Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on hello@boards.ie for help. Thanks :)
Hello all! Please ensure that you are posting a new thread or question in the appropriate forum. The Feedback forum is overwhelmed with questions that are having to be moved elsewhere. If you need help to verify your account contact hello@boards.ie
Help Keep Boards Alive. Support us by going ad free today. See here: https://subscriptions.boards.ie/

UK forces kill own citizens in Syria

1…89111314

Comments

  • #302
    end of the road
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 29,539 ✭✭✭✭end of the road


    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.
    wrong, there has been no declaration of war on britain
    CruelCoin wrote: »
    This was of course after they were firing AK's into the air in celebration.

    no . probably in one case that has happened and its used to justify more terrorism by the west.
    CruelCoin wrote: »
    The drone operator was hunting for enemy combatants, and saw a heap of non-coalition dudes with guns.
    Its a shame it happened, but the process by which it happened was sound.

    the process wasn't sound. its not "a shame" it happened, its simple murder and terrorism. meaning the country the drone operator is from condone terrorism and legitimize the enemy.
    CruelCoin wrote: »
    Do silly things in a warzone and bad things will happen.

    In world war 1, if the french locals went out to play a spot of footie in no mans land, they'd be dead before the first goal was scored.

    If the British were to invade Ireland, i'd think twice between going pheasant hunting. etc.

    Firing a heap of guns into the air in the middle of a warzone, is stupidity beyond measure.

    I feel bad for the family, but they certainly contributed. Neither the drone pilot, nor the use of drones themselves were to blame there.
    the family contributed nothing. whoever sanctioned the drone pilot is the only one at fault.
    custard gannet wrote: »
    Have you ever actually read the excuses that most of the non afghan inmates in Guantanamo have given for having been in proximity to the epicenter of terrorist training in the weeks after 9//11?

    until proven otherwise in a court of law, and not an illegitimate military court, they are genuine reasons
    custard gannet wrote: »
    The amount of genuinely innocent people caught up in it wouldn't fill a postage stamp

    they would be all innocent until proven otherwise in a civilian court.
    custard gannet wrote: »
    frankly the rest of them should be left there until they die.

    not unless they are put on trial and found guilty.
    custard gannet wrote: »
    Leftists trying to close Guantanamo is just more self loathing turkeys voting for Christmas.

    leftists have nothing to do with it. Guantanamo has no legitimacy, anyone held there is innocent as they clearly haven't been put on trial, only those who are against freedom and due process want it open
    Old Jakey wrote: »
    They lost their rights when they went to join ISIS. Fuk em.
    you can't lose rights unless war has been declared by those carying out your execution. anyway, you haven't answered the question
    Old Jakey wrote: »
    Personally I don't worry about drones. I am extremely concerned about returning isis fighters committing atrocities in the west though.
    well as that won't be happening there is nothing to worry about. the danger is over hyped
    Old Jakey wrote: »
    So you know your enemy is out there and instead of taking action you wait for him to kill some of your people and then you take action? Are you for real? Still don't know why I should feel bad about enemy combatants being killed.

    Let me guess you think returning isis fighters should be given counselling and benefits?
    problem is they aren't going to kill you so your point is mute. there are plenty of laws to deal with isis fighters who return.

    I'm very highly educated. I know words, i have the best words, nobody has better words then me.



  • #303
    Fratton Fred
    Closed Accounts Posts: 26,567 ✭✭✭✭Fratton Fred


    KomradeBishop wrote: »
    Either get a legal mandate to go to war - which is just not going to happen - or stay the hell out of it, given that all western intervention has just created an even bigger mess than before.

    What's a "legal mandate to go to war"?


  • #304
    end of the road
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 29,539 ✭✭✭✭end of the road


    kstand wrote: »
    It does raise legal questions but was it the right thing to do? Absolutely.

    absolutely not. the british government have effectively stated these people are innocent by carying out their cowardly extra-judicial murder.
    kstand wrote: »
    These vermin left of their own accord and were trying to remotely orchestrate attacks on the streets here.

