PeteMorris Posted September 8, 2015 Share Posted September 8, 2015 So on the basis that ISIS act illegally according to international law, you think that the UK should also ignore the law? Because that appears to be your argument. As opposed to sit back and do nothing and wait for them to bring their crazy war here...YES. Lets face it, their 'execution' was far less extreme then the beheadings of British Citizens...They got off lightly! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Obelix Posted September 8, 2015 Share Posted September 8, 2015 BTW, what's this "rather different truth" you're on about with de Menezes? Was he later proved to be a jihadi bomber/accomplice? The police were convinced De Menezes was one of the bombers, hence the authorisation of Kratos to stop him. Like I said the truth was very different. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cyclone Posted September 8, 2015 Share Posted September 8, 2015 He wouldn't have been killed if those terrorists had not carried out those bombings . He also would not have been killed if he had not run away from the Police and if he had not been in the UK illegally . In the aftermath of the London bombings the Police had a very difficult task to protect the innocent public . Jean Charles de Menezes did not deserve to die or did the other 52 victims of those who carried out the London bombings . Alan Henning and David Haines also did not deserve to be murdered in Syria . I could be misremembering, but he didn't run away, he was running to catch the tube, and I don't remember him being here illegally either (not that legal or illegal status would have altered his death in the slightest). ---------- Post added 08-09-2015 at 11:58 ---------- As opposed to sit back and do nothing and wait for them to bring their crazy war here...YES. Lets face it, their 'execution' was far less extreme then the beheadings of British Citizens...They got off lightly! So you're of the opinion that the ends justify the means and that we should lower ourselves to their standards in order to beat them. I'm utterly and totally opposed to that. We MUST be seen to behave within the law, or that law has no legitimacy in the first place. How can we fight them on the basis that what they do is illegal if we ourselves act illegally. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tzijlstra Posted September 8, 2015 Share Posted September 8, 2015 When a country starts behaving in the way their enemy is, one has to wonder who the enemy is. I will never forget that a couple of months after 9/11 my brother was detained for 6 hours without food or water after a ten hour flight by the US border control because his birthday was 9/11, he had an almighty tan from having worked in Cyprus the three months prior and his name started with z, so they assumed he was Arab with a Dutch passport. Anti-terrorism action is not just bordering on illegal and stupid, most of the time it is illegal and stupid. After a while he was contacted by an ambulance chasing lawyer who got his name from some register and claimed my brother could sue the state for a nice sum, my brother refused, he shouldn't have, what happened was unreasonable and illegal and the ambulance chaser was right. When the state starts blowing away its own citizens, regardless of where they are or what the state believes they are doing, without trial, you know you live in a police-state. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PeteMorris Posted September 8, 2015 Share Posted September 8, 2015 I could be misremembering, but he didn't run away, he was running to catch the tube, and I don't remember him being here illegally either (not that legal or illegal status would have altered his death in the slightest). ---------- Post added 08-09-2015 at 11:58 ---------- So you're of the opinion that the ends justify the means and that we should lower ourselves to their standards in order to beat them. I'm utterly and totally opposed to that. We MUST be seen to behave within the law, or that law has no legitimacy in the first place. How can we fight them on the basis that what they do is illegal if we ourselves act illegally. So, how would you suggest we 'fight' them? Have a stern word with them? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
L00b Posted September 8, 2015 Share Posted September 8, 2015 Impossible to say isn't it?Impossible to guarantee 100%. Not impossible to say, as readily and entirely plausible. The only information we have that these men have been killed is from the government.And the families, who must have been wondering about the absence of personal calls since August and now know why (if they didn't already know from IS, but are making noises only now that the cat is out of the bag), and who have not denied the Government's claim (most tellingly) and are now demanding an inquiry. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
geared Posted September 8, 2015 Share Posted September 8, 2015 What has to be done for it to be seen as legal though? An enemy combatant, in a foreign country, in a foreign warzone - are they not fair game?? Do we have to declare war or something against IS to legally kill them, do we not currently hold the position that these people are our enemys?? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Obelix Posted September 8, 2015 Share Posted September 8, 2015 So, how would you suggest we 'fight' them? Have a stern word with them? 2 years ago Parliament told the Govt that military action in Syria was against the will of the Commons and against the desires of the people. We should be heeding that advice. It's up to the Govt to find alternatives that are acceptable within the laws of the land and international law. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tinfoilhat Posted September 8, 2015 Share Posted September 8, 2015 When a country starts behaving in the way their enemy is, one has to wonder who the enemy is. I will never forget that a couple of months after 9/11 my brother was detained for 6 hours without food or water after a ten hour flight by the US border control because his birthday was 9/11, he had an almighty tan from having worked in Cyprus the three months prior and his name started with z, so they assumed he was Arab with a Dutch passport. Anti-terrorism action is not just bordering on illegal and stupid, most of the time it is illegal and stupid. After a while he was contacted by an ambulance chasing lawyer who got his name from some register and claimed my brother could sue the state for a nice sum, my brother refused, he shouldn't have, what happened was unreasonable and illegal and the ambulance chaser was right. When the state starts blowing away its own citizens, regardless of where they are or what the state believes they are doing, without trial, you know you live in a police-state. So should Cameron have filed extradition papers to get these nerdowells back on a BA flight to heathrow? Give over. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Obelix Posted September 8, 2015 Share Posted September 8, 2015 What has to be done for it to be seen as legal though? An enemy combatant, in a foreign country, in a foreign warzone - are they not fair game?? Not when Parliament said no to military action in Syria they are not. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now