FabSwingers.com > Forums > The Lounge > Hypocritical Labour
Hypocritical Labour
Jump to: Newest in thread
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
 | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"There'd be stringent assessments into the individuals activities and he would have posed a direct threat to the UK. That's all the government needs to green light a mission. " To be fair i couldnt ever make a decision like that and i guess someone has to.. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"But I'd be very disappointed if there was any labour politician who condemned the killing of these men.. "Sadly I can think of at least two who might yet do that. I think the government are on dodgy legal ground with this one. But equally those friends and neighbours of the deceased jihadis need to take a look at some of the videos and messages they appeared in and then give their heads a shake. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"They are all clamouring for publication of the legal advice behind the drone strike to take out two terrorists in Syria. This would be fair play....if perhaps they had published the same about the Iraq war. 12 years on and we are still waiting! Personally I reckon anyone in I.S. is a legitimate target regardless Thoughts?" Perhaps, for once, Labour have learned their lesson. Although the Chilcott enquiry has yet to be completed, many accept that the Iraq war was illegal and illfounded. Is it right to criticise Labour for not wanting our country to go down that route again? | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"They are all clamouring for publication of the legal advice behind the drone strike to take out two terrorists in Syria. This would be fair play....if perhaps they had published the same about the Iraq war. 12 years on and we are still waiting! Personally I reckon anyone in I.S. is a legitimate target regardless Thoughts? Perhaps, for once, Labour have learned their lesson. Although the Chilcott enquiry has yet to be completed, many accept that the Iraq war was illegal and illfounded. Is it right to criticise Labour for not wanting our country to go down that route again?" While I would agree that Labour have every right to scrutinise the government and are right to express concerns on this one, there is more that a whiff of hypocrisy here. It is members of the previous Labour government (Jack Straw in particular) who are the main objectors to Chilcott being published, and I have yet to hear an apology from Labour for not only taking Britain into an Illegal war but alongside the Americans sowing the seeds for the growth of ISIS. The Labour party should hold its hand up, say sorry, and accept Chilcott. Then they can criticise all they like. Until then a little bit of humility should be order of the day. I would add that the Tory party doesn't come out of this smelling of roses either. Bombing Gadaffi out of Libya was a terrible mistake for which we will all pay a terrible price for many years. As for the couple of scumbags who copped it in Syria? I wont lose any sleep about them at all. My only thought was two less to worry about and good riddance. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"They are all clamouring for publication of the legal advice behind the drone strike to take out two terrorists in Syria. This would be fair play....if perhaps they had published the same about the Iraq war. 12 years on and we are still waiting! Personally I reckon anyone in I.S. is a legitimate target regardless Thoughts? Perhaps, for once, Labour have learned their lesson. Although the Chilcott enquiry has yet to be completed, many accept that the Iraq war was illegal and illfounded. Is it right to criticise Labour for not wanting our country to go down that route again? While I would agree that Labour have every right to scrutinise the government and are right to express concerns on this one, there is more that a whiff of hypocrisy here. It is members of the previous Labour government (Jack Straw in particular) who are the main objectors to Chilcott being published, and I have yet to hear an apology from Labour for not only taking Britain into an Illegal war but alongside the Americans sowing the seeds for the growth of ISIS. The Labour party should hold its hand up, say sorry, and accept Chilcott. Then they can criticise all they like. Until then a little bit of humility should be order of the day. I would add that the Tory party doesn't come out of this smelling of roses either. Bombing Gadaffi out of Libya was a terrible mistake for which we will all pay a terrible price for many years. As for the couple of scumbags who copped it in Syria? I wont lose any sleep about them at all. My only thought was two less to worry about and good riddance. " How can you say Labour should accept Chilcott when nobody, even Chilcott, knows what it'll say? Just your natural instinct to condemn Labour? | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"I may be wrong, but I thought the death penalty was still active for treason? Rather them and others like them than any atrocities planned for this country."  | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"They are all clamouring for publication of the legal advice behind the drone strike to take out two terrorists in Syria. This would be fair play....if perhaps they had published the same about the Iraq war. 12 years on and we are still waiting! Personally I reckon anyone in I.S. is a legitimate target regardless Thoughts? Perhaps, for once, Labour have learned their lesson. Although the Chilcott enquiry has yet to be completed, many accept that the Iraq war was illegal and illfounded. Is it right to criticise Labour for not wanting our country to go down that route again? While I would agree that Labour have every right to scrutinise the government and are right to express concerns on this one, there is more that a whiff of hypocrisy here. It is members of the previous Labour government (Jack Straw in particular) who are the main objectors to Chilcott being published, and I have yet to hear an apology from Labour for not only taking Britain into an Illegal war but alongside the Americans sowing the seeds for the growth of ISIS. The Labour party should hold its hand up, say sorry, and accept Chilcott. Then they can criticise all they like. Until then a little bit of humility should be order of the day. I would add that the Tory party doesn't come out of this smelling of roses either. Bombing Gadaffi out of Libya was a terrible mistake for which we will all pay a terrible price for many years. As for the couple of scumbags who copped it in Syria? I wont lose any sleep about them at all. My only thought was two less to worry about and good riddance. How can you say Labour should accept Chilcott when nobody, even Chilcott, knows what it'll say? Just your natural instinct to condemn Labour?" And your natural instinct to defend them. Nonsense. Many people know what is in the Chilcott enquiry. That is the problem. Since the Maxwell enquiry anyone and everyone who faces criticism is allowed to make legal objections. Many people have objected. MP's, civil servants, military commanders, and yes government ministers. Probably including Blair himself, but it is well documented that one of the most vociferous objectors is Jack Straw. If he doesn't know what is in it, how can he object? | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"I don't care about the legality of the act. they don't follow rules why should we. Maggie thatcher had the right idea in Gibraltar with the IRA. take them out before they take you out." Thats all fine when it's something like ISIS we're talking about but when it's a demonstration against policies by the government and they step outside the law then we're screwed. Government should be seen to be following in strict concordance with the law and to be held accountable if that is broken with upmost severity. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"I may be wrong, but I thought the death penalty was still active for treason? Rather them and others like them than any atrocities planned for this country." . There's no death penalty in the uk for any crime and hasn't been for years | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Well let's burn that magna carta because it appears citizens are no longer free from persecution by the state. If were determined to go down this route then a legal judgement based on evidence has to be used which would require public access! I'm no isis fan but the minute we stop giving a fuck about basic rights that came about through hundreds of years of struggle, were fucked!" A legal decision based on evidence WAS taken. Most of that evidence came from the intelligence community, and as such is exempt from public scrutiny for fear of exposing methods and sources. Well done Cameron, well done RAF. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
` | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"AND Why do we stop the malcontents at the border(Turkey) to have them flown back and be amongst us? Id let them go,recind their passport / uk nationality and if they then become a terrorist and get blown up by a Reaper,well,`happy to help you get on your way `"^^^THIS^^^ | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Well let's burn that magna carta because it appears citizens are no longer free from persecution by the state. If were determined to go down this route then a legal judgement based on evidence has to be used which would require public access! I'm no isis fan but the minute we stop giving a fuck about basic rights that came about through hundreds of years of struggle, were fucked! A legal decision based on evidence WAS taken. Most of that evidence came from the intelligence community, and as such is exempt from public scrutiny for fear of exposing methods and sources. Well done Cameron, well done RAF." ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ this! | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"They are all clamouring for publication of the legal advice behind the drone strike to take out two terrorists in Syria. This would be fair play....if perhaps they had published the same about the Iraq war. 12 years on and we are still waiting! Personally I reckon anyone in I.S. is a legitimate target regardless Thoughts? Perhaps, for once, Labour have learned their lesson. Although the Chilcott enquiry has yet to be completed, many accept that the Iraq war was illegal and illfounded. Is it right to criticise Labour for not wanting our country to go down that route again? While I would agree that Labour have every right to scrutinise the government and are right to express concerns on this one, there is more that a whiff of hypocrisy here. It is members of the previous Labour government (Jack Straw in particular) who are the main objectors to Chilcott being published, and I have yet to hear an apology from Labour for not only taking Britain into an Illegal war but alongside the Americans sowing the seeds for the growth of ISIS. The Labour party should hold its hand up, say sorry, and accept Chilcott. Then they can criticise all they like. Until then a little bit of humility should be order of the day. I would add that the Tory party doesn't come out of this smelling of roses either. Bombing Gadaffi out of Libya was a terrible mistake for which we will all pay a terrible price for many years. As for the couple of scumbags who copped it in Syria? I wont lose any sleep about them at all. My only thought was two less to worry about and good riddance. How can you say Labour should accept Chilcott when nobody, even Chilcott, knows what it'll say? Just your natural instinct to condemn Labour? And your natural instinct to defend them. Nonsense. Many people know what is in the Chilcott enquiry. That is the problem. Since the Maxwell enquiry anyone and everyone who faces criticism is allowed to make legal objections. Many people have objected. MP's, civil servants, military commanders, and yes government ministers. Probably including Blair himself, but it is well documented that one of the most vociferous objectors is Jack Straw. If he doesn't know what is in it, how can he object? " My natural instinct is to see the evidence, then decide. Nobody, to my knowledge has objected. Many are, rightly, considering their response to comments/ criticism made of them. Natural justice most would agree but you don't do natural justice, do you. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Well let's burn that magna carta because it appears citizens are no longer free from persecution by the state. If were determined to go down this route then a legal judgement based on evidence has to be used which would require public access! I'm no isis fan but the minute we stop giving a fuck about basic rights that came about through hundreds of years of struggle, were fucked! A legal decision based on evidence WAS taken. Most of that evidence came from the intelligence community, and as such is exempt from public scrutiny for fear of exposing methods and sources. Well done Cameron, well done RAF." . Well if it's immune from scrutiny it's got as much legal standing as fuck all! Apart from that these two guys were in Syria, which parliament hasn't even approved for military action, so in reality it's a state sponsored assassination of UK citizens and worse still by some sort of fancy PlayStation game. These two guys are 99% likely to be guilty but seen as were talking about killing them, I'd rather have independent scrutinised judgements | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Let's get back to the state running fundamentals like day to day governing, which we gave them a mandate for at elections! This international meddling has no mandate and never has. Why does David Cameron have the right to decide how many refugees get let in, how much money the tax payer forks out for it, who gave there agreement to any foreign policy, last time there was any public accountability for the Iraq war there was at least 1 million people who marched and disagreed. This democracy is bollocks" Sorry sb thats bollocks too and you know it.. what level of decision making would make any democracy better..? a referendum on events fast moving is not really a way to run anything.. decisions need to be taken and the decision makers held can or should be held accountable as per the system which itself isn't perfect but its the only one we have at present.. i marched on that demo and it was a mistake by us as a country but the Tories would have done exactly the same and did support the action fully so any point scoring by them and theirs now is hot air.. