2 british terrorists killed by raf drones

[truman]

Really? :hihi:

Ok then, No im not saying that.

Genuine answer

 

So,for clarity,what are you saying...?

[L00b]

No, it shows 'We can kill you and we will if we want. As for evidence? We can always make that up later'

My, that's quite an expression of paranoid schizophrenia, if I ever saw one

 

Can you see black helicopters circling yet? Don't answer the door!

[PeteMorris]

I have done. Now, as im unable to add you to my ignore list i would ask that you dont converse with me again on this thread

 

It's a general forum. I'm entitled to post. Or must I specifically avoid 'you'?

[Cyclone]

My, that's quite an expression of paranoid schizophrenia, if I ever saw one

 

Can you see black helicopters circling yet? Don't answer the door!

 

You seem very blase about the government, specifically the PM, without checks or balances, ordering the execution of British citizens without having any evidence that anyone can check to see why...

You think it's all some kind of big joke, and that anyone worrying about the law is just being difficult.

[Branyy]

In this case, public shouldn't even see the evidence. Revealing gathered information about terrorists to public might also reveal your tactics and causing a threat to security.

 

And it's only good that government is capable of such a swift actions. If you don't like it, vote for another government. Or move to another country which works for your favour.

[Cyclone]

Are you being deliberately obtuse?

 

Have I claimed that Parliament authorised strikes in SYRIA?

 

No, I claimed that the British government did not need Parliamentary sanction for an executive order. Which was not taken solely by Cameron, as you'd have readers believe, but collegially at a meeting of the National Security Council as amply reported.

 

I clarified that Parliament voted against striking the official Syrian regime after its alleged use of WMDs on its population, not against (indeterminate-) 'strikes in Syria' as you'd have readers believe.

 

I opined that Parliament would likely vote to authorise strikes against ISIL in Syria, because they have voted to authorise strikes against ISIL in Iraq:

But I can't tell the difference, you say?

 

I don't suppose you're going to retract that, are you?

 

I think you're being deliberately obtuse actually.

 

You very carefully didn't say that parliament had authorised airstrikes in Syria, because we both know that they didn't.

Instead you point out the irrelevant fact that airstrikes are authorised elsewhere. So what? Who cares where else they are authorised.

They ARE NOT authorised by parliament in Syria.

Something that I suppose you find rather inconvenient to the defence you're offering for what's been done.

[L00b]

You seem very blase about the government

How do you work that out?

specifically the PM, without checks or balances, ordering the execution of British citizens without having any evidence that anyone can check to see why...

How do you know? Were you sitting in the SNC meeting? Are you or anybody else wanting to see the evidence holding a relevant security clearance? Do you think security clearance for intelligence work and data is for sh*ts and giggles?

You think it's all some kind of big joke, and that anyone worrying about the law is just being difficult.

Your debating standards are falling rather rapidly.

I think you're being deliberately obtuse actually.

I think you've got a cheek actually.

 

All the same, I'm satisfied that it's clear who's being obtuse out of us two in this thread. I've supported my opinion.

You very carefully didn't say that parliament had authorised airstrikes in Syria, because we both know that they didn't.

I'm really sorry that I dared to differentiate facts from opinions in my posts, to the extent that you now can't infer and twist the meaning of my posts to your satisfaction

Instead you point out the irrelevant fact that airstrikes are authorised elsewhere. So what? Who cares where else they are authorised.They ARE NOT authorised by parliament in Syria.

Who keeps bringing the 'need' for Parliamentary oversight in this debate? You.

 

The British government has executive powers allowing it to take executive decisions in circumstances complying with Article 51 of the UN Charter, which do not require Parliamentary approval. This strike was one such exercise. Same as the Operation Flavius strike 27 years ago. Same as innumerable strikes, some we've heard about, most I'm quite sure we never will, by democratically-elected governments exercising their legal powers over the past decades and longer.

 

There's nothing blasé about stating this, it's simply matter-of-fact. Governments of the 'free world' have long long been killing in the shadows, so much their citizens as others, for self-interest, self-preservation and in the name of the common good. To believe otherwise is to demonstrate naivety of a primary school age level. I'm happy these two were legitimate targets. I'm still not content that Dr Kelly wasn't suicided.

 

Why is the fact that the Parliament has overwhelmingly approved strikes against ISIL in neighbouring Iraq 'irrelevant' to the supposition that Parliament, had they been consulted by the British Government about strikes against ISIL in Syria, would have voted in favour likewise? Because it goes against your argument.

Something that I suppose you find rather inconvenient to the defence you're offering for what's been done.

There's nothing in your posts so far, that I find inconvenient in the least. Other than your intellectual dishonesty, that is.

 

No manning up and retracting your claim that I 'don't understand' from you, then. Or was that it?

Edited September 9, 2015 by L00b

[Cyclone]

In this case, public shouldn't even see the evidence. Revealing gathered information about terrorists to public might also reveal your tactics and causing a threat to security.

 

And it's only good that government is capable of such a swift actions. If you don't like it, vote for another government. Or move to another country which works for your favour.

 

It's not good that the government, or a member of the government can act without oversight or checks and balances.

 

Perhaps the evidence can't be released, perhaps it can, we don't know. What we do know is that this is something unusual, and questions surround it. Questions that the government should be trying to answer.

[PeteMorris]

You seem very blase about the government, specifically the PM, without checks or balances, ordering the execution of British citizens without having any evidence that anyone can check to see why...

You think it's all some kind of big joke, and that anyone worrying about the law is just being difficult.

 

It's not being blase at all...

 

I'm just wondering, how all these 'checks and balances' can be achieved without endangering lives (think about it...Intel must have come from people on the ground). Compromising security and leaving us in even more danger?

[Cyclone]

How do you work that out?

Your total lack of concern for what has happened, indeed you appear to be cheering them on with the extra judicial execution of British citizens.

How do you know? Were you sitting in the SNC meeting?

You and me are a member of "anyone". Is there any evidence we can check? No, there is not. That's how I know.

Your debating standards are falling rather rapidly.

If you say so. At the moment I can't even tell what point you're trying to make, you appear to have been arguing with me on this thread simply for the hell of it.

 

---------- Post added 09-09-2015 at 11:53 ----------

 

It's not being blase at all...

 

I'm just wondering, how all these 'checks and balances' can be achieved without endangering lives (think about it...Intel must have come from people on the ground). Compromising security and leaving us in even more danger?

 

Must it have come from someone on the ground? Not from intercepted communications?