    maybe they were, maybe they weren't. we won't know now. just incase one decides to use "the government said it was the case" don't bother, it doesn't work.
    Captain Chaos wrote: »
    The moment they joined the ISIS cause they stopped being British civilian citizens and became military targets. Simple as really.
    only to the opposing side fighting on the ground there. not to britain as they haven't declared war
    josephryan1989 wrote: »
    What's the big deal?
    The scumbag signed his own death warrant when he chose the side of pure evil.
    I hope the worms enjoy their lunch.
    the big deal is a cowardly nation caried out an extra-judicial murder, then says whatever and were supposed to take their word on the matter. no thanks, i won't be taking the word of a nation who has a history of killing its own "citizens"
    Fratton Fred wrote: »
    Which is why Cameron took legal advice and made an open and honest statement to parliament.
    means nothing. i wouldn't trust him as far as i could throw him
    jon1981 wrote: »
    The pictures of them with guns and the ****e they were preaching online is evidence enough for me.

    no, it isn't.
    jon1981 wrote: »
    Let it be a warning to all the other little GI Jihadis out there!

    it won't be. anyone who thinks this will be a warning to anyone is deluded.
    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?
    yes, yes they did. the west created isis.
    Jonti wrote: »
    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.
    there would be no bombing in the UK. the security forces there are able to stop any potential threats. so your point is invalid here.
    Lemming wrote: »
    why are you getting your nose out of shape and repeatedly and hysterically shouting "due process" about an entity (ISIS) that doesn't understand the meaning of the term and does not give it to anyone.

    not understanding the meaning of a term or giving it to others doesn't give others the right to do the same. the only hysterical nonsense here is from those who want no rules and no laws, and want countries to be able to do what they want.

    I'm very highly educated. I know words, i have the best words, nobody has better words then me.



  • #305
    end of the road
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 29,539 ✭✭✭✭end of the road


    Fukuyama wrote: »
    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.

    no, it would not have been justified, and it wasn't up to britain to invade ireland. it was britains fault the so called "terrorists" existed, and they were arming their own. britain reaped what they soed in NI. by carying out illegal invasians of our nation, britain legitimized the IRA campain more then it all ready had done so.
    Fukuyama wrote: »

    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
    oh we don't. they are not totalitarian regimes "yet"
    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.
    so britain and america should be obliterated? in what war?
    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.
    well considering they have a history of murdering their own "citizens" then its not surprising. and this strike was caried out with what "evidence" exactly? because for me, the british government saying something doesn't make it true. once
    Fukuyama wrote: »
    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.
    he didn't. he got killed by one of his countries drones probably on little if any "evidence" knowing britain and its history. britain didn't declare war so therefore has no business being there.

    I'm very highly educated. I know words, i have the best words, nobody has better words then me.



  • #306
    KomradeBishop
    Closed Accounts Posts: 4,981 ✭✭✭KomradeBishop


    SamHarris wrote: »
    They joined a foreign terrorist group who's declared aims are to target and kill British civilians (among others) and are fighting in a war zone.

    I'm finding it hard to see how anything BUT killing them would be the right thing to do, given that arrest is not an option.

    There is no "due process" in war, complaining that the British government has not declared war on ISIS is equivocation, given that it is not even a legal state and therefore CAN'T legally be declared war upon.
    That is wrong. There is a legal process to be followed, and that is true even in the case of groups like ISIS.

    The idea that situations like this are somehow a 'blindspot' in international law, is a myth.


  • Advertisement
  • #307
    Fratton Fred
    Closed Accounts Posts: 26,567 ✭✭✭✭Fratton Fred


    end of the road wrote: »
    there would be no bombing in the UK. the security forces there are able to stop any potential threats. so your point is invalid here.

    Exactly. The security forces recognized a threat and dealt with it.


  • #308
    end of the road
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 29,539 ✭✭✭✭end of the road


    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.

    something illegal cannot be morally right. the only people who don't care are the typical delusianel types who trust everything their government says.
    Fukuyama wrote: »
    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.

    they can't. they are only a toothless bunch of time wasters because they don't conform to your view that the world should be able to do what it likes when it likes. if britain wants to cary out extra-judicial murders, it cannot complain if other countries do the same on its soil
    Fukuyama wrote: »
    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.

    actually, not true. they aren't as accurate as you make out.
    Fukuyama wrote: »
    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".

    yes, it would prove they aren't a cowardly nation. face your enimy
    Fukuyama wrote: »
    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.

    no, your entitled to a trial
    Fukuyama wrote: »
    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.

    your entitled to a trial. if not tried and convicted, your innocent
    Fukuyama wrote: »
    By adopting such crude methods the West will not become what they hate the most.

    they are exactly what they hate the most and have been for years.
    Fukuyama wrote: »
    If ISIS want to start a war then I hope the UK/US/NATO give them hell.

    no, britain and america don't get to give anyone anything as they are at fault for most of the problems due to their colonialist nonsense.
    Fukuyama wrote: »
    I can live with unlawful drone strikes so long as they're against scum like ISIS.