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Fact is we will never know what happened to these terrorists because lets be honest when they joined IS that's what they became and they got what they deserved for joining that lot.. we are not talking about the 'state' killing 2 citizens here and yes for which i would want scrutiny under the legislation etc.. but they gave up that right when they joined IS.. had they been killed in a engagement with whomever no one would on here bat an eyelid or give a toss, that it was by a British drone (if it was)matters not.. IS are a whole new ball game and whilst the rights of us are sacrosanct as citizens anyone joining that bunch of vile murderous scum has forfeited any rights to any sovereignty wherever they came from.. " . I'd have no problem with it whatsoever providing there's evidence that can be scrutinised by independent parties and if it's been given some sort of mandate by the people or at least parliament! | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Let's get back to the state running fundamentals like day to day governing, which we gave them a mandate for at elections! This international meddling has no mandate and never has. Why does David Cameron have the right to decide how many refugees get let in, how much money the tax payer forks out for it, who gave there agreement to any foreign policy, last time there was any public accountability for the Iraq war there was at least 1 million people who marched and disagreed. This democracy is bollocks Sorry sb thats bollocks too and you know it.. what level of decision making would make any democracy better..? a referendum on events fast moving is not really a way to run anything.. decisions need to be taken and the decision makers held can or should be held accountable as per the system which itself isn't perfect but its the only one we have at present.. i marched on that demo and it was a mistake by us as a country but the Tories would have done exactly the same and did support the action fully so any point scoring by them and theirs now is hot air.." . No it's not bollocks, major decisions that will effect a country for years and years to come and could not be foreseen should have a mandate from the people, Switzerland do it and I don't see why we shouldn't be able to | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"They are all clamouring for publication of the legal advice behind the drone strike to take out two terrorists in Syria. This would be fair play....if perhaps they had published the same about the Iraq war. 12 years on and we are still waiting! Personally I reckon anyone in I.S. is a legitimate target regardless Thoughts?" 100% agree | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
" No it's not bollocks, major decisions that will effect a country for years and years to come and could not be foreseen should have a mandate from the people, Switzerland do it and I don't see why we shouldn't be able to" Switzerland? SWITZERLAND? A country full of cuckoo clocks, cowardice,Toblerone, Nazi gold hoards and more corrupt bankers than our home grown corrupt bankers? Give your head a wobble ffs. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
" No it's not bollocks, major decisions that will effect a country for years and years to come and could not be foreseen should have a mandate from the people, Switzerland do it and I don't see why we shouldn't be able to " So you want a mandate from the people for circumstances that can't be foreseen? Good luck getting that argument across. What would you call the mandate? The Act to Act on Acts That We Didn't Know Would Happen Act 2015? | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
 | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"They didn't have a trial. And those two wouldn't have as much blood on their hands as bush n Blair. And we've had a very disinterested apProach to Syria, the Assad regime actually done way way more damage than Isis, but we do nothing about them." A trial ? Then our wanky justice system puts them away for life in a place where they can cause more mayhem | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
 | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Well let's burn that magna carta because it appears citizens are no longer free from persecution by the state. If were determined to go down this route then a legal judgement based on evidence has to be used which would require public access! I'm no isis fan but the minute we stop giving a fuck about basic rights that came about through hundreds of years of struggle, were fucked! A legal decision based on evidence WAS taken. Most of that evidence came from the intelligence community, and as such is exempt from public scrutiny for fear of exposing methods and sources. Well done Cameron, well done RAF." And that is why we were led to believe that there were weapons of mass destruction. And for those of you who are in favour of military action in Syria, please consider the lessons that we should have learned from our previous incursions. Are we not supposed to learn from history? If we did by a miracle manage to kill every IS member in Syria, what would fill the void? It is very easy to react to violence and horror. It is very difficult to formulate a solution. I don't have one. For once, I do applaud Corbyn. He at least wants to establish some form of communication. Probably hopeless though that might have been what many thought about the IRA, too. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"It's funny how you mention a celebrity that's been charged with something.... And everyones so quick to say innocent until proven guilty, blow them up with a drone in a foreign country.... Oh yeah obviously guilty! "Its nothing of the sort. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"The family of one of the crispy fried terrorists have just been inter_iewed on the BBC. Even THEY aren't condemning the drone strike. Only bleeding heart guilt trippers are condemning it. Get over yourselves and celebrate the destruction of these rats." HERE HERE | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
" No it's not bollocks, major decisions that will effect a country for years and years to come and could not be foreseen should have a mandate from the people, Switzerland do it and I don't see why we shouldn't be able to Switzerland? SWITZERLAND? A country full of cuckoo clocks, cowardice,Toblerone, Nazi gold hoards and more corrupt bankers than our home grown corrupt bankers? Give your head a wobble ffs." cuckoo clocks come from Germany. black forest. but I agree with the rest. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"I have only caught it on the tv as i was getting ready this morning. It would be easy to take that _iew but can you legally or morally murder anyone? Also they didnt do anything from my understanding?? Lock them up for the rest of their lives if they attempt but anyone can talk/plot or whatever the difference is the action... and no one should play god like that i dont think..." Is killing enemy combatants murder? Lots of soldiers who die in war never have a chance to do anything. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"They didn't have a trial. And those two wouldn't have as much blood on their hands as bush n Blair. And we've had a very disinterested apProach to Syria, the Assad regime actually done way way more damage than Isis, but we do nothing about them." did Lee Rigby get a trial? and the others? its just a shame thatcher isn't still with us. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Well let's burn that magna carta because it appears citizens are no longer free from persecution by the state. If were determined to go down this route then a legal judgement based on evidence has to be used which would require public access! I'm no isis fan but the minute we stop giving a fuck about basic rights that came about through hundreds of years of struggle, were fucked! A legal decision based on evidence WAS taken. Most of that evidence came from the intelligence community, and as such is exempt from public scrutiny for fear of exposing methods and sources. Well done Cameron, well done RAF.. Well if it's immune from scrutiny it's got as much legal standing as fuck all! Apart from that these two guys were in Syria, which parliament hasn't even approved for military action, so in reality it's a state sponsored assassination of UK citizens and worse still by some sort of fancy PlayStation game. These two guys are 99% likely to be guilty but seen as were talking about killing them, I'd rather have independent scrutinised judgements" Out of curiosity why is it worse that the pilot is sat back in a remote cockpit rather than in the plane itself? | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Well let's burn that magna carta because it appears citizens are no longer free from persecution by the state. If were determined to go down this route then a legal judgement based on evidence has to be used which would require public access! I'm no isis fan but the minute we stop giving a fuck about basic rights that came about through hundreds of years of struggle, were fucked! A legal decision based on evidence WAS taken. Most of that evidence came from the intelligence community, and as such is exempt from public scrutiny for fear of exposing methods and sources. Well done Cameron, well done RAF.. Well if it's immune from scrutiny it's got as much legal standing as fuck all! Apart from that these two guys were in Syria, which parliament hasn't even approved for military action, so in reality it's a state sponsored assassination of UK citizens and worse still by some sort of fancy PlayStation game. These two guys are 99% likely to be guilty but seen as were talking about killing them, I'd rather have independent scrutinised judgements Out of curiosity why is it worse that the pilot is sat back in a remote cockpit rather than in the plane itself? " if it keeps our boys and girls safe, so be it.  | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Well let's burn that magna carta because it appears citizens are no longer free from persecution by the state. If were determined to go down this route then a legal judgement based on evidence has to be used which would require public access! I'm no isis fan but the minute we stop giving a fuck about basic rights that came about through hundreds of years of struggle, were fucked! A legal decision based on evidence WAS taken. Most of that evidence came from the intelligence community, and as such is exempt from public scrutiny for fear of exposing methods and sources. Well done Cameron, well done RAF.. Well if it's immune from scrutiny it's got as much legal standing as fuck all! Apart from that these two guys were in Syria, which parliament hasn't even approved for military action, so in reality it's a state sponsored assassination of UK citizens and worse still by some sort of fancy PlayStation game. These two guys are 99% likely to be guilty but seen as were talking about killing them, I'd rather have independent scrutinised judgements Out of curiosity why is it worse that the pilot is sat back in a remote cockpit rather than in the plane itself? " If anything it must be better than a pilot being there for all concerned? Decision making much quicker with supervision in the room less distractions and risk to pilot I see non autonomous drones as a good thing. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"It's funny how you mention a celebrity that's been charged with something.... And everyones so quick to say innocent until proven guilty, blow them up with a drone in a foreign country.... Oh yeah obviously guilty! "They were guilty of joining isis, of that there is no doubt. Or did you not see them on national television declaring their allegiance to isis? | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"I may be wrong, but I thought the death penalty was still active for treason? Rather them and others like them than any atrocities planned for this country.. There's no death penalty in the uk for any crime and hasn't been for years" I did say I may be wrong! Perhaps we should rethink it, because that's what these and others are doing. Plotting against the country and its citizens. Maybe we could bring back public hangings, or introduce stoning or throwing people off the highest building. Reminds me of some group, can't think who? | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"But I'd be very disappointed if there was any labour politician who condemned the killing of these men..
