The Arab Spring and "the War on Terror"

[OutByEaster?]

I personally find AWOL's idea of murdering British citizens without recourse to any form of legal process sickening. 

 

For me, it's the same way of thinking that lead to the death of Lee Rigby, the other side of the same coin. 

[chrisp65]

I personally find AWOL's idea of murdering British citizens without recourse to any form of legal process sickening. 

 

For me, it's the same way of thinking that lead to the death of Lee Rigby, the other side of the same coin. 

yep

 

trouble is it doesn't respect the laws and culture it's apparently trying to preserve

 

out of curiosity, how would we then deal with people fighting with groups previously thought 'bad' that are now considered 'good' 

 

 

will we be letting these guys back in?

[omariqy]

Also what about people fighting for say the IDF?  What is the situation there?

[Ads]

They're fighting with a bunch of Marxists, surely they'd be popular with a few on here

[bickster]

Who are the marxists, out there not on here?

[Awol]

Who are the marxists, out there not on here?

The PKK.

[Awol]

I personally find AWOL's idea of murdering British citizens without recourse to any form of legal process sickening.

So, are you sickened by the idea that the UK military are currently killing, without trial, 'Brits' fighting for IS in Iraq/Syria? Or is your moral revulsion only limited to the idea of killing them if they got away with it and are on route back to UK?

Serious question because if you think one is acceptable but not the other that would seem incredibly hypocritical.

[Awol]

Far right, on that, maybe.

I'd prefer 'pragmatic', but understand the proposal won't get me a date with Ms Chakrabarti.

I've always kind of assumed nothing would get you a date with her due to your possession of a penis.

I think they are allowed, but must be detachable and fit in her purse.

sexist shite, those posts. no need, IMO.

Haven't we still got a thread (with pics) about women that posters would like to shag? But questioning an individual talking head's sexuality is "sexist shite"?

Give over.

[CrackpotForeigner]

It's nothing special to be a Marxist. All he did was write books about the evils of concentrated wealth. I don't see the big deal.

 

Maoists, Stalinists, (and maybe) Leninists: Them's the folk to worry about.

[Ads]

I don't know, these Marxists now have their very own British Airsoft Battalion.Sounds pretty dangerous to me.

[CrackpotForeigner]

British Airsoft Battalion

 

What is one of those?

[blandy]

There is only one sure way to deal with the problem. Anyone who goes to join IS is ID'd, then intercepted and killed on the return journey. No trial, no publicity, just dead.

I think Omar nailed one massive flaw in this post - people going to do aid, medicine and all that. How can we be sure?. And that's aside from the reliance on hit squads or the like to kill people on foreign soil - a whole can of owrms, regardless of the moral situation.

 

...If they want to go and engage in genocide that is their call. In doing so they explicitly reject civilization in favour of chaos and slaughter. This isn't the IRA, they don't have rules.

Once they cross that line they are irredeemable in my view. Far better them dead...

So, let me get this straight? - The IRA setting off their bombs, their murdering, their maiming, that kind of thing, and all carried out nice and conveniently, all local like, in the British Isles - well you've got to admire their adherence to rules and their love for the islands we inhabit, and as such they're alright - no extra judicial killing for them, but these ISILs with their sloppy attitude to rules - they're different kettle of fish entirely. And they're doing all this bloody miles away, in someone else's country. Bastards! shoot them now, no questions asked.

 

If someone swans off to join the Islamic State ....Although we haven't officially declared war on IS, the fact we are killing them in theatre with special forces and air strikes signifies they are enemies of the UK. I don't see why that distinction should end when IS members leave a defined geographic area.

It doesn't though, does it? We're not killing them because they're enemies of the UK. We're killing them because they're doing nasty chopping up and raping and murdering on civilian populations along religious and ethnic lines. When "we" drop bombs on their jeeps or tanks we're stopping them in the act of furthering their aims. They're active combatants.

When/if you shoot someone coming out of the hotel/station/library/starbucks/mosque or wherever in, say, Istanbul, or Paris they're posing no imminent threat to anyone. They are getting on the bus/train home. If they've broken the law, arrest them, try them. Don't shoot or knife them in the street - that seems too reminiscent of what the terrorists did in London, don't you think?

...are you sickened by the idea that the UK military are currently killing, without trial, 'Brits' fighting for IS in Iraq/Syria? Or is your moral revulsion only limited to the idea of killing them if they got away with it and are on route back to UK? Serious question because if you think one is acceptable but not the other that would seem incredibly hypocritical.

