The ISIS threat to Europe

[snowychap]

1 minute ago, maqroll said:

Other than the state, it would be the targeted person him or herself. In the case of Jihadi John, he declared himself an enemy of the state by his actions.

That isn't someone other than 'the state' - that's the state's (or in this case your [on the behalf of the state]) take as a result of the actions of X.

I'd accept the idea that if someone were explicitly to revoke their own citizenship - clearly, and categorically - that they may be seen as no longer a citizen of that nation, otherwise it is, in effect, the state dictating what does and does not constitute the proper actions of a citizen and therefore citizenship being contingent upon acceding to the decrees of the state. That leaves every single citizen at the mercy of the whim of the state.

This is isn't either a hypothetical or a whimsical thought experiment - it's the nature of states that see themselves as making decisions on that basis. It's the history of a lot of 20th century Europe (fit in your own era of USA history) and, worryingly, I think it will be the future of 21st century Europe.

 

[maqroll]

Quote

I'd accept the idea that if someone were explicitly to revoke their own citizenship

What if by their actions, they were to do so? I refer again to Jihadi John. He in essence declared war on Britain and in effect consequently renounced his rights as a British citizen.

I should clarify, by the way, that as a general rule, I do not advocate extrajudicial killing done by any person or group or state. But I believe it can be justified in rare instances, if a continuing threat was ever present and capture unlikely or too dangerous.

[snowychap]

22 minutes ago, maqroll said:

What if by their actions, they were to do so? I refer again to Jihadi John. He in essence declared war on Britain and in effect consequently renounced his rights as a British citizen.

I should clarify, by the way, that as a general rule, I do not advocate extrajudicial killing done by any person or group or state. But I believe it can be justified in rare instances, if a continuing threat was ever present and capture unlikely or too dangerous.

How, by his actions, did he do so?

As per my previous post, to say that the actions of a citizen 'in effect' renounced their rights as a British Citizen (or more accurately - that they should no longer be regarded as a British Citizen) leads down a very, very dodgy road. Beyond that one could delve in to the complex issues surrounding William Joyce, his passport, his actual American nationality, his subsequent conviction and execution.

On the other point, how can a 'general rule' be worth anything if it is justified in some cases (whether they be rare or otherwise)?

I accept that my position may thus be seen as intransigent - perhaps it is but I'm not sure about that - however, what you have described is that you'd accept the exceptional things that are current. I'm very sure that every government (and other authority) would speak about the current circumstances that would allow them to do what would otherwise be frowned upon as 'rare instances'.

Edited December 17, 2015 by snowychap

[chrisp65]

I think that if the state or our elected leader declares someone a Britain hating, security threatening, terrorist sympathising risk to our nation's security, my family's security and the security of the economy, then it is ok to kill them without trial or any formal proceedings. I'm more than happy to simply take 'their' word for it. 

Guardian

Quote

“security threatening, terrorist-sympathising, Britain-hating”

Independent

Quote

"...a serious risk to our nation's security, our economy's security and your family's security,"

Personally, I'm ok with the world losing Mohammed Emwazi. I'm just very concious we are stood at the top of a very steep and very slippery slope, with politicians in charge of how close to the edge we stand. They don't have a great track record. Yes we got Emwazi. We also got Jean Charles De Menezez.

 

[maqroll]

By beheading British citizens in the name of The Islamic State, he is effectively claiming citizenship in said state. 

To answer your general rule question, a general rule is just that, a generality, something not constant.

I fully understand the implications of these types of killings (which, by the way, have occurred clandestinely and sometimes openly for centuries by both UK and US), and it IS a very dodgy road. It is not without inner conflict that I am able to reach the point where I think they can be (again, in rare instances) justified. 

[snowychap]

37 minutes ago, maqroll said:

By beheading British citizens in the name of The Islamic State, he is effectively claiming citizenship in said state. 

To answer your general rule question, a general rule is just that, a generality, something not constant.

I fully understand the implications of these types of killings (which, by the way, have occurred clandestinely and sometimes openly for centuries by both UK and US), and it IS a very dodgy road. It is not without inner conflict that I am able to reach the point where I think they can be (again, in rare instances) justified. 

Well, he isn't really (we aren't recognizing IS as a state are we?).

So, a general rule is, say, an 'aspiration'? If it's a principle then it's a principle. If not then it isn't.

I do agree with you about the implications (as per your last sentence) and that they are a long running scenario (which is why I have a real problem with the 'case by case' extraordinary style excusing of these actions) but I struggle to accept the justification  (which really amounts to the support for the state's whims) that comes from the 'rare circumstances' exceptions.

[maqroll]

34 minutes ago, snowychap said:

Well, he isn't really (we aren't recognizing IS as a state are we?).

So, a general rule is, say, an 'aspiration'? If it's a principle then it's a principle. If not then it isn't.