Sadly I can think of at least two who might yet do that.
I think the government are on dodgy legal ground with this one. But equally those friends and neighbours of the deceased jihadis need to take a look at some of the videos and messages they appeared in and then give their heads a shake."Step forward Jeremy Corbyn. This is a man who said the death of Osama bin Laden was a "tragedy" and who cuddles upto the likes of extremist terrorist groups like Hamas. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"I may be wrong, but I thought the death penalty was still active for treason? Rather them and others like them than any atrocities planned for this country.. There's no death penalty in the uk for any crime and hasn't been for years I did say I may be wrong! Perhaps we should rethink it, because that's what these and others are doing. Plotting against the country and its citizens. Maybe we could bring back public hangings, or introduce stoning or throwing people off the highest building. Reminds me of some group, can't think who? " They also put people in cages and drown them in isis swimming pools. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Well let's burn that magna carta because it appears citizens are no longer free from persecution by the state. If were determined to go down this route then a legal judgement based on evidence has to be used which would require public access! I'm no isis fan but the minute we stop giving a fuck about basic rights that came about through hundreds of years of struggle, were fucked! A legal decision based on evidence WAS taken. Most of that evidence came from the intelligence community, and as such is exempt from public scrutiny for fear of exposing methods and sources. Well done Cameron, well done RAF.. Well if it's immune from scrutiny it's got as much legal standing as fuck all! Apart from that these two guys were in Syria, which parliament hasn't even approved for military action, so in reality it's a state sponsored assassination of UK citizens and worse still by some sort of fancy PlayStation game. These two guys are 99% likely to be guilty but seen as were talking about killing them, I'd rather have independent scrutinised judgements Out of curiosity why is it worse that the pilot is sat back in a remote cockpit rather than in the plane itself? If anything it must be better than a pilot being there for all concerned? Decision making much quicker with supervision in the room less distractions and risk to pilot I see non autonomous drones as a good thing. " Also way cheaper, the equipment needed to fit flight instruments and life support equipment and ejector seats etc to a plane is seriously expensive. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"But I'd be very disappointed if there was any labour politician who condemned the killing of these men..
Sadly I can think of at least two who might yet do that.
I think the government are on dodgy legal ground with this one. But equally those friends and neighbours of the deceased jihadis need to take a look at some of the videos and messages they appeared in and then give their heads a shake.
Step forward Jeremy Corbyn. This is a man who said the death of Osama bin Laden was a "tragedy" and who cuddles upto the likes of extremist terrorist groups like Hamas. "That, as I hope you know, is bollox. Corbyn said it was a tragedy because he believed Bin Laden should have been tried before a court. As for cuddling up to terrorists, it's only a matter of time before all extreme terrorist groups realise they have to talk. Look at the IRA. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"But I'd be very disappointed if there was any labour politician who condemned the killing of these men..
Sadly I can think of at least two who might yet do that.
I think the government are on dodgy legal ground with this one. But equally those friends and neighbours of the deceased jihadis need to take a look at some of the videos and messages they appeared in and then give their heads a shake.
Step forward Jeremy Corbyn. This is a man who said the death of Osama bin Laden was a "tragedy" and who cuddles upto the likes of extremist terrorist groups like Hamas.
That, as I hope you know, is bollox.
Corbyn said it was a tragedy because he believed Bin Laden should have been tried before a court.
As for cuddling up to terrorists, it's only a matter of time before all extreme terrorist groups realise they have to talk. Look at the IRA."To call the death of bin Laden a "tragedy" under any circumstances is wrong. Suprised anyone would defend his use of language in that regard but if it makes you feel better please continue. Most of the western world celebrated the death of bin Laden, street parties in New York, while Corbyn was calling it a tragedy. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
" Corbyn said it was a tragedy because he believed Bin Laden should have been tried before a court. As for cuddling up to terrorists, it's only a matter of time before all extreme terrorist groups realise they have to talk. Look at the IRA." Would that be the IRA recently accused of killing another man in Belfast? The IRA that 'no longer exists'? You lie with dogs, you get fleas. Corbyn is a national disgrace. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"My mind keeps coming back to that poor professor of antiquities who was beheaded and left at the side of the road defiled. All because he refused to state where the artefacts had been moved to. I register 0 sympathy for these males who turned there back on the UK. More drone strikes have not been ruled out in these circumstances. Long may the Hellfire missiles rain down on such barbarism. Better a hellfire to the face than being burnt alive or thrown from a high height because your gay or don't conform. " That's a reasonable point of _iew. However, anyone with an ounce of sense would be very wary of letting David Cameron be the deciding authority on whether a British citizen should be executed on a whim, rather than the tried and tested method of judicial process. And then prison, rather than education. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"My mind keeps coming back to that poor professor of antiquities who was beheaded and left at the side of the road defiled. All because he refused to state where the artefacts had been moved to. I register 0 sympathy for these males who turned there back on the UK. More drone strikes have not been ruled out in these circumstances. Long may the Hellfire missiles rain down on such barbarism. Better a hellfire to the face than being burnt alive or thrown from a high height because your gay or don't conform. That's a reasonable point of _iew. However, anyone with an ounce of sense would be very wary of letting David Cameron be the deciding authority on whether a British citizen should be executed on a whim, rather than the tried and tested method of judicial process. And then prison, rather than education." Yeah but you try performing a citizens arrest in the middle of the Syrian desert in an area controlled by the Daesh. And I doubt it was done on a whim? | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"It certainly wasn't done by the exercise of law." Article 51 of the United Nations charter. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"It certainly wasn't done by the exercise of law." What they do is not exactly legal | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"It certainly wasn't done by the exercise of law. What they do is not exactly legal " It was perfectly legal. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Regarding the armchair lawyers who think that Article 51 as some sort of legal defence to Cameron's murder spree, it is as follows: Member states have an "inherent right of self-defence" if an armed attack is occurring or is believed to be imminent. If you think that includes blowing up a man in a jeep thousands of miles away from the UK, and killing a group of other people who the Government have no idea who they were, you are crackers. It's not a coincidence that the Government are refusing to give any detail of the legal framework on which this murder was based." More than happy to accept the inner workings of Goverment and their justification in this instance. I'm guessing the intelligence is very sensitive around it and could potentially leave source's at risk of harm. Start out wide and come in narrow 
Posted from my Armchair. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Regarding the armchair lawyers who think that Article 51 as some sort of legal defence to Cameron's murder spree, it is as follows: Member states have an "inherent right of self-defence" if an armed attack is occurring or is believed to be imminent. If you think that includes blowing up a man in a jeep thousands of miles away from the UK, and killing a group of other people who the Government have no idea who they were, you are crackers. It's not a coincidence that the Government are refusing to give any detail of the legal framework on which this murder was based." The government knew exactly who these people were though. Names have been released on the news. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"I don't think there is a Prime Minister this country has ever had who I would trust less with the dubious honour of becoming our first extra-judicial executioner. It just shows how supine people have become, that they are happy to throw away due process because the Daily Mail tells them ISIS are hiding under their beds. Truly unbelievable." First extra judicial murdering Prime minister? Due process goes out the window so save your faux outrage. In the real word hard decisions have to be made. Hands unfortunately need to get dirty from now on. People need to be saved from the cruelty and murder that these men perpetrate. What's unbelievable is that people stand idly by and complain. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"But I'd be very disappointed if there was any labour politician who condemned the killing of these men..
Sadly I can think of at least two who might yet do that.
