nav[aria-label="Primary Navigation"] { padding: 0; & ul { list-style: none; width: 100%; display: flex; flex-direction: row; justify-content: start; align-items: start; gap: 30px; padding: 0; & li { margin: 0; } & ul li { list-style: none; } } }

Child Item

UK forces kill own citizens in Syria

snubbleste

The British government authorised a drone attack on Reyaad Khan, a 21-year-old from Cardiff. Two other Isis fighters were killed in the attack on the Syrian city of Raqqa on 21 August. One of them, Ruhul Amin, was also British.“It was necessary and proportionate for the individual self-defence of the UK,” says PM Cameron

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?

Find more posts tagged with

Quick Links

Comments

KomradeBishop

SamHarris wrote: »

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.

You don't speak for 'the vast majority' of people, and it's incredibly arrogant to presume that you can.

No action was taken, that would legally strip these people of their due process rights.

KomradeBishop

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.

To be honest, the term 'conspiracy theory' and those like it, deserve their own Godwin-like law - it's only a matter of time in a debate where someone is losing an argument on certain topics, before they piss away any attempt at actual argument, and just start throwing the 'conspiracy theory' label around.

It's usually the sign of a failed argument.

KomradeBishop

Old Jakey wrote: »

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

The kind of 'coward' that believes the rule of law means something, and doesn't piss his pants at the utterance of the word 'terrorist'.

KomradeBishop

CruelCoin wrote: »

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.

Where are you pulling this bollocks from? Another straw-man. Nobody said there was no war, people have been disputing legality of how it is being enacted.

KomradeBishop

Old Jakey wrote: »

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

Yea ISIS are the latest fad in massively blowing out of proportion, a threat to western nations - the thing that's not blown out of proportion, is their threat to the region they are in.

Even if these guys do end up committing attacks, the average person will be more likely to choke on their dinner than die of a terrorist attack.

Also, the 'self defence' justification, is only met if the threat is "instant, overwhelming, and leaving no choice of means, and no moment for deliberation." - which is clearly not met:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Self-defence_in_international_law

There is nothing imminent/immediate about any 'threat' from ISIS.

KomradeBishop

Hans Bricks wrote: »

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.

You don't get to just state that someone is a combatant, and strip their rights, without any kind of due process - let alone when the 'combatant' is part of a group, where no legal avenue has actually been sought for declaring members of that group 'enemy combatants'.

KomradeBishop

BlaasForRafa wrote: »

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.

I argued nothing of the sort. It is however, none of the UK's business, and they should get the hell out of the entire region, as their actions there of the last decade+, have just ended up making everything worse.

mooreman09

Too good a death for them. Only a nutter would have a problem with this.

Pkiernan

What sort of left wing douche bag could possibly give 2 fooks about these Durka-Durkas?

Banned

Overheal

CruelCoin wrote: »

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......

In a war-torn area? I know people that carry a glock just to drive down to Atlanta...unless there is a curfew or ban on the rifles in the area, it is not due cause to kill on sight.

mooreman09

Only Paddy the lefty.

the_syco

The only thing ISIS did when they attacked England, was to greenlight any operation in the Middle East.

CruelCoin wrote: »

The drone operator was looking for targets. Peacefull villagers tend not to have AK47's......

Well, IMO the operators already knew who to kill. Pretty much everyone owns a gun. Especially villagers who'd need guns to protect their livestock, women, etc.

Paramite Pie

end of the road wrote: »

something illegal cannot be morally right.

It was once illegal for a woman to vote. In some places it may still be. The Law is not a guarantee of morality and can often work against moral rights.

Afterall, Hitler never broke the Law.

While it's important to question the legality and morality of this incident, it's also important to recognise that our Ideals and practicality/reality are not in sync.

BlaasForRafa

KomradeBishop wrote: »

I argued nothing of the sort. It is however, none of the UK's business, and they should get the hell out of the entire region, as their actions there of the last decade+, have just ended up making everything worse.

