubt it.

Jonti · 08-09-2015 01:09PM

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?

Would you prefer they waited until these people perpetrated a bombing and killing spree in the UK before you took action??
They knew whar they were getting into and they paid the price!! Good enough for them.

KomradeBishop · 08-09-2015 01:14PM

CruelCoin wrote: »

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.

Eh yes there were western wars responsible, Iraq in particular - do you naively think Syria just destabilized all by itself?

Fukuyama · 08-09-2015 01:15PM

KomradeBishop wrote: »

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'.

You're insane. Stop being influcence by hyperactive media.

So what. A drone can have an automated flight path and has image recognition software on board. Same type of software used in fighter jet Air to Ground missiles or the Javeline Anti-tank missile. And Canon DSLR cameras....

Seriously. Get a hold of yourself. There will be no drone armies controlling civilian populations. They're no point. We're all fairly happy. We go to work, pay taxes and obey the law.

Drones will have loads of applications. From delivering your Amazon Package to replacing police helicopters to blowing up ground targets in war. But they're not going to level your house because you disagree with Fianna Gael. :rolleyes:

Finally. If your drone army every does rise up an take over, couldn't civilian drones just fight back? Or couldn't they be hacked? Civilian technology is always quite close to military technology.

There are civilians in Ukraine developing drones by themselves (albeit for the Ukranian military and pro-Ukraine brigades). By next year they'll be able to drop bombs on rebel targets.

They're drones. No fcuking Transformers.

KomradeBishop · 08-09-2015 01:16PM

Fukuyama wrote: »

Sup with the quotes?

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

The word 'terrorist' has no real well defined meaning - not now, not over the last 15 years.

ISIS are effectively an army.

KomradeBishop · 08-09-2015 01:18PM

Fukuyama wrote: »

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.

If they merely don't want to pursue a legal avenue of killing their own citizens, then the solution there is pretty simple: Don't kill your own citizens without due process.

No country should have the right to bomb other countries at a whim, and without taking any legal path for doing so.

Fukuyama · 08-09-2015 01:19PM

KomradeBishop wrote: »

ISIS are effectively an army.

Not legally though, ay?

Out of interest, what "legal process" do you recommend the UK follow?

Old Jakey · 08-09-2015 01:20PM

Fukuyama wrote: »

You're insane. Stop being influcence by hyperactive media.

So what. A drone can have an automated flight path and has image recognition software on board. Same type of software used in fighter jet Air to Ground missiles or the Javeline Anti-tank missile. And Canon DSLR cameras....

Seriously. Get a hold of yourself. There will be no drone armies controlling civilian populations. They're no point. We're all fairly happy. We go to work, pay taxes and obey the law.

Drones will have loads of applications. From delivering your Amazon Package to replacing police helicopters to blowing up ground targets in war. But they're not going to level your house because you disagree with Fianna Gael. :rolleyes:

Finally. If your drone army every does rise up an take over, couldn't civilian drones just fight back? Or couldn't they be hacked? Civilian technology is always quite close to military technology.

There are civilians in Ukraine developing drones by themselves (albeit for the Ukranian military and pro-Ukraine brigades). By next year they'll be able to drop bombs on rebel targets.

They're drones. No fcuking Transformers.

Personally I don't worry about drones. I am extremely concerned about returning isis fighters committing atrocities in the west though.

pmasterson95 · 08-09-2015 01:22PM

Fukuyama wrote: »

Is there a law that says a country can't kill its own citizen if that citizen is fighting in a designated terrorist organisation?

I highly doubt it.

Obviously not. But that wont stop KB

pmasterson95 · 08-09-2015 01:25PM

KomradeBishop wrote: »

The word 'terrorist' has no real well defined meaning - not now, not over the last 15 years.

ISIS are effectively an army.

Effectively an Army for what specific country KB. What country exactly should Britain legally declare war on in your magic world?

KomradeBishop · 08-09-2015 01:27PM

CruelCoin wrote: »

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.

It's not a unified army, but it is effectively an army. The laws here are covered by the UN charter on use of force - which the UK has not been shown as meeting.

citytillidie · 08-09-2015 01:27PM

It is not as if the British army don't have a history for killing their own citizens

KomradeBishop · 08-09-2015 01:29PM

Old Jakey wrote: »

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.

Oh ok, so just claim that it is 'only a matter of time' that someone will attack you, and then it's ok to just go to war with whoever you like? :rolleyes:

There are actual international laws on such attacks, regarding self-defence, and this falls far short of them.

If you can't see how what you propose is actually more dangerous to the UK, than ISIS itself, then you must be being deliberately blind to that.

Gatling · 08-09-2015 01:29PM

KomradeBishop wrote: »

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,

Your completely wrong all drones of the current generation and the next are no different to an F15 or F22 at that human flown ,human 100% in control at all times and several humans decide if the one human pilot get to fire a Hellfire missile at a vehicle or individuals.

KomradeBishop · 08-09-2015 01:30PM

CruelCoin wrote: »

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

Because that would be an illegal war otherwise?

Jesus wept...people can't actually seem to see the problem with illegal wars here.

endacl · 08-09-2015 01:33PM

Drones are cool!

:pac:

KomradeBishop · 08-09-2015 01:33PM

Fukuyama wrote: »

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.

This is really dumb - "well the laws already being broken, so lets just forget about the law!" - yea great principle there :rolleyes:

No, instead I think that we should resist countries/governments just flagrantly violating the law...

Western nations are never going to successfully administer humanitarian aid in that area now - they should mind their own fécking business, and get out of the whole region...