I think the government are on dodgy legal ground with this one. But equally those friends and neighbours of the deceased jihadis need to take a look at some of the videos and messages they appeared in and then give their heads a shake."I don't think there is anything dodgy about the legality of the attack. It can clearly be argued that it's covered by UN article 51 (I think) which allows any sovereign state to take any proportionate military action in self-defense. As long as the government has not mislead parliament the legality of the action is not really in question. The question is not whether the action and policy it was based is legal, it almost certainly is, but whether the policy is a good one that will lead to an improvement in the situation in either Syria, Iraq or the middle east. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"It certainly wasn't done by the exercise of law. What they do is not exactly legal It was perfectly legal." I meant ISIS killing people. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"It's simple. If it was legal, the Government would release the legal framework. They are not doing so, because it is not. It was an extrajudicial execution. A murder. There is really no more to it than that. People who talk about 'hard decisions' having to be made have watched too many Ross Kemp videos." Got called an armchair lawyer fair one I do have an armchair. Then a daily mail reader ok occasionally as the sport is pretty good. But as for watching Ross Kemp how fucking dare you!!!!!!!!!?????!??!??!? | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"They are all clamouring for publication of the legal advice behind the drone strike to take out two terrorists in Syria. This would be fair play....if perhaps they had published the same about the Iraq war. 12 years on and we are still waiting! Personally I reckon anyone in I.S. is a legitimate target regardless Thoughts? Perhaps, for once, Labour have learned their lesson. Although the Chilcott enquiry has yet to be completed, many accept that the Iraq war was illegal and illfounded. Is it right to criticise Labour for not wanting our country to go down that route again?" Many may BELIEVE that the Iraq war was illegal and ill-founded but that is just a belief. One (being ill-founded) may be backed by the proof of events but the other (being illegal) is unlikely to ever be proved, probably because it's not actually true. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"It's simple. If it was legal, the Government would release the legal framework. They are not doing so, because it is not. It was an extrajudicial execution. A murder. There is really no more to it than that. People who talk about 'hard decisions' having to be made have watched too many Ross Kemp videos." Some people may have watched too may Disney films if they think the world is all sweetness and light. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"It certainly wasn't done by the exercise of law. What they do is not exactly legal It was perfectly legal. I meant ISIS killing people." So you think the way to deal with law breakers is by breaking the law? Why don't we do away with juries here, and let the police decide sentences on the spot? With a bazooka? | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"It's simple. If it was legal, the Government would release the legal framework. They are not doing so, because it is not. It was an extrajudicial execution. A murder. There is really no more to it than that. People who talk about 'hard decisions' having to be made have watched too many Ross Kemp videos. Some people may have watched too may Disney films if they think the world is all sweetness and light. " Alright Ross, settle down. What's on ITV4 tonight? | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"It certainly wasn't done by the exercise of law. What they do is not exactly legal It was perfectly legal. I meant ISIS killing people. So you think the way to deal with law breakers is by breaking the law? Why don't we do away with juries here, and let the police decide sentences on the spot? With a bazooka?" I didn't give my _iew at all on what has happened. I just pointed out that beheading etc is not legal. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"It certainly wasn't done by the exercise of law. What they do is not exactly legal It was perfectly legal. I meant ISIS killing people. So you think the way to deal with law breakers is by breaking the law? Why don't we do away with juries here, and let the police decide sentences on the spot? With a bazooka? I didn't give my _iew at all on what has happened. I just pointed out that beheading etc is not legal." Nor is executing British citizens. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"I may be wrong, but I thought the death penalty was still active for treason? Rather them and others like them than any atrocities planned for this country." Not any longer. It was abolished for treason about 10 years ago. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"It's simple. If it was legal, the Government would release the legal framework. They are not doing so, because it is not. It was an extrajudicial execution. A murder. There is really no more to it than that. People who talk about 'hard decisions' having to be made have watched too many Ross Kemp videos. Got called an armchair lawyer fair one I do have an armchair. Then a daily mail reader ok occasionally as the sport is pretty good. But as for watching Ross Kemp how fucking dare you!!!!!!!!!?????!??!??!? " Ross Kemp documentaries are quite good, much more informative about the modern world than Disney films anyway. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"It's simple. If it was legal, the Government would release the legal framework. They are not doing so, because it is not. It was an extrajudicial execution. A murder. There is really no more to it than that. People who talk about 'hard decisions' having to be made have watched too many Ross Kemp videos." Bullshit. The sources that could be compromised by revelation of the intelligence gathering that led to this strike would have an extremely damaging effect on the country. These sources can possibly be used again and again to target these murdering ragheads, so more power to their elbow. The government have told us that the legal issues were checked by the Attorney General, who cleared the proposed action. It is unreasonable to expect details of the intelligence to be revealed for exactly the reasons above. As we posted earlier - Even the FAMILIES of the terrorists haven't condemned the strike. Quite frankly, bleeding heart liberals wringing their hands over the issue won't make a ha'porth of difference. It happened. Hopefully it will happen again with similar results. These bastards are happy to blow themselves up on trains and buses full of innocent citizens of this and other countries - Fuck 'em. Kill them all and let their imaginary god sort them out. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"It's simple. If it was legal, the Government would release the legal framework. They are not doing so, because it is not. It was an extrajudicial execution. A murder. There is really no more to it than that. People who talk about 'hard decisions' having to be made have watched too many Ross Kemp videos. Got called an armchair lawyer fair one I do have an armchair. Then a daily mail reader ok occasionally as the sport is pretty good. But as for watching Ross Kemp how fucking dare you!!!!!!!!!?????!??!??!? Ross Kemp documentaries are quite good, much more informative about the modern world than Disney films anyway. "But no more truthful. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"It certainly wasn't done by the exercise of law. What they do is not exactly legal It was perfectly legal. I meant ISIS killing people. So you think the way to deal with law breakers is by breaking the law? Why don't we do away with juries here, and let the police decide sentences on the spot? With a bazooka? I didn't give my _iew at all on what has happened. I just pointed out that beheading etc is not legal. Nor is executing British citizens." Which brings us full circle | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"I don't care about the legality of the act. they don't follow rules why should we. Maggie thatcher had the right idea in Gibraltar with the IRA. take them out before they take you out. Thats all fine when it's something like ISIS we're talking about but when it's a demonstration against policies by the government and they step outside the law then we're screwed. Government should be seen to be following in strict concordance with the law and to be held accountable if that is broken with upmost severity." agree totally with this. However I would add that I think it's unlikely in _iew of the circumstances that this action was illegal. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"It's simple. If it was legal, the Government would release the legal framework. They are not doing so, because it is not. It was an extrajudicial execution. A murder. There is really no more to it than that. People who talk about 'hard decisions' having to be made have watched too many Ross Kemp videos. Bullshit. The sources that could be compromised by revelation of the intelligence gathering that led to this strike would have an extremely damaging effect on the country. These sources can possibly be used again and again to target these murdering ragheads, so more power to their elbow. The government have told us that the legal issues were checked by the Attorney General, who cleared the proposed action. It is unreasonable to expect details of the intelligence to be revealed for exactly the reasons above. As we posted earlier - Even the FAMILIES of the terrorists haven't condemned the strike. Quite frankly, bleeding heart liberals wringing their hands over the issue won't make a ha'porth of difference. It happened. Hopefully it will happen again with similar results. These bastards are happy to blow themselves up on trains and buses full of innocent citizens of this and other countries - Fuck 'em. Kill them all and let their imaginary god sort them out. " Fuck yeah!!!!!!! Apart from the imaginary God bit!!! I have benefited from Islam and true Islam is a beautiful and peaceful thing to behold! | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"I may be wrong, but I thought the death penalty was still active for treason? Rather them and others like them than any atrocities planned for this country. Not any longer. It was abolished for treason about 10 years ago." Capital punishment was finally abolished in 1998. Until then it was still in force for Treason, sabotage in her Majesty's shipyards and Sedition (I think). | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Well let's burn that magna carta because it appears citizens are no longer free from persecution by the state. If were determined to go down this route then a legal judgement based on evidence has to be used which would require public access! I'm no isis fan but the minute we stop giving a fuck about basic