Of course it is the UK's business. Daesh has called on UK muslims to attack targets in the UK, it is constantly trying to recruit people to become terrorists and carry out attacks in the UK. Daesh has murdered UK citizens including aid workers in Syria.

Your bias betrays you and leads to a form of tunnel-vision time and time again. It's always "the wests" fault, it's never the fault of the people actually committing the deed, as if the Sunni's involved in Daesh in Syria and Iraq are just mindless automatons responding like Pavlov's dog to "western meddling". The members of Daesh could have responded to the instability in their countries through peaceful means but they decided that rape, murder and pillage was more in keeping with how they viewed the world. You effectively strip these barbarians of personal responsibility with your fixation of "the west" being always to blame for everything.

If "the west" wasn't carrying out strikes against Daesh you'd probably blame them for leaving the civilians in the area to the mercy of Daesh and castigate them for that. Look at the actual causes of the problem rather than what your bias tells you.

Overheal

BlaasForRafa wrote: »

If "the west" wasn't carrying out strikes against Daesh you'd probably blame them for leaving the civilians in the area to the mercy of Daesh and castigate them for that. Look at the actual causes of the problem rather than what your bias tells you.

That happens frequently,

'Oh the WORLD POLICE are at it again'

'When are these warmongers gonna stop messing in peoples business'

...

'Why don't the World Police intervene?'

'Can't believe other countries don't stop this'

etc.

KomradeBishop

the_syco wrote: »

The only thing ISIS did when they attacked England, was to greenlight any operation in the Middle East.

Well, IMO the operators already knew who to kill. Pretty much everyone owns a gun. Especially villagers who'd need guns to protect their livestock, women, etc.

What attack on England? I don't really watch TV, so I don't know what the media coverage is like, but it must be incredibly frenzied if people think an attack on the UK has already happened or is immediately imminent...

KomradeBishop

BlaasForRafa wrote: »

Of course it is the UK's business. Daesh has called on UK muslims to attack targets in the UK, it is constantly trying to recruit people to become terrorists and carry out attacks in the UK. Daesh has murdered UK citizens including aid workers in Syria.

Your bias betrays you and leads to a form of tunnel-vision time and time again. It's always "the wests" fault, it's never the fault of the people actually committing the deed, as if the Sunni's involved in Daesh in Syria and Iraq are just mindless automatons responding like Pavlov's dog to "western meddling". The members of Daesh could have responded to the instability in their countries through peaceful means but they decided that rape, murder and pillage was more in keeping with how they viewed the world. You effectively strip these barbarians of personal responsibility with your fixation of "the west" being always to blame for everything.

If "the west" wasn't carrying out strikes against Daesh you'd probably blame them for leaving the civilians in the area to the mercy of Daesh and castigate them for that. Look at the actual causes of the problem rather than what your bias tells you.

The attacks on UK aid workers give them a legitimate concern, but not really any business to be committing attacks/bombings in other countries.

The fact that the western meddling lead to ISIS and all of the current carnage, does not in any way relieve ISIS of responsibility for their actions, but it does mean that the UK should stay the fúck out of the region, because they have a proven track record of just screwing the place up and making it even worse than it already is.

The idea of attacks on the UK are, so a far, a completely unrealized fiction - and going to war in places of the world the UK has no business in, just makes future terrorist attacks more likely, not less.

Simple solution for avoiding terrorist attacks: Don't be interfering in parts of the world you have no business being in.

Even if that includes the cost, of facing up to an initial wave of terrorist attacks before antipathy towards your country dies down - an infinitesimally small/insignificant set of events, compared to what the UK helped do to these countries - that price is worth it ultimately, for both the eventual peace locally, and allowing the middle east to return to a peaceful/stable state (which will now take many decades/generations, thanks partly to the UK).

KomradeBishop

Overheal wrote: »

That happens frequently,

'Oh the WORLD POLICE are at it again'

'When are these warmongers gonna stop messing in peoples business'

...

'Why don't the World Police intervene?'