The arrogance of people, who think that western nations should be running the middle east, and 'must do something' about it, after all the destruction western nations have caused there...

pmasterson95 · 08-09-2015 01:36PM

KomradeBishop wrote: »

Oh ok, so just claim that it is 'only a matter of time' that someone will attack you, and then it's ok to just go to war with whoever you like? :rolleyes:

There are actual international laws on such attacks, regarding self-defence, and this falls far short of them.

If you can't see how what you propose is actually more dangerous to the UK, than ISIS itself, then you must be being deliberately blind to that.

If you are refering to Article 51 you must be misinterpreting. What are you trying to incorrectly interpret here?

Lemming · 08-09-2015 01:36PM

We need that old boards.ie "Tireless rebutter" magic the gathering parody card round about now :pac:

KomradeBishop · 08-09-2015 01:36PM

Fukuyama wrote: »

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:

The world isn't a simplistic black/white place, filled with 'goodies' and 'baddies' - and the UK/western-nations are certainly not 'good guys' (very few of them...) - thinking that allowing countries to kill their own citizens without due process (remember, the discussion this thread is about...) is an ignorant idea.

Fukuyama · 08-09-2015 01:36PM

KomradeBishop wrote: »

It's not a unified army, but it is effectively an army. The laws here are covered by the UN charter on use of force - which the UK has not been shown as meeting.

So how could the UK conduct strikes in a country against which it is not at formally declared war, even if they're targeting a terrorist group with whom that state is also at war, and said strike is not against a citizen of THAT country, but the UK.

:rolleyes:

The laws haven't kept pace with war. We can see that in Ukraine and ISIS controlled territory.

I believe the UN still has a function with regards to human rights and aid. But in terms of war they're irrelevent, have no teeth and no balls.

I can live with unlawful drone strikes so long as they're against scum like ISIS. In the broad scheme of things, although I have my own qualms with modern society, I'm on the same side as the US and UK.

This doesn't spiral into a "first they came for ISIS, then they came for me" type deal. We live in the EU. An organisation that bends over backwards to respect human rights, justice etc... and it has it's own standing reaction force of combined military forces (including Ireland) to protect our rights.

Thats not changing. But war definitely has. And society needs to catch up because the likes of ISIS couldn't give two fcuks about human rights.

KomradeBishop · 08-09-2015 01:39PM

Alexis Sanchez wrote: »

No, no they didn't. Islam created ISIS. They're trying to create a Caliphate and there's been several Caliphates in the history of Islam, long before America even existed. Is the West responsible 5 or so other Caliphates over the last 1400 years?

Oh I get it, ISIS are remnants of centuries-old caliphates, and they were magicked up out of nowhere?

What a load of bollocks. There hasn't been a caliphate in the best part of a century - who is naive/dumb enough, to think that the destruction in Iraq and its destabilizing effects on Syria, didn't create ISIS?

KomradeBishop · 08-09-2015 01:40PM

Fukuyama wrote: »

Is there a law that says a country can't kill its own citizen if that citizen is fighting in a designated terrorist organisation?

I highly doubt it.

Eh, yes actually. Citizens right to due process.

Are people really so ignorant, that they don't know this?

08-09-2015 01:41PM

KomradeBishop wrote: »

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.

Ah but you were certainly trying to explain away ISIS by reference to America, America created them, America made them yada yada.

The simple fact is that members of ISIS are responsible for the acts of members of ISIS. No amount of references to America absolves them from blame for their actions.

Fukuyama · 08-09-2015 01:41PM

KomradeBishop wrote: »

The world isn't a simplistic black/white place, filled with 'goodies' and 'baddies' - and the UK/western-nations are certainly not 'good guys' (very few of them...) - thinking that allowing countries to kill their own citizens without due process (remember, the discussion this thread is about...) is an ignorant idea.

And yet you seem to think it is. Just because someone doesn't meet the "official" criteria for declaring war against them, doesn't mean they don't deserve to meet their match on the battlefield.

We're not allowing countries to kill their own citizens. You taking one or two facts and ignoring the rest.

He joined up to fight with ISIS and he knew he'd be a military target. Not a civilian one - a military one. He lost. Big deal. I'll sleep easy tonight.

crybaby · 08-09-2015 01:42PM

Saipanne wrote: »

Yes, he clearly hates the race of Islam. The only race you can convert to.

You're a bit simple aren't you?

08-09-2015 01:43PM

KomradeBishop wrote: »

Eh, yes actually. Citizens right to due process.

Are people really so ignorant, that they don't know this?

Um...in a conflict, of course civilians (not citizens) should expect due process.

Those citizens that join an armed organisation should expect to get shot or blown up.

Fukuyama · 08-09-2015 01:44PM

KomradeBishop wrote: »

Eh, yes actually. Citizens right to due process.

Are people really so ignorant, that they don't know this?

Why don't you go into your rulebook and start pulling out applicable laws?

Show us something because up until now you've stood behind the "due process" argument.

ISIS, like you said are basically an army. If I joined the Russian Army, and Putin took it upon himself to seize Galway tomorrow, would the Irish Government be breaking the law if an Irish soldier killed me in combat?

He joined ISIS. He got killed by one of his enemy's drones.

Fukuyama · 08-09-2015 01:45PM

Deleted User wrote: »

Um...in a conflict, of course civilians (not citizens) should expect due process.

Those citizens that join an armed organisation should expect to get shot or blown up.

+1

Very important distinction to make. Seems lost on KB.

UK forces kill own citizens in Syria

Comments