2 british terrorists killed by raf drones

[adrea]

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.

 

Only dangerous for British citizens that choose commit acts of terrorism in the name of Islamic state.

[Cyclone]

What makes you think so? Have you seen a policy that says when and where such a strike might be used?

 

Perhaps it's dangerous to anyone in a country without an extradition treaty who breaks a British law that is somehow applied outside Britain.

Perhaps sex tourists in Thailand will be the target next time (it's far fetched obviously, but the point is that there is no published policy and we don't know).

[PeteMorris]

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 ----------

 

[/color]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.

 

My apologies for labouring the point. But what course of action would you prefer? Plainly those individuals won't come back to be 'tried'. Very plainly they have paraded themselves on social media for the world to see. Did they think it was some kind of video game they were playing?

 

Yes I agree, parliament didn't specifically sanction military strikes in Syria...However that vote was 2 years ago, and that was in relation to Assad. Things have changed significantly since then.

 

The AG has publicly stated that he wouldn't have any concerns about it's legality. The defence secretary has publicly stated he would have no hesitation in taking similar action. Yet you seem to want to have them disclose every detail of their strategy.

 

I saw an article the other day, from the daughter of one of the British hostages who was beheaded by these terrorists. She was pretty frank and said it's a step in the right direction, but wouldn't be happy until they took out the so called Jihadi John character...and I can understand her pain.

 

You seem oblivious to just how vile these character really are! Really!!

[Cyclone]

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;

 

Now who's putting words into peoples mouths? (That's rhetorical, it's you).

Where have I refused to acknowledge that. Perhaps you thought you'd read my mind when I pointed out that we weren't at war...

 

Of course the explanation given (act of self defence, ONLY applies to other states). A point you refuse to acknowledge. And ISIS is not a state.

If this changes and 'self defence' can apply to individuals, then the UK can go around using Hellfire missiles on any domestic or foreign aggressor, which amounts immediately to extra-judicial execution without trial... Which is why I think there are questions to be answered.

[Berberis]

I think some people are mis-reading this threads title. These two were not Tourists, they were Terrorists and deserve what they got by what ever means our armed forces saw fit.

[L00b]

Now who's putting words into peoples mouths?

Not me, sorry to disappoint.

 

I've put and supported these arguments to you repeatedly, you have not acknowledged them. That's a refusal to acknowledge in anyone's book (except yours, I'm sure).

Of course the explanation given (act of self defence, ONLY applies to other states). A point you refuse to acknowledge.

Here's Article 51 UN Charter:

Nothing in the present Charter shall impair the inherent right of individual or collective self-defence if an armed attack occurs against a Member of the United Nations, until the Security Council has taken measures necessary to maintain international peace and security. Measures taken by Members in the exercise of this right of self-defence shall be immediately reported to the Security Council and shall not in any way affect the authority and responsibility of the Security Council under the present Charter to take at any time such action as it deems necessary in order to maintain or restore international peace and security.

Where does it limit the right of self-defence of a Member of the United Nations ONLY against other states?

 

Rethorical question: it doesn't. You are wrong.

If this changes and 'self defence' can apply to individuals, then the UK can go around using Hellfire missiles on any domestic or foreign aggressor, which amounts immediately to extra-judicial execution without trial...

only if that domestic or foreign aggressor (state or individual) creates "a necessity of self-defence, instant, overwhelming, leaving no choice of means, and no moment of deliberation" and, furthermore, only if the action taken is proportional, "since the act justified by the necessity of self-defence, must be limited by that necessity, and kept clearly within it."

 

This constituting the relevant legal test (aka the 'Caroline' test). With which (and the case law under which) the AG is entirely familiar I'm sure. Likely way more than you and me, and thus better placed than you or me (and most everybody else - including the PM) to qualify the legality of the act.

Edited September 9, 2015 by L00b

[johncocker]

Now who's putting words into peoples mouths? (That's rhetorical, it's you).

Where have I refused to acknowledge that. Perhaps you thought you'd read my mind when I pointed out that we weren't at war...

 

Of course the explanation given (act of self defence, ONLY applies to other states). A point you refuse to acknowledge. And ISIS is not a state.

If this changes and 'self defence' can apply to individuals, then the UK can go around using Hellfire missiles on any domestic or foreign aggressor, which amounts immediately to extra-judicial execution without trial... Which is why I think there are questions to be answered.

 

 

 

this is not bombing Syria. This is targeting specific individuals who mean to do significant harm. Does anyone care that these scum have been removed? I certainly don't care and neither do the majority of the population of the UK or most other countries for that matter. Do you actually read the papers and know what individuals like this have done? Seems not. Seems like you prefer to wring your hands and sign your petitions and blame the politicians. How about directing some of your vitriol to the vermin who are committing atrocities. And its not the drones. They have probably saved a vast number of lives..

btw/it might have been worse he could have had is sex slave with him when he got taken out:o:o anyway What's the problem? They said they love death more then we love life.

Edited September 9, 2015 by johncocker

[adrea]

What makes you think so? Have you seen a policy that says when and where such a strike might be used?

 

Perhaps it's dangerous to anyone in a country without an extradition treaty who breaks a British law that is somehow applied outside Britain.

Perhaps sex tourists in Thailand will be the target next time (it's far fetched obviously, but the point is that there is no published policy and we don't know).

 

I don't need to see a policy, I would expect the UK government to go after and kill terrorists, I also wouldn't have an issue with them going after and killing sex tourists that are abusing children in Thailand.

[johncocker]

I think some people are mis-reading this threads title. These two were not Tourists, they were Terrorists and deserve what they got by what ever means our armed forces saw fit.

 

 

 

 

so by cyclone's logic all terrorists need do is plant a few of the many "British citizens" who have defected to their cause in each of their terror groups who are marauding through the world slaughtering innocents and we can't touch them for fear we might kill the little darlings?

 

---------- Post added 09-09-2015 at 14:08 ----------

 

[/b]

 

My bold=

Do you watch beheading videos this way?

 

 

serious question mafya ,Is it true that if your killed by a woman you do not get the virgins waiting for you... You get a load of gay men instead and are ridiculed for eternity .....?

 

 

Reason I ask is that most of the Drone pilots are pretty young ladies with a flair for computer games.

[Timeh]

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.

You cant tell some people, i think you could be wasting your time.

 

---------- Post added 09-09-2015 at 15:46 ----------

 

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?

 

I never said i had any sympathy for a CONVICTED terrorist apart from the obvious sympathy any normal person would have for any human being who lost their life prematurely.

We are all humans and we all have to share the same planet.

Well at least until we colonize Mars in which case, beam me up Scotty.