    you cannot be against isis and condone vialation of international law
    Fukuyama wrote: »
    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.

    who are on the side of terrorism themselves.
    Fukuyama wrote: »
    This doesn't spiral into a "first they came for ISIS, then they came for me" type deal.

    it could do for british citizens if britain leaves the EU. and it most likely will for america.
    Fukuyama wrote: »
    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.

    luckily. however if britain leaves then there may be a problem for its citizens.
    Fukuyama wrote: »
    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.

    that means nothing. society has caught up and still feels the same about illegal wars.
    Fukuyama wrote: »
    Imagine the high value targets you could kill at a wedding?

    no . all civilians at them.
    Fukuyama wrote: »
    Over there a wedding would attract leaders, influences, financiers etc...

    doubt it.
    Fukuyama wrote: »
    I'm not saying that innocent civilians, no less kids, deserve to be killed. But if it's a war then tough decisions have to be made.

    not when civilians are deliberately put at harms way by the west so they can stur up more trouble.
    Fukuyama wrote: »
    Those in close proximity to combatants and leaders are in harms way. In my opinion, the blame lies with the combatants for surrounding themselves with civilians when they know they're a target.

    no, the blame lies with those murdering the civilians so they can stur up more issues as an excuse to eventually invade.
    Fukuyama wrote: »
    The Allies carpet bombed Dresden day and night for no reason other than revenge.

    yes, making them terrorists and no better then hitler.
    Fukuyama wrote: »
    In my eyes, a targeted drone strike at a wedding is much more humane than that.

    not humain at all. deliberately targeting something where there is civilians means you have no legitimacy and are the same as the "enemy"
    Fukuyama wrote: »
    War is war. There's no getting around that. If a target can be pragmatically justified then it has to be treated as just that - a target; not some legal rubics cube.

    legality is more important then anything else.
    Fukuyama wrote: »
    Anyways - on the topic of due process. It sounds like they identified him as being in IS. They had pictures and intelligence. I imagine they had his phone calls tapped and his emails hacked. Not just a hunch. Sounds like they did their homework and got the right guy.

    not good enough. their word cannot be taken for anything. unless put on trial one is innocent. a government saying something does not make it true, a government can never be trusted. the british government by carying out this extra-judicial killing have found these people innocent of any wrong doing. complete idiots.

    I'm very highly educated. I know words, i have the best words, nobody has better words then me.



  • #309
    SamHarris
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 1,633 ✭✭✭SamHarris


    KomradeBishop wrote: »
    That is wrong. There is a legal process to be followed, and that is true even in the case of groups like ISIS.

    The idea that situations like this are somehow a 'blindspot' in international law, is a myth.

    And what legal process do you believe that to be, given the situation? Surely you do not mean criminal law, used in the UK itself. I seriously doubt any nation would tie its hands like that with regard to its own defence. And I doubt they would get any kudos from anyone but the most extreme in their own countries for doing so.


  • #310
    SamHarris
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 1,633 ✭✭✭SamHarris


    end of the road wrote: »
    something illegal cannot be morally right. the only people who don't care are the typical delusianel types who trust everything their government says.

    I seriously doubt you believe that. Legislation by no means defines morality for anyone, anywhere.


  • #311
    end of the road
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 29,539 ✭✭✭✭end of the road


    Fratton Fred wrote: »
    Exactly. The security forces recognized a threat and dealt with it.
    they didn't. they caried out a cowardly extra-judicial murder of someone who wasn't a threat to the uk (as if they returned there are plenty of laws to deal with them) . wouldn't expect anything less from britain though

    I'm very highly educated. I know words, i have the best words, nobody has better words then me.



  • Advertisement
  • #312
    SamHarris
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 1,633 ✭✭✭SamHarris


    end of the road wrote: »
    they can't. they are only a toothless bunch of time wasters because they don't conform to your view that the world should be able to do what it likes when it likes. if britain wants to cary out extra-judicial murders, it cannot complain if other countries do the same on its soil

    When the UK descends into anarchy, its government begins slaughtering its own people and a group forms itself with the express aim of killing, say, Russian civilians and the Russian government kills two of its own citizens that had joined said group then you will have an equivalent situation and you would be right, the UK would be hypocrites if they were to protest against this.

    Until then, no, there is not a similar situation that took place that the UK would be forced to accept out of some bizarre attempt to be even-handed.