'Can't believe other countries don't stop this'

etc.

If they'd stayed out of Iraq in 2003, we wouldn't be seeing this mess. That directly led to almost everything that is occurring there today.

That was the pivotal war that destabilized that part of the entire region.

Fukuyama

KomradeBishop wrote: »

If they'd stayed out of Iraq in 2003, we wouldn't be seeing this mess. That directly led to almost everything that is occurring there today.

That was the pivotal war that destabilized that part of the entire region.

A dictator who is slaughtering his own people getting deposed by his own people creating a power vaccum. That's what happened in Libya. Could very well have happened in Iraq as it was a minority oppressing a majority.

If anything, it could be argued that US/NATO presence in the Middle East kept a lid on these things. The began withdrawing and suddenly there's less oversight.

With social media (the main driving factor behind the Arab Spring) Saddam wouldn't have stood a chance. Just like Ghadaffi.

Lemming

KomradeBishop wrote: »

If a citizen is to be stripped of his rights and declared a combatant, that has to happen through due process - not just be declared.

Simply labelling a citizen a combatant, doesn't strip their rights.

Oh I see how this works; you don't like what the actual laws state therefore they don't count when pointed out to you. The laws that you are so upright in staunchly defending, oncetheypilliorydebrits.

No, I never said a citizen being labelled a combatant under the articles of the Geneva convention under circumstances stripped them of their "rights", but it does confer consequences, least of all is that they are now officially - legally to those of you who are all about the law (apparently) - in harms way regards military response to their activities.

KomradeBishop wrote: »

Actually, if you'll look a few posts up, I replied to that and debunked that point. Since you're still carrying on the stupid 'robots take over' misrepresentation - which at this point, after I've clarified that many times, is as good as a deliberate lie/misrepresentation about what I said - I'm not going to be replying to you further, as you have proven you can not engage in debate honestly.

And but nothing. You "debunked" nothing. You simply did the equivalent of "BUT BUT BUT I DON'T THINK THAT'S FAIRRRRRRRRRRR ..... " and chose to ramble on with inane babble. You keep banging on about the term "due process" without once considering what it actuall means or implies whilst neglecting the salient fact that the British intelligence services spent months gathering intelligence on their target before deciding whether or not to actually carry out the strike against him. That was "due process" for an active, openly hostile target.

KomradeBishop

Lemming wrote: »

Oh I see how this works; you don't like what the actual laws state therefore they don't count when pointed out to you. The laws that you are so upright in staunchly defending, oncetheypilliorydebrits.

No, I never said a citizen being labelled a combatant under the articles of the Geneva convention under circumstances stripped them of their "rights", but it does confer consequences, least of all is that they are now officially - legally to those of you who are all about the law (apparently) - in harms way regards military response to their activities.

Eh, what 'laws' are you citing here exactly, to back up your position?

Again, as you acknowledge: Simply declaring someone a combatant, does not strip of them of their 'due process' right.

Setting out to directly kill a UK citizen is not merely someone being 'in harms way', it is directly setting out to kill a UK citizen without due process.

Lemming wrote: »

And but nothing. You "debunked" nothing. You simply did the equivalent of "BUT BUT BUT I DON'T THINK THAT'S FAIRRRRRRRRRRR ..... " and chose to ramble on with inane babble. You keep banging on about the term "due process" without once considering what it actuall means or implies whilst neglecting the salient fact that the British intelligence services spent months gathering intelligence on their target before deciding whether or not to actually carry out the strike against him. That was "due process" for an active, openly hostile target.

Eh, no - I directly showed how drones are completely incomparable to fighter jets, particularly demonstrated through the fact that technology is already being pursued to pilot multiple drones at a time.

You seem to be mixing up discussions here.

Gatling

Apparently further 12 more drone strikes against British jihsdis in syria and iraq have been signed off ,
It seem's the 2 recent kills were actively trying to recruit other British jihsdis to their cause as well as planning attacks .

colossus-x

KomradeBishop wrote: »

If they'd stayed out of Iraq in 2003, we wouldn't be seeing this mess. That directly led to almost everything that is occurring there today.