rights that came about through hundreds of years of struggle, were fucked! A legal decision based on evidence WAS taken. Most of that evidence came from the intelligence community, and as such is exempt from public scrutiny for fear of exposing methods and sources. Well done Cameron, well done RAF." Correct but... | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"It's simple. If it was legal, the Government would release the legal framework. They are not doing so, because it is not. It was an extrajudicial execution. A murder. There is really no more to it than that. People who talk about 'hard decisions' having to be made have watched too many Ross Kemp videos. Bullshit. The sources that could be compromised by revelation of the intelligence gathering that led to this strike would have an extremely damaging effect on the country. These sources can possibly be used again and again to target these murdering ragheads, so more power to their elbow. The government have told us that the legal issues were checked by the Attorney General, who cleared the proposed action. It is unreasonable to expect details of the intelligence to be revealed for exactly the reasons above. As we posted earlier - Even the FAMILIES of the terrorists haven't condemned the strike. Quite frankly, bleeding heart liberals wringing their hands over the issue won't make a ha'porth of difference. It happened. Hopefully it will happen again with similar results. These bastards are happy to blow themselves up on trains and buses full of innocent citizens of this and other countries - Fuck 'em. Kill them all and let their imaginary god sort them out. " Wow, nice language. First time I've ever had to report a post on Fab.  | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"It certainly wasn't done by the exercise of law. What they do is not exactly legal It was perfectly legal. I meant ISIS killing people. So you think the way to deal with law breakers is by breaking the law? Why don't we do away with juries here, and let the police decide sentences on the spot? With a bazooka? I didn't give my _iew at all on what has happened. I just pointed out that beheading etc is not legal. Nor is executing British citizens." Britain is at war with isis. The RAF is bombing isis targets in Iraq, all isis targets should be legitimate targets. The men who were killed were known isis fighters, not innocent British civilians/citizens. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Kill them all and let their imaginary god sort them out. Fuck yeah!!!!!!! Apart from the imaginary God bit!!! I have benefited from Islam and true Islam is a beautiful and peaceful thing to behold! " Okay - Imaginary bit withdrawn
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"AND Why do we stop the malcontents at the border(Turkey) to have them flown back and be amongst us? Id let them go,recind their passport / uk nationality and if they then become a terrorist and get blown up by a Reaper,well,`happy to help you get on your way `
^^^THIS^^^
"Rather ruined by your enthusiastic support for this comment.  | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"It's simple. If it was legal, the Government would release the legal framework. They are not doing so, because it is not. It was an extrajudicial execution. A murder. There is really no more to it than that. People who talk about 'hard decisions' having to be made have watched too many Ross Kemp videos. Bullshit. The sources that could be compromised by revelation of the intelligence gathering that led to this strike would have an extremely damaging effect on the country. These sources can possibly be used again and again to target these murdering ragheads, so more power to their elbow. The government have told us that the legal issues were checked by the Attorney General, who cleared the proposed action. It is unreasonable to expect details of the intelligence to be revealed for exactly the reasons above. As we posted earlier - Even the FAMILIES of the terrorists haven't condemned the strike. Quite frankly, bleeding heart liberals wringing their hands over the issue won't make a ha'porth of difference. It happened. Hopefully it will happen again with similar results. These bastards are happy to blow themselves up on trains and buses full of innocent citizens of this and other countries - Fuck 'em. Kill them all and let their imaginary god sort them out. Wow, nice language. First time I've ever had to report a post on Fab. "Oookayyy - So what exactly are you reporting? The word 'fuck' maybe? Or the word 'bastards'? Because noone ever uses adult language on these forums do they? | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"It certainly wasn't done by the exercise of law. What they do is not exactly legal It was perfectly legal. I meant ISIS killing people. So you think the way to deal with law breakers is by breaking the law? Why don't we do away with juries here, and let the police decide sentences on the spot? With a bazooka? I didn't give my _iew at all on what has happened. I just pointed out that beheading etc is not legal. Nor is executing British citizens. Britain is at war with isis. The RAF is bombing isis targets in Iraq, all isis targets should be legitimate targets. The men who were killed were known isis fighters, not innocent British civilians/citizens. " I'd be interested to see where the courts decided that made execution of individuals and potentially innocent unnamed associates okay. Can you link to it? | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"It's simple. If it was legal, the Government would release the legal framework. They are not doing so, because it is not. It was an extrajudicial execution. A murder. There is really no more to it than that. People who talk about 'hard decisions' having to be made have watched too many Ross Kemp videos. Bullshit. The sources that could be compromised by revelation of the intelligence gathering that led to this strike would have an extremely damaging effect on the country. These sources can possibly be used again and again to target these murdering ragheads, so more power to their elbow. The government have told us that the legal issues were checked by the Attorney General, who cleared the proposed action. It is unreasonable to expect details of the intelligence to be revealed for exactly the reasons above. As we posted earlier - Even the FAMILIES of the terrorists haven't condemned the strike. Quite frankly, bleeding heart liberals wringing their hands over the issue won't make a ha'porth of difference. It happened. Hopefully it will happen again with similar results. These bastards are happy to blow themselves up on trains and buses full of innocent citizens of this and other countries - Fuck 'em. Kill them all and let their imaginary god sort them out. Wow, nice language. First time I've ever had to report a post on Fab.
Oookayyy - So what exactly are you reporting? The word 'fuck' maybe?
Or the word 'bastards'?
Because noone ever uses adult language on these forums do they?"The racist language you used. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Syria is no longer Syria. It's ISIS controlled land. They started hostilities against us and our allies. They consider their fighters to be an army and they want to be recognised as a legitimate state. Under the rules of engagement that makes them a legitimate military target and legal under the terms of the Geneva convention. Fuck em, they got what they deserved."
I just hope the only reason the west haven't gone after ISIS is because they want all the fucked up jihadist from other countries all in one place so they can take them all out in one hit | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
" Oookayyy - So what exactly are you reporting? The word 'fuck' maybe? Or the word 'bastards'? Because noone ever uses adult language on these forums do they? The racist language you used." So that'll be 'ragheads' then. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"I may be wrong, but I thought the death penalty was still active for treason? Rather them and others like them than any atrocities planned for this country." Your wrong I'm afraid. It's no longer the penalty for treason or even for arson in her majesty's dockyards. Personally I'd be all for it! | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"It's simple. If it was legal, the Government would release the legal framework. They are not doing so, because it is not. It was an extrajudicial execution. A murder. There is really no more to it than that. People who talk about 'hard decisions' having to be made have watched too many Ross Kemp videos. Bullshit. The sources that could be compromised by revelation of the intelligence gathering that led to this strike would have an extremely damaging effect on the country. These sources can possibly be used again and again to target these murdering ragheads, so more power to their elbow. The government have told us that the legal issues were checked by the Attorney General, who cleared the proposed action. It is unreasonable to expect details of the intelligence to be revealed for exactly the reasons above. As we posted earlier - Even the FAMILIES of the terrorists haven't condemned the strike. Quite frankly, bleeding heart liberals wringing their hands over the issue won't make a ha'porth of difference. It happened. Hopefully it will happen again with similar results. These bastards are happy to blow themselves up on trains and buses full of innocent citizens of this and other countries - Fuck 'em. Kill them all and let their imaginary god sort them out. Wow, nice language. First time I've ever had to report a post on Fab. "What forum rules did they break? I didn't see any infringement of the rules. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"It's simple. If it was legal, the Government would release the legal framework. They are not doing so, because it is not. It was an extrajudicial execution. A murder. There is really no more to it than that. People who talk about 'hard decisions' having to be made have watched too many Ross Kemp videos. Bullshit. The sources that could be compromised by revelation of the intelligence gathering that led to this strike would have an extremely damaging effect on the country. These sources can possibly be used again and again to target these murdering ragheads, so more power to their elbow. The government have told us that the legal issues were checked by the Attorney General, who cleared the proposed action. It is unreasonable to expect details of the intelligence to be revealed for exactly the reasons above. As we posted earlier - Even the FAMILIES of the terrorists haven't condemned the strike. Quite frankly, bleeding heart liberals wringing their hands over the issue won't make a ha'porth of difference. It happened. Hopefully it will happen again with similar results. These bastards are happy to blow themselves up on trains and buses full of innocent citizens of this and other countries - Fuck 'em. Kill them all and let their imaginary god sort them out. Wow, nice language. First time I've ever had to report a post on Fab.