I do agree with you about the implications (as per your last sentence) and that they are a long running scenario (which is why I have a real problem with the 'case by case' extraordinary style excusing of these actions) but I struggle to accept the justification  (which really amounts to the support for the state's whims) that comes from the 'rare circumstances' exceptions.

He did, in some of those videos. So if the perpetrator of those crimes was claiming allegiance to The Islamic State, his adversaries are given the leeway to retaliate as if fighting against a soldier of a sovereign state. If that's what they claim ISIS to be (and they do) then they must be prepared to confront violent opposition to their atrocities, not unlike the Allied response to Nazi Germany.

I'm not going to chase you down a tunnel over the general rule thing. As I said, I'm conflicted by the question at hand.

Regarding justification...Jihadi John was a proven murderer who claimed that he intended to continue to murder. If an endeavored capture and legal prosecution of him allowed him another twelve months to murder innocent people (which he stated he would) then a targeted assassination to prevent that seems a difficult but necessary decision. 

With all that said, trusting our governments to police themselves properly with regards to extrajudicial killings is a major concern and something that should require constant vigilance.

 

 

Edited December 17, 2015 by maqroll

[snowychap]

33 minutes ago, maqroll said:

He did, in some of those videos.

If someone is renouncing their citizenship in favour of another then they've made that choice (though there is the issue of whether or not they can actually make that choice in terms of citizenship - which sends me in to an utterly problematic spiral, I concede).

I will assuredly say that I haven't seen any of the videos and have no desire to see them. If yer man in the videos you speak about is saying he's no longer a UK citizen and is now a citizen of the Islamic State (or even if it's obviously implicit) then it's a different discussion about his position and what he's said.

Previously, you've been making a point about someone's actions  meaning that they are 'effectively' claiming some other country's citizenship or revoking the one that they already hold not that A has stood up and said that they pledge allegiance to Y.

On the 'regarding justification' - Jihadi John was a proven murderer. Proven where and by whom? That's not to say that I doubt that he was but 'proven' how? Everything subsequent comes from this problematic assumption.

 

Edited December 17, 2015 by snowychap

[maqroll]

Quote

On the 'regarding justification' - Jihadi John was a proven murderer. Proven where and by whom?

He is shown actively beheading people on video. His family members have said that it is him doing the killings. I'd hazard to say that's proof. But I know your rejoinder would be that it was never proven in a court of law...and I get that. And I'm conflicted! (Not conflicted with the ****'s death though) The means might not ultimately be justified, (and it's a great debate, BTW) but it's hard to argue with the ends.

 

[snowychap]

25 minutes ago, maqroll said:

... it's hard to argue with the ends.

Therein lies the problem. It's the ends that people want. Whether they're us or them. The means are either incidental or arguable against.

Yes, a court of law. Open and accessible. Not I've seen it on the tellybox or the internet therefore kill him or 'shhhh' we know don't and can't tell you because....

The problem with the argument I make is that the counter is that 'in this case it's obvious that we did the bad guy'. Well, who's to know or identify the bad guy in this or any other instance? The state? Us watching on the telly? The 'elite' in the Star Chamber?

General rules are important because they apply across the board not that they're a nice idea when one can be bothered to accept them or when they don't constrict actions already taken.

Ends do not justify means. Ends as a result of dodgy means are dodgy ends. (It's half past three and I'm quite pissed so don't expect a fully fledged philosophical argument on the matter - sorry)

Edited December 17, 2015 by snowychap

[maqroll]

Like I said, it's a great debate, and a worthy one. By and large I agree with you and have many misgivings about what our governments do in our name. 

And for all we really know, "Jihadi John" is a fictional character, created to stoke anger. I wouldn't put it past them.

And if so, consider me duped, because I've been basing my whole argument on the guy.

Who knows what is real or simply conjured to convince?

And does a court of law really mean justice, or even due process?

Do the ends justify the means?...I think it's situational.

The atomic bombing of Japan was totally horrific, BUT....it ended the most calamitous conflict in human history.

As a blanket statement, "the ends do not justify the means" is problematic because sometimes, they do, subjectively speaking.

I'm off to bed too, good talking with you.

[omariqy]

San Bernandino Shootings

Quote

FBI: No Evidence Terrorists Posted on Social Media Before Attack

Wed, Dec 16

FBI Director James Comey says the office has found no evidence of social media messages by the San Bernardino terrorists, and instead found direct messages, which are different.

http://www.nbcnews.com/video/fbi-no-evidence-terrorists-posted-on-social-media-before-attack-586970179836

[TrentVilla]

 

A bad evening for Daesh it would seem...

They attacked a small settlement outside Mosul in a land grab exercise with a force of 300 fighters, tanks and suicide bombers.