That was the pivotal war that destabilized that part of the entire region.

Why stop at 2003? What if Hussein never invaded Kuwait in 1991? Where would be now?

Do you really think the Iraq war singularly led to where we are today? As if the whole region were completely stable beforehand. Pfff.

Manic Moran

KomradeBishop wrote: »

The UK is not at war. They have no legitimate definition for a 'combat zone' that reneges citizens right to due process, outside of declaring war.

I believe you'll find they are in what the Geneva Conventions would term "a state of armed conflict"

I believe you'll further find that such a term covers the gamut of operations, from Irish peace enforcing in the Congo through Turkish police action in Korea to the Egyptian crossing of a canal in '73. There is no requirement for a formal declaration of war, and the laws of land warfare do not require one before they are applied.

[Deleted User]

KomradeBishop wrote: »

If they'd stayed out of Iraq in 2003, we wouldn't be seeing this mess. That directly led to almost everything that is occurring there today.

Back to blaming America for the decisions by ISIS to roast men in cages?

I know, I know, when the clear message in your posts, that America is to blame, was previously pointed out you objected, as if somehow you're not blaming America for the decision by ISIS to roast men in cages. I mean, in the above post you say it led to "almost everything" which I guess gives you some wriggle room!

Eugene Norman

Fukuyama wrote: »

A dictator who is slaughtering his own people getting deposed by his own people creating a power vaccum. That's what happened in Libya. Could very well have happened in Iraq as it was a minority oppressing a majority.

If anything, it could be argued that US/NATO presence in the Middle East kept a lid on these things. The began withdrawing and suddenly there's less oversight.

With social media (the main driving factor behind the Arab Spring) Saddam wouldn't have stood a chance. Just like Ghadaffi.

Libya wouldn't have fallen without outside intervention, bombings etc.

The idea that NATO were keeping these places stable is beyond laughable.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/2011_military_intervention_in_Libya

Eugene Norman

[Deleted User] wrote: »

Back to blaming America for the decisions by ISIS to roast men in cages?

I know, I know, when the clear message in your posts, that America is to blame, was previously pointed out you objected, as if somehow you're not blaming America for the decision by ISIS to roast men in cages. I mean, in the above post you say it led to "almost everything" which I guess gives you some wriggle room!

ISIS are responsible for roasting men in cages, the U.S. is responsible for the existence of ISIS

[Deleted User]

Eugene Norman wrote: »

ISIS are responsible for roasting men in cages, the U.S. is responsible for the existence of ISIS

And in a world without the US, how would they be applying their talents for roasting people alive, beheadings and crucifixions?

Eugene Norman

[Deleted User] wrote: »

And in a world without the US, how would they be applying their talents for roasting people alive, beheadings and crucifixions?

In a world without the U.S. they would be living under a secular Baathist government in either Syria or Iraq. In a world with the U.S. where the Iraqi or Syrian dictatorships were pro US that would also be the case

And other trivial answers.

By the way why are Irish right wingers so fast to defend the U.S. rather than say Europe. Where's the European nationalism?

You can even blame Barry the Muslim ( or whatever Fox News is calling him these days) for the latest rounds of insane destabilisation in Libya and Syria if you want to continue to think you are a right wing American.

Eugene Norman

You know the most annoying thing here. You know what boils my piss?

In 2003 I was arguing against americanised Irish neo-cons who refused to accept that getting rid of saddam was a de-stabilising factor, most even believed that he had WMD. Others were looking forward to a democratic Middle East.

Same idiots can't see anything that the U.S. is responsible for now. God no. Isis just appeared.

This kind of nonsense is safe enough drooling right wing crap if you are in Texas. You can believe any kind of nonsense because it's not going to threathen you. However American adventurism threatens Europe now.

So when it's gung ho against the mullahs in Iran in two years, try and think of the consequences of the destruction of Iran on where you live.