What forum rules did they break? I didn't see any infringement of the rules. "I am presuming overt racist language is against the forum rules on Fab. Although you have to wonder, given the content of roughly fifty percent of the posts here. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Arrested or killed them when they were attacking the UK, maybe? When there was evidence for them posing a legitimate threat, rather than giving some middle-aged Tories some war jollies? Just a thought." so you would kill them | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"The main problem here tbh is the the government voted against air strikes in Syria so the fact this has taken place is going against a common's vote and without consolation in the house of commons. Comparing to the possible misinformation by the Labour government to obtain a vote for military action in Iraq at this stage is a little wrong until we find out the legality of what Cameron has done. Even then if both acts are proven to have been illegal they are completely different crimes against the constitution." Any sovereign state has the right to self defence. It's legality is almost beyond question unless the government can be shown to have DELIBERATELY misled parliament. The vote in parliament was about air attacks against the official Syrian army. Britain has the legal right under UN charters to strike against anyone anywhere in the world in self-defense. The question should not be was it legal, it almost definitely wad, but is it a good policy? | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Arrested or killed them when they were attacking the UK, maybe? When there was evidence for them posing a legitimate threat, rather than giving some middle-aged Tories some war jollies? Just a thought. so you would kill them" Given legal, justifiable circumstances, where it was the only possible option, yes. Not this hogwash. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Arrested or killed them when they were attacking the UK, maybe? When there was evidence for them posing a legitimate threat, rather than giving some middle-aged Tories some war jollies? Just a thought. so you would kill them Given legal, justifiable circumstances, where it was the only possible option, yes. Not this hogwash." cool as long as you would kill them | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"It certainly wasn't done by the exercise of law. What they do is not exactly legal It was perfectly legal. I meant ISIS killing people. So you think the way to deal with law breakers is by breaking the law? Why don't we do away with juries here, and let the police decide sentences on the spot? With a bazooka? I didn't give my _iew at all on what has happened. I just pointed out that beheading etc is not legal. Nor is executing British citizens. Britain is at war with isis. The RAF is bombing isis targets in Iraq, all isis targets should be legitimate targets. The men who were killed were known isis fighters, not innocent British civilians/citizens. I'd be interested to see where the courts decided that made execution of individuals and potentially innocent unnamed associates okay. Can you link to it?" Do you have a television or ever watch the news on it???? This stuff is on the 24 hour news channels, sky news and bbc news 24, and this story is on the hour, every hour. Try watching some of it you may learn something. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Arrested or killed them when they were attacking the UK, maybe? When there was evidence for them posing a legitimate threat, rather than giving some middle-aged Tories some war jollies? Just a thought. so you would kill them Given legal, justifiable circumstances, where it was the only possible option, yes. Not this hogwash. cool as long as you would kill them"Only technically. The sensible thing to do would be to leave ISIS and everyone who wants to fight for them completely alone to do what they like, rather than play completely into their hands like our bumbling government. ISIS pose less threat to Britain than rampant seagulls. With every attack, we make them stronger. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"It certainly wasn't done by the exercise of law. What they do is not exactly legal It was perfectly legal. I meant ISIS killing people. So you think the way to deal with law breakers is by breaking the law? Why don't we do away with juries here, and let the police decide sentences on the spot? With a bazooka? I didn't give my _iew at all on what has happened. I just pointed out that beheading etc is not legal. Nor is executing British citizens. Britain is at war with isis. The RAF is bombing isis targets in Iraq, all isis targets should be legitimate targets. The men who were killed were known isis fighters, not innocent British civilians/citizens. I'd be interested to see where the courts decided that made execution of individuals and potentially innocent unnamed associates okay. Can you link to it? Do you have a television or ever watch the news on it???? This stuff is on the 24 hour news channels, sky news and bbc news 24, and this story is on the hour, every hour. Try watching some of it you may learn something. " Thought not! | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Arrested or killed them when they were attacking the UK, maybe? When there was evidence for them posing a legitimate threat, rather than giving some middle-aged Tories some war jollies? Just a thought." So you would risk the lives and safety of innocent British civilians on British soil then. Great strategy, not. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Arrested or killed them when they were attacking the UK, maybe? When there was evidence for them posing a legitimate threat, rather than giving some middle-aged Tories some war jollies? Just a thought. so you would kill them Given legal, justifiable circumstances, where it was the only possible option, yes. Not this hogwash. cool as long as you would kill them
Only technically.
The sensible thing to do would be to leave ISIS and everyone who wants to fight for them completely alone to do what they like, rather than play completely into their hands like our bumbling government.
ISIS pose less threat to Britain than rampant seagulls. With every attack, we make them stronger."I kinda agree but something needs to be done about them burning non believes and stoning alleged homosexuals in the street. Unless your fine with that? | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"I must have missed the declaration of war. Did it happen recently? Most diplomats and politicians might deny that because it has a formal legal meaning which would involve recognising Isis as a state. They'd consider that an enormous victory." Lets not confuse the issue with sense, please. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Arrested or killed them when they were attacking the UK, maybe? When there was evidence for them posing a legitimate threat, rather than giving some middle-aged Tories some war jollies? Just a thought. so you would kill them Given legal, justifiable circumstances, where it was the only possible option, yes. Not this hogwash. cool as long as you would kill them
Only technically.
The sensible thing to do would be to leave ISIS and everyone who wants to fight for them completely alone to do what they like, rather than play completely into their hands like our bumbling government.
ISIS pose less threat to Britain than rampant seagulls. With every attack, we make them stronger.
I kinda agree but something needs to be done about them burning non believes and stoning alleged homosexuals in the street.
Unless your fine with that? "I disagree with your assumption that anything we can do will make things better for anyone, besides giving Daily Mail readers a little thrill each morning. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"It certainly wasn't done by the exercise of law. What they do is not exactly legal It was perfectly legal. I meant ISIS killing people. So you think the way to deal with law breakers is by breaking the law? Why don't we do away with juries here, and let the police decide sentences on the spot? With a bazooka? I didn't give my _iew at all on what has happened. I just pointed out that beheading etc is not legal. Nor is executing British citizens. Britain is at war with isis. The RAF is bombing isis targets in Iraq, all isis targets should be legitimate targets. The men who were killed were known isis fighters, not innocent British civilians/citizens. I'd be interested to see where the courts decided that made execution of individuals and potentially innocent unnamed associates okay. Can you link to it? Do you have a television or ever watch the news on it???? This stuff is on the 24 hour news channels, sky news and bbc news 24, and this story is on the hour, every hour. Try watching some of it you may learn something. Thought not! "Link please proving them wrong??? I think this whole demanding link please? stuff smacks of lazy discussion. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Arrested or killed them when they were attacking the UK, maybe? When there was evidence for them posing a legitimate threat, rather than giving some middle-aged Tories some war jollies? Just a thought. so you would kill them Given legal, justifiable circumstances, where it was the only possible option, yes. Not this hogwash. cool as long as you would kill them
Only technically.
The sensible thing to do would be to leave ISIS and everyone who wants to fight for them completely alone to do what they like, rather than play completely into their hands like our bumbling government.
ISIS pose less threat to Britain than rampant seagulls. With every attack, we make them stronger.
I kinda agree but something needs to be done about them burning non believes and stoning alleged homosexuals in the street.
Unless your fine with that?
I disagree with your assumption that anything we can do will make things better for anyone, besides giving Daily Mail readers a little thrill each morning."So you be happy for them to be left alone to kill innocents? Link please | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Yes I am a labour supporter but not a friend of tony blair or new labour. It is very true to say that they all have an awfull lot of blood on there hands. Surely nobody can say that the blair and bush governments are not guilty of war crimes. But we do have to find a way of dealing once and for all with this muslim extremism crap. The world just doesn't need them." I can say absolutely definitely that both the Blair government and the Bush government are not guilty of war crimes. To be legally guiltily of a crime you have to be tried on a court of law. As no one from either the Blair government or Bush government have been tried or found guilty of any war crimes they remain not guilty of any war crimes. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Arrested or killed them when they were attacking the UK, maybe? When there was evidence for them posing a legitimate threat, rather than giving some middle-aged Tories some war jollies? Just a thought. So you would risk the lives and safety of innocent British civilians on British soil then. Great strategy, not. " Our strategy is increasing the risk to the lives and safety of all civilians, and soldiers, British or otherwise. Why do you hate our civilians and soldiers so much? | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"I don't think there is a Prime Minister this country has ever had who I would trust less with the dubious honour of becoming our first extra-judicial executioner. It just shows how supine people have become, that they are happy to throw away due process because the Daily Mail tells them ISIS are hiding under their beds. Truly unbelievable." I think the Germans and others will find out who's hiding under their beds in a few years time when they get organised. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Arrested or killed them when they were attacking the UK, maybe? When there was evidence for them posing a legitimate threat, rather than giving some middle-aged Tories some war jollies? Just a thought. so you would kill them Given legal, justifiable circumstances, where it was the only possible option, yes. Not this hogwash. cool as long as you would kill them
Only technically.
The sensible thing to do would be to leave ISIS and everyone who wants to fight for them completely alone to do what they like, rather than play completely into their hands like our bumbling government.
ISIS pose less threat to Britain than rampant seagulls. With every attack, we make them stronger.
I kinda agree but something needs to be done about them burning non believes and stoning alleged homosexuals in the street.
Unless your fine with that?
I disagree with your assumption that anything we can do will make things better for anyone, besides giving Daily Mail readers a little thrill each morning.
So you be happy for them to be left alone to kill innocents?
Link please "Happy? No. Recognise it as the least worst possible option? Yes. Some problems just can't be solved by killing more people. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
" Some problems just can't be solved by killing more people." I agree, if only ISIS agreed | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Arrested or killed them when they were attacking the UK, maybe? When there was evidence for them posing a legitimate threat, rather than giving some middle-aged Tories some war jollies? Just a thought. so you would kill them Given legal, justifiable circumstances, where it was the only possible option, yes. Not this hogwash. cool as long as you would kill them
Only technically.
The sensible thing to do would be to leave ISIS and everyone who wants to fight for them completely alone to do what they like, rather than play completely into their hands like our bumbling government.
ISIS pose less threat to Britain than rampant seagulls. With every attack, we make them stronger.
I kinda agree but something needs to be done about them burning non believes and stoning alleged homosexuals in the street.
Unless your fine with that?
I disagree with your assumption that anything we can do will make things better for anyone, besides giving Daily Mail readers a little thrill each morning.
So you be happy for them to be left alone to kill innocents?
Link please
Happy? No.
Recognise it as the least worst possible option? Yes.
Some problems just can't be solved by killing more people."What about killing the minority of ISIS so that a majority of people could live their lives without the fear of being immolated and stoned. Or forced into refugee status. Link please. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Arrested or killed them when they were attacking the UK, maybe? When there was evidence for them posing a legitimate threat, rather than giving some middle-aged Tories some war jollies? Just a thought. so you would kill them Given legal, justifiable circumstances, where it was the only possible option, yes. Not this hogwash. cool as long as you would kill them
Only technically.
The sensible thing to do would be to leave ISIS and everyone who wants to fight for them completely alone to do what they like, rather than play completely into their hands like our bumbling government.