  • #313
    Fukuyama
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 3,023 ✭✭✭Fukuyama


    end of the road wrote: »
    no, it would not have been justified, and it wasn't up to britain to invade ireland. it was britains fault the so called "terrorists" existed, and they were arming their own. britain reaped what they soed in NI. by carying out illegal invasians of our nation, britain legitimized the IRA campain more then it all ready had done so.


    oh we don't. they are not totalitarian regimes "yet"


    so britain and america should be obliterated? in what war?


    well considering they have a history of murdering their own "citizens" then its not surprising. and this strike was caried out with what "evidence" exactly? because for me, the british government saying something doesn't make it true. once


    he didn't. he got killed by one of his countries drones probably on little if any "evidence" knowing britain and its history. britain didn't declare war so therefore has no business being there.
    end of the road wrote: »
    something illegal cannot be morally right. the only people who don't care are the typical delusianel types who trust everything their government says.



    they can't. they are only a toothless bunch of time wasters because they don't conform to your view that the world should be able to do what it likes when it likes. if britain wants to cary out extra-judicial murders, it cannot complain if other countries do the same on its soil



    actually, not true. they aren't as accurate as you make out.



    yes, it would prove they aren't a cowardly nation. face your enimy



    no, your entitled to a trial



    your entitled to a trial. if not tried and convicted, your innocent



    they are exactly what they hate the most and have been for years.



    no, britain and america don't get to give anyone anything as they are at fault for most of the problems due to their colonialist nonsense.



    you cannot be against isis and condone vialation of international law



    who are on the side of terrorism themselves.



    it could do for british citizens if britain leaves the EU. and it most likely will for america.



    luckily. however if britain leaves then there may be a problem for its citizens.



    that means nothing. society has caught up and still feels the same about illegal wars.



    no . all civilians at them.



    doubt it.



    not when civilians are deliberately put at harms way by the west so they can stur up more trouble.



    no, the blame lies with those murdering the civilians so they can stur up more issues as an excuse to eventually invade.



    yes, making them terrorists and no better then hitler.



    not humain at all. deliberately targeting something where there is civilians means you have no legitimacy and are the same as the "enemy"



    legality is more important then anything else.



    not good enough. their word cannot be taken for anything. unless put on trial one is innocent. a government saying something does not make it true, a government can never be trusted. the british government by carying out this extra-judicial killing have found these people innocent of any wrong doing. complete idiots.

    :o

    This reminds me of our chat about IW a while back.
    something illegal cannot be morally right
    - this was my favourite part. :)

    You've managed to blend in your hatred for the West, your staunch republican views, anti-UK bollocks, and "they're taking over the world" conspiracies all into one, poorly written post.

    When America and the UK 'get what they deserve', you have fun living in a world that's carved up by Russia, China and ISIS. Lets see what rulebook they follow.


  • #314
    SamHarris
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 1,633 ✭✭✭SamHarris


    end of the road wrote: »
    they didn't. they caried out a cowardly extra-judicial murder of someone who wasn't a threat to the uk (as if they returned there are plenty of laws to deal with them) . wouldn't expect anything less from britain though

    Clearly the vast majority of people disagree with you. Those men became a threat when they decided to join ISIS, perhaps even before that. They placed themselves beyond the reach of the traditional criminal enforcement of law, given the circumstances what other means do you believe should have been used to bring them to justice?

    It would not be moral for the British government to wait for them to gain the means of making good the threat they represented, it would just be stupid.


  • #315
    Overheal
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 86,683 ✭✭✭✭Overheal


    KomradeBishop wrote: »
    Actually they have automatic takeoff capability already in development/testing - and the further automation for these drones is only going to increase as time goes by.

    Remember, we're talking not just about the present capability of the drones, but the near and long term future of them.

    Another way these drones are not comparable to fighters, is that a single operator will eventually be able to control a fleet of drones, whereas a fighter pilot can control only one aircraft.

    The ability to control multiple drones, is already planned:
    https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/checkpoint/wp/2015/01/23/pentagon-agency-wants-drones-to-hunt-in-packs-like-wolves/


    Anyone who thinks that increased automation, particularly pilots flying multiple drones, isn't going to happen, simply isn't keeping up with the technological development here.
    There was a neat Stargate SG-1 Episode they did where a planet was 2 warring factions, the one in focus used pilots hooked up to consoles flying whole squadrons of fighter bombers.
    Gatling wrote: »
    Your links have debunked nothing it's the same ramblings that have been on line since the inception of the Internet ,
    Drones ,black helicopters and area 52 and a half
    You know aside from A52.5, the other 2 are actually true. Like wiretapping, it's only a 'tinfoil whackjob conspiracy' until someone actually confirms it's been happening all along. Governments have a history of operating conspiracies, and continually denying that they engage in conspiracies.
    Fratton Fred wrote: »
    What's a "legal mandate to go to war"?
    One voted on by congress. It happens more often than opponents argue it does; Formal declaration hasn't happened since WWII but authorizations by congress happen with much more frequency.

