2 british terrorists killed by raf drones

[Cyclone]

Do you think the met should have sent a couple of officers over to Syria to arrest them?

 

Quite clearly not, which is why this is new territory for the government and the legality and process for what has been done needs to be fully understood.

[Gamston]

This incident should be treated the same as the sinking of the Belgrano which means any documents are only made public after 30 years .

[woodmally]

Or, two men who now cannot prove their innocence or have their guilt proven by a court of law.

The family is right to want to know what happened.

 

So why did they go out there to fight in the first place? I have no sympathy.

[Timeh]

This incident should be treated the same as the sinking of the Belgrano which means any documents are only made public after 30 years .

 

Yes, The belgrano. That would be the ship heading away from the Falklands and away from the war zone only to be sunk by an invisible sub some distance away.

[L00b]

No, legally they aren't, they are recognised as a state, they're a terrorist organisation committing criminal acts. They can't be at war.

Trust you to go anally-retentive on semantics.

 

ISIS is self-declared at war with the West, particularly singling out the US, UK and France for overseas terrorist action.

 

So, please be sure to run your semantic analysis by those victims still alive, and victims' relatives, from terrorist events that have occurred in Spain, France, Belgium and Tunisia, won't you?

Yeah, because that's always worked in the past, none of the current problems are anything to do with similar responses in the past.

I'm sure Blair and Bush saying a few contrite mea culpas to Iraqis, Libyans and Syrians is going to solve all the problems

 

The causes and effects haven't changed since 1939, there is still only one way of solving the problem caused by dogmatic fanaticism waging total war: annihilation. Dialogue does not work, the last 15+ years of failed experimentations and Geneva-held talks prove it beyond any reasonable doubt. Just like last time, lest we forget.

So you're happy with extra judicial killing so long as it's been established by the media that someone is connected with ISIS?

The media didn't establish anything, the lads in question did it all by themselves through online self-publicity. The Government just killed ISIS' own Lords Haw-Haw. Yep, attaboys all-round from me. Edited September 8, 2015 by L00b

[Cyclone]

This incident should be treated the same as the sinking of the Belgrano which means any documents are only made public after 30 years .

 

Why?

 

There might be valid reasons that the intelligence can't be shared, for example exposing a human asset or a technical capability.

Or on the other hand there might not. It might be a widely publicised technical capability that was used, and so there is nothing to gain by hiding the intelligence when it would vindicate the actions of Cameron.

 

---------- Post added 08-09-2015 at 09:50 ----------

 

Trust you to go anally-retentive on semantics.

You'd rather pretend that legally we're at war, when legally we aren't. It's not anal to be clear. WE ARE NOT AT WAR with ISIS. We CANNOT legally be at war with them.

ISIS is self-declared at war with the West, particularly singling out the US, UK and France.

Irrelevant, we are not and cannot be at war with them, so any argument for legallity that you base on a state of war is fundamentally flawed.

It's not my fault that this is the reality, but you can't pretend that it's otherwise. And if you want to consider the legality of this action then actually understanding what being at war legally means is quite important.

The media didn't establish anything, the lads in question did it all by themselves through online self-publicity. The Government just killed ISIS' own Lords Haw-Haw.

 

And the question is whether the action they've taken is legal.

 

If you want to just give them a big cheer and ignore the legal questions then go right ahead. But don't claim that we are at war to support this action, because it's simply not true.

[RonJeremy]

I think they have a right to see the evidence which led to them being killed.

 

You would

[L00b]

You'd rather pretend that legally we're at war, when legally we aren't. It's not anal to be clear. WE ARE NOT AT WAR with ISIS. We CANNOT legally be at war with them.

I did not claim that we are at war with ISIS, you raised this argument first (that we're not) in post #14.

 

I claimed that ISIS is at war with us in post #20.

 

I made no mention of the legal basis or accuracy for this claim, because it is simply factual: the bodycount of US and European reporters, tourists and other everyday Joes claimed by ISIS to date, says you are trying to generate an non-argument, about which I am uninterested.

 

You can ignore the fact and hide behind a legal argument, that argument wouldn't save you if ISIS happened to lay their hand on you, and that's the acid test so far as I'm concerned.

And the question is whether the action they've taken is legal.

The British government claims that it is. That's fine by me until someone proves otherwise, and I am uninterested in proving otherwise or even considering the question.

If you want to just give them a big cheer and ignore the legal questions then go right ahead.

Well, don't mind if I do, then

But don't claim that we are at war to support this action, because it's simply not true.

Don't put words in my mouth. We've been here before a few times, haven't we? Edited September 8, 2015 by L00b

[Cyclone]

I made the point that we are not, and you contradicted me and said that we are.

But we are not. That's not an opinion, legally we are not at war.

 

I'm not hiding behind anything, I'm saying that this is something knew and that the government need to explain the legal position and how they have arrived at it.

 

Don't put words in your mouth. Who's splitting hairs and being anally-retentive on semantics now. Why did you even make this post?

 

They're at war with us, France and a few more, last I checked.

 

In response to my post

 

We aren't at war with ISIS, you can't be at war with a terrorist organisation, only with another state, and we don't recognize them as a state. And parliament hasn't authorized military action in Syria.

 

You appear to be deliberately trying to have an argument with me from what I can see, you attack me when I make the point that we can't be at war with a terrorist organisation, you say that THEY are at war with us which isn't true legally and isn't relevant otherwise in this context. I don't really see what point you want to make apart from the fact that you approve of what was done.

Personally I think there are some questions to answer, although at the moment I suspect that the actions were probably justified. (I just don't think it's as clear cut as you do).

Edited September 8, 2015 by Cyclone

[L00b]

I made the point that we are not, and you contradicted me and said that we are.

Show me, Cyclone.

Don't put words in your mouth. Who's splitting hairs and being anally-retentive on semantics now.

You, inelegantly.

 

Did I say "you are wrong Cyclone, we are at war with ISIS" ?

 

Did I say "the UK is at war with ISIS"?

 

No, I did not. You made a semantic point, I simply drew your attention to the fact that ISIS is committing acts of war against Westerners, irrespective of the legality of the term/expression/parliamentary sanction and which, for practical purpose, I consider redundant.

Why did you even make this post?

Why don't you wind your neck in some?

You appear to be deliberately trying to have an argument with me from what I can see, you attack me when

Seriously? Are you taking the p***? Edited September 8, 2015 by L00b