ISIS pose less threat to Britain than rampant seagulls. With every attack, we make them stronger."Straight out the Jeremy Corbyn school of reasoning. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Arrested or killed them when they were attacking the UK, maybe? When there was evidence for them posing a legitimate threat, rather than giving some middle-aged Tories some war jollies? Just a thought. so you would kill them Given legal, justifiable circumstances, where it was the only possible option, yes. Not this hogwash. cool as long as you would kill them
Only technically.
The sensible thing to do would be to leave ISIS and everyone who wants to fight for them completely alone to do what they like, rather than play completely into their hands like our bumbling government.
ISIS pose less threat to Britain than rampant seagulls. With every attack, we make them stronger.
I kinda agree but something needs to be done about them burning non believes and stoning alleged homosexuals in the street.
Unless your fine with that?
I disagree with your assumption that anything we can do will make things better for anyone, besides giving Daily Mail readers a little thrill each morning.
So you be happy for them to be left alone to kill innocents?
Link please
Happy? No.
Recognise it as the least worst possible option? Yes.
Some problems just can't be solved by killing more people.
What about killing the minority of ISIS so that a majority of people could live their lives without the fear of being immolated and stoned. Or forced into refugee status.
Link please. "The best of luck to you deciding how that should work. Here's a link that might explain why that will never happen: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Syrian_Civil_War Look under 'Main Belligerents'. The results may surprise you. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"It's funny how you mention a celebrity that's been charged with something.... And everyones so quick to say innocent until proven guilty, blow them up with a drone in a foreign country.... Oh yeah obviously guilty! "I have concerns about this to but they were enemy combatants, the fact they were British also is almost irrelevant. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Arrested or killed them when they were attacking the UK, maybe? When there was evidence for them posing a legitimate threat, rather than giving some middle-aged Tories some war jollies? Just a thought. so you would kill them Given legal, justifiable circumstances, where it was the only possible option, yes. Not this hogwash. cool as long as you would kill them
Only technically.
The sensible thing to do would be to leave ISIS and everyone who wants to fight for them completely alone to do what they like, rather than play completely into their hands like our bumbling government.
ISIS pose less threat to Britain than rampant seagulls. With every attack, we make them stronger.
Straight out the Jeremy Corbyn school of reasoning. "The clearest thinker on foreign policy in the UK today? Wow, what a compliment! | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Yes I am a labour supporter but not a friend of tony blair or new labour. It is very true to say that they all have an awfull lot of blood on there hands. Surely nobody can say that the blair and bush governments are not guilty of war crimes. But we do have to find a way of dealing once and for all with this muslim extremism crap. The world just doesn't need them. I can say absolutely definitely that both the Blair government and the Bush government are not guilty of war crimes. To be legally guiltily of a crime you have to be tried on a court of law. As no one from either the Blair government or Bush government have been tried or found guilty of any war crimes they remain not guilty of any war crimes." Don't let a fact get in the way of a rant. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Arrested or killed them when they were attacking the UK, maybe? When there was evidence for them posing a legitimate threat, rather than giving some middle-aged Tories some war jollies? Just a thought. so you would kill them Given legal, justifiable circumstances, where it was the only possible option, yes. Not this hogwash. cool as long as you would kill them
Only technically.
The sensible thing to do would be to leave ISIS and everyone who wants to fight for them completely alone to do what they like, rather than play completely into their hands like our bumbling government.
ISIS pose less threat to Britain than rampant seagulls. With every attack, we make them stronger.
Straight out the Jeremy Corbyn school of reasoning.
The clearest thinker on foreign policy in the UK today? Wow, what a compliment! "We'll see about that at the next general election when Labour gets wiped out again under Corbyn's leadership. Lol | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Well let's burn that magna carta because it appears citizens are no longer free from persecution by the state. If were determined to go down this route then a legal judgement based on evidence has to be used which would require public access! I'm no isis fan but the minute we stop giving a fuck about basic rights that came about through hundreds of years of struggle, were fucked! A legal decision based on evidence WAS taken. Most of that evidence came from the intelligence community, and as such is exempt from public scrutiny for fear of exposing methods and sources. Well done Cameron, well done RAF. And that is why we were led to believe that there were weapons of mass destruction. And for those of you who are in favour of military action in Syria, please consider the lessons that we should have learned from our previous incursions. Are we not supposed to learn from history? If we did by a miracle manage to kill every IS member in Syria, what would fill the void? It is very easy to react to violence and horror. It is very difficult to formulate a solution. I don't have one. For once, I do applaud Corbyn. He at least wants to establish some form of communication. Probably hopeless though that might have been what many thought about the IRA, too." I'm not sure if I am in favour of more military action or not. I find it a little illogical that we should attack ISIS in Iraq but not in Syria but that could equally be an argument to stop attacking ISIS in Iraq. What I am sure about is that attacking these two in Syria or attacking any ISIS fighter in Syria is legal under both British and international law. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Arrested or killed them when they were attacking the UK, maybe? When there was evidence for them posing a legitimate threat, rather than giving some middle-aged Tories some war jollies? Just a thought. so you would kill them Given legal, justifiable circumstances, where it was the only possible option, yes. Not this hogwash. cool as long as you would kill them
Only technically.
The sensible thing to do would be to leave ISIS and everyone who wants to fight for them completely alone to do what they like, rather than play completely into their hands like our bumbling government.
ISIS pose less threat to Britain than rampant seagulls. With every attack, we make them stronger.
Straight out the Jeremy Corbyn school of reasoning.
The clearest thinker on foreign policy in the UK today? Wow, what a compliment!
We'll see about that at the next general election when Labour gets wiped out again under Corbyn's leadership. Lol"
He stands a better chance than Cameron. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"...... What about killing the minority of ISIS so that a majority of people could live their lives without the fear of being immolated and stoned. Or forced into refugee status. ..... " You can't kill an ideology. Attacking and killing them makes them stronger. This battle has to be won through hearts, minds and most importantly the electronic word. Moderate Muslims as well as the rest of the world need to up their propoganda game and nuetralise the nonsense that is being fed to the young and impressionable foreign men who are being recruited. It is a long game plan, but with joined up thinking it can work. The BIG downside is that much of nuetralising message could well end up offending the more moderates but the end result must justify the means. Islam generally is struggling at the moment in dealing with science so maybe a modernisation is timely. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"The family of one of the crispy fried terrorists have just been inter_iewed on the BBC. Even THEY aren't condemning the drone strike. Only bleeding heart guilt trippers are condemning it. Get over yourselves and celebrate the destruction of these rats." Making sure that action taken by government was right and legal is not being a bleeding heart guilt tripper it's being a democratic interested in the rule of law and due process. I have no problem with opposition politicians asking questions to ensure that this is the case. That's their job. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"...... What about killing the minority of ISIS so that a majority of people could live their lives without the fear of being immolated and stoned. Or forced into refugee status. ..... You can't kill an ideology. Attacking and killing them makes them stronger. This battle has to be won through hearts, minds and most importantly the electronic word. Moderate Muslims as well as the rest of the world need to up their propoganda game and nuetralise the nonsense that is being fed to the young and impressionable foreign men who are being recruited. It is a long game plan, but with joined up thinking it can work. The BIG downside is that much of nuetralising message could well end up offending the more moderates but the end result must justify the means. Islam generally is struggling at the moment in dealing with science so maybe a modernisation is timely." I agree but the battle will have to be won on two fronts for a while. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"But I'd be very disappointed if there was any labour politician who condemned the killing of these men..
Sadly I can think of at least two who might yet do that.
I think the government are on dodgy legal ground with this one. But equally those friends and neighbours of the deceased jihadis need to take a look at some of the videos and messages they appeared in and then give their heads a shake.
Step forward Jeremy Corbyn. This is a man who said the death of Osama bin Laden was a "tragedy" and who cuddles upto the likes of extremist terrorist groups like Hamas.
That, as I hope you know, is bollox.
Corbyn said it was a tragedy because he believed Bin Laden should have been tried before a court.