As above, really. killing ISILs in a war zone, in the act of them doing war things is not the same as killing someone coming out of King's Cross St. Pancras station, getting off the Eurostar. If they did a crime - arrest them.

I don't want unaccountable forces going round killing folk in London or Calais or wherever on the basis that "well they used to be in Iraq/Syria, so they must have been at it, like, doing their Islaming and their head chopping - cus that's what they're like, you know"

[Ads]

 

British Airsoft Battalion

 

What is one of those?

 

 

Sorry, I am taking the mickey out of the Brits in that photo. Airsoft is BB guns and the like.

 

Stag dos going to paintballing after a night on the sauce look handier than that bunch.

[maqroll]

 

I personally find AWOL's idea of murdering British citizens without recourse to any form of legal process sickening.

So, are you sickened by the idea that the UK military are currently killing, without trial, 'Brits' fighting for IS in Iraq/Syria? Or is your moral revulsion only limited to the idea of killing them if they got away with it and are on route back to UK?

Serious question because if you think one is acceptable but not the other that would seem incredibly hypocritical.

 

I think you're drawing a false equivalency. Lest British soil become a battlefield itself where jihadists are simply shot on sight, in which case, they win, by successfully negating the rule of law in Britain.

[OutByEaster?]

 

I personally find AWOL's idea of murdering British citizens without recourse to any form of legal process sickening.

So, are you sickened by the idea that the UK military are currently killing, without trial, 'Brits' fighting for IS in Iraq/Syria? Or is your moral revulsion only limited to the idea of killing them if they got away with it and are on route back to UK?

Serious question because if you think one is acceptable but not the other that would seem incredibly hypocritical.

 

I think the idea that either side can do anything to make the situation in the gulf better by killing more people is ridiculous. I don't think we should be there, on either side. Maybe the way forward should be about talking, allowing some form of self government, some form of self determination for the people in Iraq, even if (gulp) that affects profit. Or we can continue with the current policy of war, genocide and revenge, rinse and repeat - I'm sickened by the idea of human beings being killed for money, no matter who's doing it. 

 

The anger that the Arab world felt because of the first two Gulf wars and the genocidal sanctions that we put in place in between them is the direct cause of the anger that causes people from the UK to want to fight for ISIS. It's a great pity that we don't start the process of change by addressing the mistakes of the past, trying to rebuild an Iraq that we broke and offering the Iraqi people options for the future that don't need to include a caliphate founded by loonies. That'd be a better way forward to my mind. The diplomat over the warlord, talking over bloodlust - it seems almost old fashioned.

 

But, if you prefer this circle where we each demonise the other, then use the media available to us, whether that be the Mosque or the TV network to build a hatred designed to encourage compliance and follow this with murder, war and terrorist attack, from both directions, then who am I to argue - I hope you're enjoying it.

[Awol]

I personally find AWOL's idea of murdering British citizens without recourse to any form of legal process sickening.

So, are you sickened by the idea that the UK military are currently killing, without trial, 'Brits' fighting for IS in Iraq/Syria? Or is your moral revulsion only limited to the idea of killing them if they got away with it and are on route back to UK?

Serious question because if you think one is acceptable but not the other that would seem incredibly hypocritical.

I think you're drawing a false equivalency. Lest British soil become a battlefield itself where jihadists are simply shot on sight, in which case, they win, by successfully negating the rule of law in Britain.

Not ignoring Blandy's post which I'll reply to when I have time for a proper response.

To your point: British soil is already a battlefield as far as these people are concerned, it is only due to the diligence of the security services and police that many 100's of innocent Brits (and others) are still walking around.

I fully recognize that British citizens cannot simply be bumped off on British soil, but while in transit here from the battlefield (and it is not so difficult to distinguish between IS fighters and charity workers - see GCHQ/cyber/comms surveillance) they are still, IMHO, fair game.

[Awol]

I personally find AWOL's idea of murdering British citizens without recourse to any form of legal process sickening.

So, are you sickened by the idea that the UK military are currently killing, without trial, 'Brits' fighting for IS in Iraq/Syria? Or is your moral revulsion only limited to the idea of killing them if they got away with it and are on route back to UK?

Serious question because if you think one is acceptable but not the other that would seem incredibly hypocritical.

