2 british terrorists killed by raf drones

[Detetcive]

Its obvious that this needs looking at, as Brits were killed by the armed forces on foreign soil where we have no business to be.

 

Its a legal question that needs properly looking into. The PM works for us and he must expose how he made the decision to public scrutiny.

[gomgeg]

I wonder if any of the people worrying about the legal status of this were waiting for them to come back with the intention of committing terrorism, then point out to them they were being very naughty, and they shouldn't be doing it.

they'd be the first person to make a religious fanatic see reason.

[GLASGOWOODS]

So, again, if the government defines someone as "enemy" extra judicial executions are acceptable are they?

 

Lets just call it special circumstances.

[hackey lad]

they wanted to kill ,they got killed .job done ,onto the next one

[The Joker]

We should start bombing the Irish; they've killed enough of us over the years.

[Eric Arthur]

Its a legal question that needs properly looking into. The PM works for us and he must expose how he made the decision to public scrutiny.

 

He asked the UK Attorney General who confirmed that it was legal to kill a UK citizen who's an enemy combatant on foreign soil who was plotting to kill the UK Head of Stage (the Queen).

 

Have you got a suggestion for anyone to give better advice to the government?

[adrea]

So, again, if the government defines someone as "enemy" extra judicial executions are acceptable are they?

 

The government was elected to make decisions on behalf of the UK population, so yes it is their job to identify enemies of the UK and kill them if necessary.

[taxman]

He asked the UK Attorney General who confirmed that it was legal to kill a UK citizen who's an enemy combatant on foreign soil who was plotting to kill the UK Head of Stage (the Queen).

 

Have you got a suggestion for anyone to give better advice to the government?

 

Unfortunately just asking the attorney general doesn't count. Blair asked his attorney general and got the nod (although the actual advice was never published ) but in retrospect the evidence presented to the AG was a pile of pants.

 

Never blindly believe what a government says.

 

From the outside I have no problem with this action. Anyone who can join a group who is so obviously extreme and bonkers really cannot be reasoned with. They watched the beheadings of people and thought "that looks like fun, I want to be a part of that "

 

Anyone who thinks that way is abhorrent. Killing them was a lot easier than arresting and charging them. But in this instance I'm comfortable that job done.

[Ghostrider]

They joined ISIS with the intention of killing people, not just British people.

Yet when the terrorists get killed, the hand wringing do-gooders are up in arms.

 

Man up and grow a pair !

 

In February, ISIS announced that they were doing to smuggle 50000 jihadists into the UK disguised as refugees.

Over the weekend, our spineless PM states that the UK will take 20000 refugees by 2020.

Today, Sheffield council says that they will immediately house 10-15 Syrian families.

 

What about the Gulf states ?

How many of their fellow muslims will they take in as refugees....NONE !

 

We have all seen the videos of hundreds of men refusing food and water, unhappy that they are being put in camps & hostels etc...where are the women & children ?

 

Ladies & Gentlemen, the bodily waste is about to hit the fan.

 

I believe we should take refugees, but the right ones, for the right reasons.

[perplexed]

I'm with LOOb on this one... He's said pretty much what I'd post.

 

These two were self professed members of a terrorist organisation, and were under no illusions of what they were getting themselves into. They didn't join IS thinking they were going to learn cooking skills over an open fire at a jamboree...

 

They are enemy combatants - arresting them isn't a realistic option, and given the odds on certainty that they would kill anyone of a differing opinion-probably horribly-this leaves the result we have. It is palpably bonkers to hamstring ourselves by having to wring our hands and have a six month debate every time our forces need to fire a bullet.

 

No amount of moral high-ground claiming, rule book waving will save folks if IS get their way. Killing them may not be ideal - arrest and interrogation may be better - but that isn't going to happen.

 

Regarding the 'there's been no declaration of war' argument. As far as I recall, war was not declared between the UK and Argentina over the Falklands. For a non-war, there was a lot of fighting and killing. And 'States' have existed long before there was a UN to recognise them as such. Apart from having territory, a flag, currency etc, one of the historic definitions of a 'Nation State', if memory serves, is having the ability to impose its will by means of violence. IS seem to have these things.

 

They've elected to live by the sword.

Edited September 9, 2015 by perplexed