2 british terrorists killed by raf drones

[PeteMorris]

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.

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

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 ----------

 

 

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

 

I hadn't thought of that...But either scenario is possible. Don't forget, they were in a moving vehicle at the time. Not the easiest thing to track I wouldn't have thought. Either way, they got the target, and I really don't care how. I certainly don't want to scrutinise their methods, and don't believe the gov should release any details either.

 

Or do you believe some kind of conspiracy is afoot?

[Eric Arthur]

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.

 

It wouldn't be good to act without oversight or checks and balances. That is why the Attorney General was consulted on the legal position and he confirmed that it was legitimate and lawful under UN Article 51.

 

You would no more be able to assess the evidence than you could fly up to the top of the Arts Tower. The only unusual thing is that for once a PM actually informed Parliament instead of doing it covertly.

 

What more do you want apart from to be right when you are wrong?

[adrea]

I keep hearing people moan about legitimate targets, terrorists that want to kill Britons etc. Good, so why object against a proper test of those facts in legal terms? If it is all above board, great, if it isn't than we all have a right to know that our government authorised a strike against two fellow Brits.

 

That would make future operation more difficult and compromise the safety of innocent people.

 

It also costs money, is your desire to know the facts more important than the people that will suffer when money is diverted from them to pay for a review?

[truman]

I hadn't thought of that...But either scenario is possible. Don't forget, they were in a moving vehicle at the time. Not the easiest thing to track I wouldn't have thought. Either way, they got the target, and I really don't care how. I certainly don't want to scrutinise their methods, and don't believe the gov should release any details either.

 

Or do you believe some kind of conspiracy is afoot?

 

I read a report that said special forces had been keeping tracks on the threesome and told the commanders when they had left in a vehicle...the "hit" was done on an open road which avoided "collateral damage"...true or not I don't know.. but quite believable..

[adrea]

Yes something changed. He ordered British citizens executed. Without oversight or trial.

 

---------- Post added 09-09-2015 at 10:08 ----------

 

 

I think that I'd like to see proof that the actions were legal.

 

I suspect that they probably were, and as I've said quite a few times on the basis of what evidence there is so far I think it was probably the correct thing to do. But I'd like to see all the evidence and a clear statement of a process from the government.

 

---------- Post added 09-09-2015 at 10:10 ----------

 

L00b can't tell the difference between voted in favour of airstrikes against ISIS in IRAQ and didn't vote in favour of airstrikes in SYRIA. It's not difficult to understand. Parliament has not authorised military action in SYRIA.

 

Why does it matter which country the terrorist was born in?

 

I'd like lots of things but in the real world I can always have them, get over it.

 

What is the cost of providing you with the proof that it was legal and where will the money come from to pay for it?

 

Whats more important the legality of the action or the Syrian people that are suffering at the hands of IS?

[PeteMorris]

I read a report that said special forces had been keeping tracks on the threesome and told the commanders when they had left in a vehicle...the "hit" was done on an open road which avoided "collateral damage"...true or not I don't know.. but quite believable..

 

I read somewhere...I think it was in one of the on-line newspapers (not a red top), that action was approved, providing certain measures were met. One of which was to avoid collateral, or civilian damage. Control was then left to RAF commanders to ensure those conditions were met. Which does indeed seem to be the case.

[L00b]

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.

I'm cheering for the strike on ISIL without collateral damage.

 

The strike happened to kill 2 well-known Brit ISIL recruits engaged in fomenting terror acts in Europe including the UK. They were well-known not only to intelligence services, but to any Tom, Dick and Harry who's ever glanced the 'Iraq' and 'Syria' channels of Liveleak.

 

If you or Timeh never bothered to glance, I'd certainly not hold it against you. But don't do at least me the injustice of trying to tell me that these 2 lads needed rendering to the UK for trial on the off chance that they were innocent, because I know for a fact they weren't: I've seen several of their videos, and screenshots of their Facebook and Instagram accounts. They were ISIL, proud of it and shouting it to the world.

 

For once, the intelligence services did not drop the ball, we did not have to wait for the said terror acts to occur and cause victims and an inquiry to take place about what went wrong at MI5, whilst offering condolences to victims' families.

 

Some lessons have obviously been learnt, the British government has decided to try and gain the tactical initiative locally, and to develop a corresponding and synergistic policy (ISIL strikes aimed at fragilising ISIL's social media tactics and reducing homegrown grooming and, at a smaller level, taking still more fight to ISIL to reduce their hold, with an end game of stabilising the area).

 

It's not a 'lack of concern', it's agreement with the policy and its implementation. A policy which the British government has used ample times before e.g. with the IRA (and the killing of British (NI) citizens assessed to be IRA members by MI6/MI5/SAS on the ground). What were you shouting then?

 

If in some years it eventually turns out that the 2 guys were stooges setup by MI6 or the CIA as part of some wider conspiracy, I'll eat my words and let my conscience deal with the aftermath. In the meantime, I'm happy to still buy into the concept that the British government is, by and large, still acting for the common good of the UK and its residents. Same as it always been, for a really very long time.