I think the idea that either side can do anything to make the situation in the gulf better by killing more people is ridiculous. I don't think we should be there, on either side. Maybe the way forward should be about talking, allowing some form of self government, some form of self determination for the people in Iraq, even if (gulp) that affects profit. Or we can continue with the current policy of war, genocide and revenge, rinse and repeat - I'm sickened by the idea of human beings being killed for money, no matter who's doing it.

The anger that the Arab world felt because of the first two Gulf wars and the genocidal sanctions that we put in place in between them is the direct cause of the anger that causes people from the UK to want to fight for ISIS. It's a great pity that we don't start the process of change by addressing the mistakes of the past, trying to rebuild an Iraq that we broke and offering the Iraqi people options for the future that don't need to include a caliphate founded by loonies. That'd be a better way forward to my mind. The diplomat over the warlord, talking over bloodlust - it seems almost old fashioned.

But, if you prefer this circle where we each demonise the other, then use the media available to us, whether that be the Mosque or the TV network to build a hatred designed to encourage compliance and follow this with murder, war and terrorist attack, from both directions, then who am I to argue - I hope you're enjoying it.

"I hope you're enjoying it"....Seriously?

The facts are simple: IS are there and they are not going to be wished/negotiated/tambourined away with some wooly, won't somebody think of the children, Guardian editorial.

They are in it to win it, so we/somebody else kills them or they will. It's not nice or pretty, but it is reality.

[blandy]

Haven't we still got a thread (with pics) about women that posters would like to shag? But questioning an individual talking head's sexuality is "sexist shite"?

Give over.

No, but if we did that was too. The main point though is that the comment that [your views] wouldn't get you a date with the Liberty woman is on topic and kind of relevant, but her sexual preferences (which given she has a son and is/was married to a man seem not to be as implied anyway) is not and is pure sexism, IMO. Like I said, just no need (this is my view as a poster, not as a moderator).

[blandy]

The facts are simple: IS are there and they are not going to be wished/negotiated/tambourined away with some wooly, won't somebody think of the children, Guardian editorial.

They are in it to win it, so we/somebody else kills them or they will. It's not nice or pretty, but it is reality.

You're right, it is ONE reality. It is the conventional one, and it has to be faced that it is the most likely to happen one, as well.

The difficulty I have is that "we" seem so sure we have the understanding and the answer, but "we" don't. It's like the other non-war, war - the war on drugs. "Our way" does not and has not worked. It cannot win, the way we are conducting ourselves. Doing it, only more so, will not and cannot "win".

If their aim is to fight "the west" then going and fighting them is helping them winning and achieving their aim.

targetted executions/murders of people who've left the combat areas isn't the way. It will lead to more people going there, not less.

[Awol]

The facts are simple: IS are there and they are not going to be wished/negotiated/tambourined away with some wooly, won't somebody think of the children, Guardian editorial.

They are in it to win it, so we/somebody else kills them or they will. It's not nice or pretty, but it is reality.

You're right, it is ONE reality. It is the conventional one, and it has to be faced that it is the most likely to happen one, as well.

The difficulty I have is that "we" seem so sure we have the understanding and the answer, but "we" don't. It's like the other non-war, war - the war on drugs. "Our way" does not and has not worked. It cannot win, the way we are conducting ourselves. Doing it, only more so, will not and cannot "win".

If their aim is to fight "the west" then going and fighting them is helping them winning and achieving their aim.

targetted executions/murders of people who've left the combat areas isn't the way. It will lead to more people going there, not less.

I get what you're saying and why, but the ideology these guys subscribe to means that in their minds they haven't left the combat area when they exit Syria/Iraq. Europe, UK, wherever they are is the arena of Jihad, that's the difference in mindset.

We are conditioned to think in acronyms and conventional terms following a lifetime of death by viewfoil/PowerPoint. We are fighting an entirely different enemy that does not and will not conform to our rules, theatre is just where they happen to wake up on a given day.

That's what I meant by the Provo comparison, not to confer legitimacy on them but to highlight that they, in the main, were bound by the same cultural norms as us. IS types are not, for them the more shocking and morally repugnant the act of violence the better it is.

I'm not saying we should be sending heavy armour into Syria to fight the good fight, but I do think we need to wake up and deal with the domestic menace we face by dealing with those who may otherwise waltz back into downtown 'the Shire' and set about people.