2 british terrorists killed by raf drones

[L00b]

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

You need to get yourself over to northern Syria and inform ISIL.

 

They didn't read that memo, they used it to light a bonfire under a caged live prisoner of war.

 

Let us know how you get on, won't you?

[Obelix]

You need to get yourself over to northern Syria and inform ISIL.

 

They didn't read that memo, they used it to light a bonfire under a caged prisoner of war.

 

Loob, with due respect (yes i'm going to be blunt here and possibly annoy you)

 

You appear to be conflating a worry with the process that was or wasn't followed with support for ISIL.

 

I think you are wrong. It's perfectly possible to be quite content that the removal of these people was a Good Thing and still to have the feeling that the manner in which it was done is a Bad Thing. By constantly making references, subtle or not that indicate otherwise you are doing yourself a disservice, and those you are debating with.

[Cyclone]

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?

 

Firstly it's not my logic, it's the law.

 

Secondly, we don't go around firing missiles at terrorist groups all over the planet do we?

[PeteMorris]

You need to get yourself over to northern Syria and inform ISIL.

 

They didn't read that memo, they used it to light a bonfire under a caged live prisoner of war.

 

Let us know how you get on, won't you?

 

I didn't realise just how many people are in the conspiracy camp here...That's actually quite worrying, as we've just voted in this government. And as you're most likely aware, I'm not a lover of David Cameron and his cohorts.

 

Ah well all the pontificating in the world won't bring those thugs back...and the gov say they don't rule out further action

[Obelix]

That would be zero Pete in the conspiracy camp.

[Cyclone]

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.

 

So basically you just have to hope that they behave as they should do...

 

Whereas I expect to see some assurance of such, in legal form.

 

I think the fact that you have no respect for the law or due process is made quite clear by the sentence in bold though.

 

---------- Post added 09-09-2015 at 16:10 ----------

 

I didn't realise just how many people are in the conspiracy camp here...That's actually quite worrying, as we've just voted in this government. And as you're most likely aware, I'm not a lover of David Cameron and his cohorts.

 

Not one single person has suggested any conspiracy.

 

---------- Post added 09-09-2015 at 16:11 ----------

 

. 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.

 

Actually the majority of the population seem to care that these things are done correctly and legally. We aren't some sort of military junta, we don't and shouldn't behave like we are.

 

---------- Post added 09-09-2015 at 16:12 ----------

 

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).

Here's Article 51 UN Charter: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. 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.

 

It also doesn't mention "planning" of an armed attack. Oh dear.

 

Ignoring you're off topic ramblings is not (quite obviously) a refusal to acknowledge.

 

Extending your logic though, if a terrorist here in the UK plans an attack, then a strike with a missile is a valid way to deal with it. Or indeed if the attack were planned against the US, they could use a drone strike to take out the planner here in Sheffield...

Assuming of course that

"a necessity of self-defence, instant, overwhelming, leaving no choice of means, and no moment of deliberation"

That applies. As it obviously did this time. There was simply no moment for deliberation, they were about to attack the UK imminently, from a thousand miles away, armed with hand guns, no doubt.

Edited September 9, 2015 by Cyclone

[truman]

So basically you just have to hope that they behave as they should do...

 

Whereas I expect to see some assurance of such, in legal form.

 

I think the fact that you have no respect for the law or due process is made quite clear by the sentence in bold though.

 

Genuine question Cyclone..which part of firing the missiles was illegal? The AG said it was within our rights to do this...

 

---------- Post added 09-09-2015 at 16:14 ----------

 

That would be zero Pete in the conspiracy camp.

 

Read some of Timeh's posts Ob...

[PeteMorris]

Not one single person has suggested any conspiracy.

 

I suggest you read back on the thread!

[L00b]

Loob, with due respect (yes i'm going to be blunt here and possibly annoy you)

 

You appear to be conflating a worry with the process that was or wasn't followed with support for ISIL.

 

I think you are wrong. It's perfectly possible to be quite content that the removal of these people was a Good Thing and still to have the feeling that the manner in which it was done is a Bad Thing. By constantly making references, subtle or not that indicate otherwise you are doing yourself a disservice, and those you are debating with.

No conflation here, or at least I'm hoping that's not how it comes across (I have a fear it nevertheless is...oh well).

 

Don't mistake a glib post 'at' Timeh as a representation of blasé-ism, or even triumphalism on my part.

 

I understand the argument raised about the legality of the manner. I have not seen anything which supports that argument so far. Even a little bit. My position is that there is no legal argument, until demonstrated otherwise, and that is the position I 'defend' in this debate.

 

I also understand the moral dimension of the argument. That's quite clearly opinion territory, highly subjective, unlike the actual legal question above. My position is, again, that there is no higher moral ground to be gained by questioning the manner of demise of the currently-least moral there is, regardless of their nationality.

 

As I have posted, very clearly, in here already:

• were ISIL generally respectful of human rights, I would have a different take on the question;
  
• had the British government killed these people, British or not, outside the legal test posited by Article 51 UNC, I would have a different take on the question;
  
• if it is later proven that the British government either did kill these people in error or lied and killed them outside the legal test posited by Article 51 UNC, I will adopt a different take on the question.

 

I don't wear a tinfoil hat, I don't have any axe to grind about the government, I don't have reason to disbelieve the government about this event (for context, I never once bought into the WMD lies in 2003 and always opposed the Iraq re-run; that wasn't anti-NuLabour or anti-US bias, it was -as in this case- cumulative hours and hours and hours of personal research and interest in current affairs from widely-distributed sources and objective assessement).

 

Whenever there are any such reasons, I'm never averse to pointing them out and adopting contrarian views. Refer e.g. my posts about de Menezes, ACTA, TIPP, the EU, Greece...there's way more.

 

No issue whatsoever about bluntness (I didn't think you were, FWIW), considering me wrong <etc.> You posted your thoughts clearly, without misrepresenting my posts, and without inferring meaning in my posts that isn't there. I never have any problem with that.

Edited September 9, 2015 by L00b

[Berberis]

Secondly, we don't go around firing missiles at terrorist groups all over the planet do we?

 

We do at those who threaten to attack or are in the process of preparing to attack our country or interests.