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Declaration_of_war_by_the_United_States


  • #316
    SamHarris
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 1,633 ✭✭✭SamHarris


    Overheal wrote: »
    You know aside from A52.5, the other 2 are actually true. Like wiretapping, it's only a "tinfoil whackjob conspiracy" until someone actually confirms it's been happening all along. Governments have a history of operating conspiracies, and continually denying that they engage in conspiracies.

    That in the past things the government said were untrue turned out to be true is not evidence that another conspiracy is true. They should all be judged on the evidence that we have at present.


  • #317
    Overheal
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 86,683 ✭✭✭✭Overheal


    Gatling wrote: »
    I believe in drones yes and but fully flying T800s that can fly off select a target and engage and kill without any human input what so ever is a science fiction script

    It's probably in development, regardless. DARPA was founded in 1957 in response to Sputnik - satellite technology blindsided the US and scared the living crap out of it. Eisenhower gave DARPA a simple mission parameter: "to make pivotal investments in breakthrough technologies for national security." By continually developing technology, it reduces the odds of another sputnik. Autonomic attack drones falls under that purview: the US will continue to explore the logical avenues of drone development, regardless of whether those technologies get deployed anytime soon, if ever. Some technologies are developed to explore the potential countermeasures.


  • #318
    Overheal
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 86,683 ✭✭✭✭Overheal


    SamHarris wrote: »
    That in the past things the government said were untrue turned out to be true is not evidence that another conspiracy is true. They should all be judged on the evidence that we have at present.

    Then perhaps people on thread should quit fallibly dismissing it as a conspiracy, and actually contemplate the thought in its due manner.


  • #319
    Fratton Fred
    Closed Accounts Posts: 26,567 ✭✭✭✭Fratton Fred


    end of the road wrote: »
    wouldn't expect anything less from britain though

    That says it all to be honest.


  • #320
    Fratton Fred
    Closed Accounts Posts: 26,567 ✭✭✭✭Fratton Fred


    end of the road wrote: »
    something illegal cannot be morally right. the only people who don't care are the typical delusianel types who trust everything their government says.



    yes, it would prove they aren't a cowardly nation. face your enimy



    no, your entitled to a trial



    your entitled to a trial. if not tried and convicted, your innocent



    not when civilians are deliberately put at harms way by the west so they can stur up more trouble.

    It is interesting reading your posts in this thread and then reading your other posts where you have defended pira bomb attacks on civilians.

    It shows what a complete and utter hypocrite you can be.


  • #321
    Old Jakey
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 436 ✭✭Old Jakey


    KomradeBishop wrote: »
    :rolleyes: This is scaremongering bollocks. Way more people die in western nations, from choking on their food, than are killed by terrorists:
    http://danger.mongabay.com/injury_death.htm

    I'll take the rule of law + the threat of attacks less damaging to society than people choking on a chicken dipper, over discarding the law and further destroying foreign parts of the world.

    People really need a sense of proportion here - what kind of scared/frightened cowards, want to throw away the rule of law, over a mostly overblown terrorist threat?

    What kind of coward thinks a country shouldn't fight back against an organisation that hates it?


  • Advertisement
  • #322
    Old Jakey
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 436 ✭✭Old Jakey


    end of the road wrote: »
    they didn't. they caried out a cowardly extra-judicial murder of someone who wasn't a threat to the uk (as if they returned there are plenty of laws to deal with them) . wouldn't expect anything less from britain though

    The killed two enemy combatants. Well done to the Brits and hopefully they get a few more in the coming days and weeks. If I went to wage Jihad with isis I'd be feeling a little nervous now...


  • #323
    .300 WinMag
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 61 ✭✭.300 WinMag


    Old Jakey wrote: »
    The killed two enemy combatants. Well done to the Brits and hopefully they get a few more in the coming days and weeks. If I went to wage Jihad with isis I'd be feeling a little nervous now...