As for cuddling up to terrorists, it's only a matter of time before all extreme terrorist groups realise they have to talk. Look at the IRA."You may be right but calling then your friends whilst they are killing the spouces and children of those you hope to vote for you is probably not the best way forward. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"It certainly wasn't done by the exercise of law. Article 51 of the United Nations charter. " Correct. That's why it's almost definitely legal. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"...... What about killing the minority of ISIS so that a majority of people could live their lives without the fear of being immolated and stoned. Or forced into refugee status. ..... You can't kill an ideology. Attacking and killing them makes them stronger. This battle has to be won through hearts, minds and most importantly the electronic word. Moderate Muslims as well as the rest of the world need to up their propoganda game and nuetralise the nonsense that is being fed to the young and impressionable foreign men who are being recruited. It is a long game plan, but with joined up thinking it can work. The BIG downside is that much of nuetralising message could well end up offending the more moderates but the end result must justify the means. Islam generally is struggling at the moment in dealing with science so maybe a modernisation is timely." . For once we're in complete agreement! We don't have to wonder what the outcome of it will be, Islam is going through exactly what Christianity went through a thousand years ago and it took 500 years to come out the other side, they didn't call them the dark ages for nothing! This modern Islam of the last 50 years is for some reason regressing, they no longer produce great scientists or even great philosophers, just the same old people stuck at the top wondering how to keep hold of their flock instead of thinking of ways to improve the life of their flock because heaven forbid some scientist should find something to help where God didn't/couldn't. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"One thing everyone can agree on is that David Cameron deserves to be endlessly slated. And then fired into the sun." umm, perhaps 37% of the country would disagree with you there!! | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"...... What about killing the minority of ISIS so that a majority of people could live their lives without the fear of being immolated and stoned. Or forced into refugee status. ..... You can't kill an ideology. Attacking and killing them makes them stronger. This battle has to be won through hearts, minds and most importantly the electronic word. Moderate Muslims as well as the rest of the world need to up their propoganda game and nuetralise the nonsense that is being fed to the young and impressionable foreign men who are being recruited. It is a long game plan, but with joined up thinking it can work. The BIG downside is that much of nuetralising message could well end up offending the more moderates but the end result must justify the means. Islam generally is struggling at the moment in dealing with science so maybe a modernisation is timely." Let's hope that joined up thinking triumphs for once, for the sake of our country and not knee jerk bigotry | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Regarding the armchair lawyers who think that Article 51 as some sort of legal defence to Cameron's murder spree, it is as follows: Member states have an "inherent right of self-defence" if an armed attack is occurring or is believed to be imminent. If you think that includes blowing up a man in a jeep thousands of miles away from the UK, and killing a group of other people who the Government have no idea who they were, you are crackers. It's not a coincidence that the Government are refusing to give any detail of the legal framework on which this murder was based." You're right, it's not a coincidence the government are refusing to give the details of the legal advice they received. Exact legal advice given to ministers is never released to the public. Maybe it should be but that's another discussion. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"It certainly wasn't done by the exercise of law. Article 51 of the United Nations charter. Correct. That's why it's almost definitely legal."
Which is why the attorney general should have absolutely no problem confirming the legal basis if he hasn't already. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"It certainly wasn't done by the exercise of law. Article 51 of the United Nations charter. Correct. That's why it's almost definitely legal." .Out of curiosity Which British law makes it legal to assassinate a British citizen, I mean even if he's joined isis, the British government is not at war with isis, there's been no formal declaration, they don't even have a country. Margret Thatcher got away with it on Gibraltar because they had evidence that the three unarmed ira members were about to detonate a remote controlled bomb, without that it would have probably been found illegal | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"I don't think there is a Prime Minister this country has ever had who I would trust less with the dubious honour of becoming our first extra-judicial executioner. It just shows how supine people have become, that they are happy to throw away due process because the Daily Mail tells them ISIS are hiding under their beds. Truly unbelievable." Or maybe you're not facing the realities of the situation. I'd be interested how you think the situation should have been handled. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"I don't think there is a Prime Minister this country has ever had who I would trust less with the dubious honour of becoming our first extra-judicial executioner. It just shows how supine people have become, that they are happy to throw away due process because the Daily Mail tells them ISIS are hiding under their beds. Truly unbelievable. First extra judicial murdering Prime minister? Due process goes out the window so save your faux outrage. In the real word hard decisions have to be made. Hands unfortunately need to get dirty from now on. People need to be saved from the cruelty and murder that these men perpetrate. What's unbelievable is that people stand idly by and complain. " In my opinion due process has been followed. These people were enemy combatants fighting for an organisation that we are at war with. There is absolutely no question that the action was legal. The only question is whether the action was and will be wise. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"It's simple. If it was legal, the Government would release the legal framework. They are not doing so, because it is not. It was an extrajudicial execution. A murder. There is really no more to it than that. People who talk about 'hard decisions' having to be made have watched too many Ross Kemp videos." You are incorrect and clearly know nothing about how government works. Legal advice given to ministers is never released to the public. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"I don't think there is a Prime Minister this country has ever had who I would trust less with the dubious honour of becoming our first extra-judicial executioner. It just shows how supine people have become, that they are happy to throw away due process because the Daily Mail tells them ISIS are hiding under their beds. Truly unbelievable. First extra judicial murdering Prime minister? Due process goes out the window so save your faux outrage. In the real word hard decisions have to be made. Hands unfortunately need to get dirty from now on. People need to be saved from the cruelty and murder that these men perpetrate. What's unbelievable is that people stand idly by and complain. In my opinion due process has been followed. These people were enemy combatants fighting for an organisation that we are at war with. There is absolutely no question that the action was legal. The only question is whether the action was and will be wise." Whilst it seems likely that it was legal under article 51, we aren't at war with an organisation (not legally possible because it's not a country) and if we were we wouldn't need to use article 51. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"It certainly wasn't done by the exercise of law. What they do is not exactly legal It was perfectly legal. I meant ISIS killing people. So you think the way to deal with law breakers is by breaking the law? " No law has been broken. If you think one has been can you point out which ones? " Why don't we do away with juries here, and let the police decide sentences on the spot? With a bazooka?" | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"It certainly wasn't done by the exercise of law. Article 51 of the United Nations charter. Correct. That's why it's almost definitely legal..Out of curiosity Which British law makes it legal to assassinate a British citizen, I mean even if he's joined isis, the British government is not at war with isis, there's been no formal declaration, they don't even have a country ....." The cops seem to have permission to assassinate/ execute criminals, regardless of citizenship. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"It certainly wasn't done by the exercise of law. What they do is not exactly legal It was perfectly legal. I meant ISIS killing people. So you think the way to deal with law breakers is by breaking the law? Why don't we do away with juries here, and let the police decide sentences on the spot? With a bazooka? I didn't give my _iew at all on what has happened. I just pointed out that beheading etc is not legal. Nor is executing British citizens." They were not executed they were killed as enemy combatants and on self-defense. You're wasting your time trying to argue it was illegal it clearly was legal. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"It certainly wasn't done by the exercise of law. What they do is not exactly legal It was perfectly legal. I meant ISIS killing people. So you think the way to deal with law breakers is by breaking the law? Why don't we do away with juries here, and let the police decide sentences on the spot? With a bazooka? I didn't give my _iew at all on what has happened. I just pointed out that beheading etc is not legal. Nor is executing British citizens. They were not executed they were killed as enemy combatants and on self-defense. You're wasting your time trying to argue it was illegal it clearly was legal." Who was at risk, given they were several hundred miles away? | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"It's simple. If it was legal, the Government would release the legal framework. They are not doing so, because it is not. It was an extrajudicial execution. A murder. There is really no more to it than that. People who talk about 'hard decisions' having to be made have watched too many Ross Kemp videos. Bullshit. The sources that could be compromised by revelation of the intelligence gathering that led to this strike would have an extremely damaging effect on the country. These sources can possibly be used again and again to target these murdering ragheads, so more power to their elbow. The government have told us that the legal issues were checked by the Attorney General, who cleared the proposed action. It is unreasonable to expect details of the intelligence to be revealed for exactly the reasons above. As we posted earlier - Even the FAMILIES of the terrorists haven't condemned the strike. Quite frankly, bleeding heart liberals wringing their hands over the issue won't make a ha'porth of difference. It happened. Hopefully it will happen again with similar results. These bastards are happy to blow themselves up on trains and buses full of innocent citizens of this and other countries - Fuck 'em. Kill them all and let their imaginary god sort them out. Wow, nice language. First time I've ever had to report a post on Fab.
What forum rules did they break? I didn't see any infringement of the rules.
I am presuming overt racist language is against the forum rules on Fab.
Although you have to wonder, given the content of roughly fifty percent of the posts here."Hey, if you can't win the argument why not try to silence the other person instead. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"It certainly wasn't done by the exercise of law. What they do is not exactly legal It was perfectly legal. I meant ISIS killing people. So you think the way to deal with law breakers is by breaking the law? Why don't we do away with juries here, and let the police decide sentences on the spot? With a bazooka? I didn't give my _iew at all on what has happened. I just pointed out that beheading etc is not legal. Nor is executing British citizens. They were not executed they were killed as enemy combatants and on self-defense. You're wasting your time trying to argue it was illegal it clearly was legal. Who was at risk, given they were several hundred miles away?" They (ISIS) have declared war on us, they state that their combatants are an army and they've committed acts of war via terrorism and murder. do you suggest we just leave them to behead innocent people of continue their jihad against the west? | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Arrested or killed them when they were attacking the UK, maybe? When there was evidence for them posing a legitimate threat, rather than giving some middle-aged Tories some war jollies? Just a thought. so you would kill them Given legal, justifiable circumstances, where it was the only possible option, yes. Not this hogwash. cool as long as you would kill them
Only technically.
The sensible thing to do would be to leave ISIS and everyone who wants to fight for them completely alone to do what they like, rather than play completely into their hands like our bumbling government.
ISIS pose less threat to Britain than rampant seagulls. With every attack, we make them stronger.
I kinda agree but something needs to be done about them burning non believes and stoning alleged homosexuals in the street.
Unless your fine with that?
I disagree with your assumption that anything we can do will make things better for anyone, besides giving Daily Mail readers a little thrill each morning."Now you're concentrating on how wise the action is or was I'm finding some agreement with you, although I'm not won over yet. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