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

I have a low-ish security clearance from the French government (might well have lapsed by now), certainly doesn't get me any more privileges than any British Joe Lambda whatsoever about seeing the evidence which MI6 and, much more probably, GCHQ, gathered about these 2 and supplied to the SNC. What about you?

 

The nature of any evidence very frequently shows, or at least very strongly suggests, where and how it was acquired. Snowden's haul has shown as much, if any proof of the fact was needed, blowing the lid as it did on countless legal and illegal methods in use by the CIA, the NSA and others. Good that the illegal methods were spotlighted. Bad that the legal methods were disclosed to the bad guys, who promptly went about getting around all of them regardless of legality.

 

Showing that evidence to unaccredited persons will inevitably result in leaking of the evidence, telegraphing to the bad guys where and how it is being acquired. Cue changes to get around the gathering methods, so intelligence services have to go back to the drawing board to devise new ways of continuing to get intelligence.

 

I'll repeat: do you think security accreditation and clearance for intelligence work and data is for sh*ts and giggles?

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.

Whatever, Cyclone. At least I don't put words in your mouth. Edited September 9, 2015 by L00b

[adrea]

One mans terrorist and all that

Id like to see the evidence for why these men needed to be killed.

 

---------- Post added 09-09-2015 at 10:41 ----------

 

 

Ah, and there we have it. You lose mate lol.

 

They were British in Syria terrorizing Syrians, that makes him a terrorist, why do you have sympathy for them and do you also feel sympathy for the people they terrorized?

 

---------- Post added 09-09-2015 at 12:46 ----------

 

OMG you have hit an even lower low. You actually think ISIL are freedom fighters?

 

D'oh I've fallen for a troll again haven't I/ Why why why do I bite every time?

 

What makes you think Timeh is a troll and not someone that genuinely sympathies with ISIL?

 

---------- Post added 09-09-2015 at 12:52 ----------

 

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.

 

What make you think someone hasn't checked the evidence against these two terrorists. Why do you think you should be in the loop?

[Cyclone]

Whatever, Cyclone. At least I don't put words in your mouth.

 

No, you instead make irrelevant statements that are easy to misinterpret, and then pretend that the misinterpretation wasn't deliberately set up on your part.

 

---------- Post added 09-09-2015 at 13:45 ----------

 

Personally I'd like to see the legal basis for the action, even though (as I've said multiple times, I'm in favour of it given the evidence so far).

 

---------- Post added 09-09-2015 at 13:45 ----------

 

You've been arguing with me ever since my first post on this thread where I simply pointed out that we aren't, and can't be, at war with a terrorist organisation.

 

---------- Post added 09-09-2015 at 13:47 ----------

 

The point is that since we are not at war, and parliament has not authorised air strikes in Syria, using the armed forces to execute British Citizens for crimes they haven't been tried for sets a dangerous precedent IMO.

[L00b]

No, you instead make irrelevant statements that are easy to misinterpret, and then pretend that the misinterpretation wasn't deliberately set up on your part.

My posts are only "irrelevant" according to you, and only "easy to misinterpret" according to you.

 

I don't put words in your mouth. You're manifestly quite happy putting plenty in mine, and not manning up nor retracting when called up about it.

 

I don't have to "pretend" anything: it's all in your head, and I'd be quite happy to leave it there, if you didn't feel the need to continually proclaim it as Sheffield Forum's universal standard™

You've been arguing with me ever since my first post on this thread where I simply pointed out that we aren't, and can't be, at war with a terrorist organisation.

There was a bit more to it than that, though, wasn't it?

 

You've steadfastly refused to acknowledge that, in the present case, given the known facts (including what publicly-accessible and -verifiable information there is about the targets long before and in addition to the government's PR release, and including also executive powers legally exercisable by the British government) and the explanations provided by the British government, there was no need for the UK to be "at war" with Syria or ISIL or any old goat's herder, all nicely debated, voted and signed off by Parliament: it's a completely moot point;

 

nor was there any legal obligation on the government to consult the Parliament (that's your argument, to prove still);

 

nor is there any legal obligation to make what evidence was passed by intelligence services to the SNC for reaching its decision public to the likes of you or me (I'm pretty sure the Official Secrets Act has a lot to say about it).

 

The government was made aware of a danger by intelligence services (whose very job is to find out about it, ideally before it materialises), consulted internally with the relevant organs (intelligence services, AG, SNC) as expected of it, reached a consensual decision with the relevant security-cleared SNC members to make the danger go away as expected of it, and implemented its decision as expected of it; i.e. the executive apparatus of the British State did its job.

 

If you don't like the way your government does business on your behalf, even though it's been done in the way it's supposed to be done, through the requisite procedures, checks and balances, then I suggest that you petition your MP, file an FoI, vote different next time or run for office, rather than groundlessly question the legality of their action on here.

 

If you believe that your government performed extra judicial killings and must be held to account, form a support or lobby group and launch a private prosecution. Good luck taking on the AG.

 

If you believe that your government performed extra judicial killings and this is a precursor to armed drones killing citizens for thought crimes on British streets...you need specialist help.

Edited September 9, 2015 by L00b