Only what they didn't bank on was that the small number of Pashmerge fighters in the settlement were camped with a group of Canadian special forces who joined in. They then called in air support from the RAF just to really hammer home the advantage. 

 

[villaglint]

I saw 148 French and UK passports were seized by Turkish forces/officials who had stormed an ISIS team. I was surprised at the number.

Does anyone have any idea or rough numbers about the numbers mobilised under Daesh?

[villakram]

Just a comment regarding the JJ was a murderer therefore he got what he deserved thing.

1) Does one commit murder in a warzone or their duty?

2) The rules used by US DoD for their drone campaign basically state that all males in the ages 16-50 (upper may be off) can be designated as enemy combatants. These have been used in AfPak, Yemen and Iraq. This is somewhat so they can pretend they are not killing any innocents... scummy upper level management BS of the highest order. So perhaps JJ killed in a barbaric/psychotic manner "enemy combatants"...

I'm struggling to understand what the extraordinary circumstances were that justified this assassination of a British citizen by the British state. I understand the political "we have to be seen to be doing something" angle, but that is a pretty crap reason to deploy large scale resources to murder a single individual.

[blandy]

2 hours ago, villaglint said:

I saw 148 French and UK passports were seized by Turkish forces/officials who had stormed an ISIS team. I was surprised at the number.

Does anyone have any idea or rough numbers about the numbers mobilised under Daesh?

If you Mooney it, you get between "at least 700" and 1600 depending who you believe. (that's just from the UK. Around 6000 from the EU by last April.

[villaglint]

OK so losing 300 (or a percentage of) in the raid Trent posted about is pretty significant then

edit - Just reread I guess those numbers dont include people from Syria/Iraq and other Middle East nations who have joined the "cause". So the overall figure will be much higher.

edit edit - Done own Mooney and numbers are between 31,000-200,000 depending who you believe.

 

Edited December 18, 2015 by villaglint

[blandy]

44 minutes ago, villakram said:

Just a comment regarding the JJ was a murderer therefore he got what he deserved thing.

1) Does one commit murder in a warzone or their duty?

2) The rules used by US DoD for their drone campaign basically state that all males in the ages 16-50 (upper may be off) can be designated as enemy combatants. These have been used in AfPak, Yemen and Iraq. This is somewhat so they can pretend they are not killing any innocents... scummy upper level management BS of the highest order. So perhaps JJ killed in a barbaric/psychotic manner "enemy combatants"...

I'm struggling to understand what the extraordinary circumstances were that justified this assassination of a British citizen by the British state. I understand the political "we have to be seen to be doing something" angle, but that is a pretty crap reason to deploy large scale resources to murder a single individual.

re Q1. it is possible to commit murder in a warzone. The laws of the country in which it took place apply. In the general nature of your question re JJ, then the UK Gov't claims the killing was legal under international law and not murder.

re Q2. from what I've read, and I don't know it to be definitely true, it seems like the US basically in many instances is acting illegally. The CIA operating UAVs to kill people in Pakistan is illegal. The CIA operators are civilians engaged in armed actions in another state, one which has not attacked the U.S. This is doubly illegal.

Pakistan Gov't, though is a bit of a double dealer with these things, in that they condemn and protest about the strikes, but secretly are happy enough for them to be carried out.

[snowychap]

3 hours ago, villaglint said:

I saw 148 French and UK passports were seized by Turkish forces/officials who had stormed an ISIS team. I was surprised at the number.

Does anyone have any idea or rough numbers about the numbers mobilised under Daesh?

If they've got more than 148 players in their team, they must have a very large bench.

[Awol]

The UK Gov has been peddling the 700-800 number for ages and it never seems to rise, suprisingly. 

Khaled Mahmood MP, a guy with no axe to grind (and potentially a lot to lose with his own community) estimated ages ago that more than 1000 men had gone to fight in Syria from Birmingham alone.

I would suggest the Government has much more of a vested interest in concealing the true numbers to avoid scaring the horses. Community cohesion and all that.

I also think the 30-40K IS fighter numbers are bunk as well. It is simply not credible that the group can hold so much territory  and be in engaged in a permanent cycle of defensive and offensive battles around it periphery with so few fighters. They are Jihadis, not Terminators. 

You also have to consider their combat loses, literally thousands in the battle for Kobani alone. 

The count also excludes 'badged' IS fighters in other theatres. They have a minimum 3000 in Libya, about the same in Somalia, something less than that but growing rapidly in Yemen, a good number in the Sinai... and on it goes.

Al Qaeda in Syria has an estimated 20-25K fighters and look at the pea sized territory they control in comparison. Ahrar Al Sham are bigger in number than AQ and hold similar sized territory.

Once you think it through it's clear the constant downplaying of IS' true numbers is politically driven information operations (propaganda in old money) against western domestic populations. The question of why is more open to interpretation.