    Have to agree, isis have shown the extremes that they are willing to go to, and it's only going to get worse, they do not even respect their own. Take Lee rigby's murder as an example what we could expect to see coming


  • #324
    CruelCoin
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 4,463 ✭✭✭CruelCoin


    end of the road wrote: »
    wrong, there has been no declaration of war on britain
    defacto != official. You and KB seem to live in this fantasy land where a war isn't a war unless some referee says it is. Nonsense. A war starts the moment one side attacks another, as ISIS did when it started executing British aid workers.

    end of the road wrote: »
    no . probably in one case that has happened and its used to justify more terrorism by the west.
    This is really stupid broken logic. "we made a mistake after the idiots shot guns in the air. We therefore should make more mistakes."

    end of the road wrote: »
    the process wasn't sound. its not "a shame" it happened, its simple murder and terrorism. meaning the country the drone operator is from condone terrorism and legitimize the enemy.
    Collateral damage is not "murder". You're really stretching with this point. All wars have collateral damage. The only way to avoid it is not to have wars, but well, you may as well tell water not to be wet.

    end of the road wrote: »
    the family contributed nothing. whoever sanctioned the drone pilot is the only one at fault.
    You don't think that firing automatic weapons in a warzone is contributory in the slightest? The drone operator was looking for targets. Peacefull villagers tend not to have AK47's......


  • #325
    Old Jakey
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 436 ✭✭Old Jakey


    .300 WinMag wrote: »
    Have to agree, isis have shown the extremes that they are willing to go to, and it's only going to get worse, they do not even respect their own. Take Lee rigby's murder as an example what we could expect to see coming

    Exactly. What Komrade Bishop and End of the Road don't realise is that we're at war with these people. Isis fighters are and will be returning and will be planning attacks. Some will be caught and hopefully spend the rest of their lives in prison but enough will get through. Taking them out in Syria before they can get back is the best defence.


  • #326
    Old Jakey
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 436 ✭✭Old Jakey


    KomradeBishop wrote: »
    :rolleyes: This is scaremongering bollocks. Way more people die in western nations, from choking on their food, than are killed by terrorists:
    http://danger.mongabay.com/injury_death.htm

    I'll take the rule of law + the threat of attacks less damaging to society than people choking on a chicken dipper, over discarding the law and further destroying foreign parts of the world.

    People really need a sense of proportion here - what kind of scared/frightened cowards, want to throw away the rule of law, over a mostly overblown terrorist threat?

    Isis are an overblown threat, sure ok...

    Anyway International law states you don't have wait for an attack before retaliating, so you can relax now.

    http://www.bbc.com/news/magazine-34184856


  • #327
    CruelCoin
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 4,463 ✭✭✭CruelCoin


    end of the road wrote: »
    they didn't. they caried out a cowardly extra-judicial murder of someone who wasn't a threat to the uk (as if they returned there are plenty of laws to deal with them)

    What a silly statement. In no way whatsoever does the presence of a law prevent crime/threats in their totality.

    Rapists get released from prison and you know what, despite the laws in place, many carry on raping.

    The only way to prevent a threat to to remove any and all possibility of the threat. For rapists, that's chemical castration, for jihadists, that's passport rejection or cruise missile enemas.


  • #328
    Hans Bricks
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 850 ✭✭✭Hans Bricks


    The definition of a combatant seems to have flown way over KB's head.

    EOTR just humiliating himself as usual. You're getting trolled lads. Don't waste your brain cells.


  • #329
    SamHarris
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 1,633 ✭✭✭SamHarris


    It turns out there was intelligence that one of them was even planning an attack in the UK. I'm curious as to how long those that disagree with the strike think the government should have waited? And give a thought to what the reaction would have been had the attack been successful and it had come to light that the military had a chance to put a stop to it, but didnt.


  • #330
    BlaasForRafa
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 7,020 ✭✭✭BlaasForRafa


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

    You on the other hand are effectively arguing for Daesh to have free reign and not to be dealt with, which is quite a peculiar stance given their barbarism, sadism and rapiness.


  • Advertisement
  • #331
    KomradeBishop
    Closed Accounts Posts: 4,981 ✭✭✭KomradeBishop


    SamHarris wrote: »
    And what legal process do you believe that to be, given the situation? Surely you do not mean criminal law, used in the UK itself. I seriously doubt any nation would tie its hands like that with regard to its own defence. And I doubt they would get any kudos from anyone but the most extreme in their own countries for doing so.
    The same international law dominating all foreign conflicts - the idea that there are no laws covering this is ridiculous.


This discussion has been closed.
Advertisement