Jump to content
Sign in to follow this  
peterms

Tunisia, Egypt, Libya... Arab Countries in Revolt

Recommended Posts

Yes, about 1997/98. Too long ago to be making the connection though - or maybe too much of his product since then. 

He enters the region looking to trade and finds a tribal people just getting on with it. Growing crops (in this case marijuana) and raising families.They have no time for central government or wandering bandits, both of whom they'd shoo off by whatever means worked for them. Borders on maps mean little, they have their patch for crops and look after their own.

Approaching as a trader Marks is welcomed, and sees a side to the locals that doesn't sell newspapers.

The Yanks and the Soviets both enjoyed tremendous military power, yet without support from the locals, suffered campaigns ending in humiliation.

The folks on the ground need to be behind the foreign troops to succeed, and then any success to stick.

So help them out on their terms. Don't try introducing Western (or Communist) ideas of government. Let them live in their tribal communities, help them out when they're threatened by the religious halfwits.

Oh, and buy their marijuana.

Anyone got better ideas?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

because they left hear to go and fight for islamic state and they preached about hate and attacking the uk. for the life of me i cant understand how anyone could stick up for these two people and say maybe they were not terrorists,how can they not be? and its typical of this country to question if it was the right thing to do, of course it was.

How do you know any of these facts? I haven't seen anyone "sticking up for these two people". I've not seen any evidence of them being terrorists. I've read that it is true, but then I've read that Jimmy Saville was a really nice guy. I completely support this action and I expect that we'll learn more about it in time. I'm still sceptical when an authority figure claims something without evidence. Being sceptical should be the norm.

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

If it suits the narrative who cares about facts. Not saying it isn't true but we should know by now not to take anything authority figures say as gospel.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

ok why were they over there? and why were they in isis propoganda videos? no if's or but's on this one they deserved to be wiped out without any hesitation, but for instance i felt something was not right regarding the whole saddam hussein saga and that turned out that it was a complete conspiracy. bring back saddam thats what i say!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

...Just because people may wish to know 100% of the detail around an event overseas or all about the circumstances of a highly specific case like with this individual...

Who said anything about knowing 100% of the detail?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

i just cant believe people are questioning cameron over this, what the hell has he done wrong in all this apart from kill two terrorists who wanted to bring terror to our streets. anyone who fights for isis deserves to be killed. if it was left to the lefties the isis flag would be flying over buckingham palace.

I'm not disagreeing with you at all, but how do you know they were terrorists? I think it's reasonable to be sceptical.

I thought one of them or both of them were in an ISIS video?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

In my mind, once individuals have crossed the Rubicon and fled the West to Syria and joined ISIS they are terrorists. There is no grey area, no room for doubt or debate.

Once intelligence is such they are deemed to be a credible threat to the UK then I would want, no I would expect our Government to take action by whatever means are available to them. Given the location of these individuals and our on going reluctance to put boots on the ground then the action taken seems to me the only available option and one that is entirely justified.

In which case the government should be making the case in general for this kind of action in parliament. Your post recognizes, in part, the point that I am trying to make that it is about more than 'the circumstances of this particular case', it's about a general situation.

If this were to have been a one off action that was actually justified under the article 51 self-defence thing and that the danger was imminent then it's an exception; if, however, it's a case of saying that anyone over there under the IS banner is therefore a terrorist and fair game for assassination (in this case being bombed by a drone controlled by the RAF) whenever the opportunity arises (which was the point I've made several times earlier in the thread) then the government ought to be making the case before parliament. I've been out today but I think I heard Fallon on record earlier saying that there could well be many more such targets to be taken out in the same way and for the same reasons. This would suggest to me that, if not the action itself, the circumstances surrounding it were the result more of a political decision rather than a 'national security' one as a prelude to further action possibly because the government are not prepared to take their case to parliament (or bring a motion) until 'there is consensus'.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

i just cant believe people are questioning cameron over this, what the hell has he done wrong in all this apart from kill two terrorists who wanted to bring terror to our streets. anyone who fights for isis deserves to be killed. if it was left to the lefties the isis flag would be flying over buckingham palace.

I'm not disagreeing with you at all, but how do you know they were terrorists? I think it's reasonable to be sceptical.

I thought one of them or both of them were in an ISIS video?

When did appearing in a video become the same as convicted by a jury of peers in a court of law?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

i just cant believe people are questioning cameron over this, what the hell has he done wrong in all this apart from kill two terrorists who wanted to bring terror to our streets. anyone who fights for isis deserves to be killed. if it was left to the lefties the isis flag would be flying over buckingham palace.

Inspired idea! Then we could legally bomb the shit out of the place and kill two birds with one stone. Get Liz and Phil to send the invite forthwith

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

i just cant believe people are questioning cameron over this, what the hell has he done wrong in all this apart from kill two terrorists who wanted to bring terror to our streets. anyone who fights for isis deserves to be killed. if it was left to the lefties the isis flag would be flying over buckingham palace.

I'm not disagreeing with you at all, but how do you know they were terrorists? I think it's reasonable to be sceptical.

I thought one of them or both of them were in an ISIS video?

When did appearing in a video become the same as convicted by a jury of peers in a court of law?

be great if we could of got them before a court but little chance of that happening  as they fled to syria for some reason.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

i just cant believe people are questioning cameron over this, what the hell has he done wrong in all this apart from kill two terrorists who wanted to bring terror to our streets. anyone who fights for isis deserves to be killed. if it was left to the lefties the isis flag would be flying over buckingham palace.

Inspired idea! Then we could legally bomb the shit out of the place and kill two birds with one stone. Get Liz and Phil to send the invite forthwith

you dont mean that.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

i just cant believe people are questioning cameron over this, what the hell has he done wrong in all this apart from kill two terrorists who wanted to bring terror to our streets. anyone who fights for isis deserves to be killed. if it was left to the lefties the isis flag would be flying over buckingham palace.

Inspired idea! Then we could legally bomb the shit out of the place and kill two birds with one stone. Get Liz and Phil to send the invite forthwith

you dont mean that.

I don't?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

i just cant believe people are questioning cameron over this, what the hell has he done wrong in all this apart from kill two terrorists who wanted to bring terror to our streets. anyone who fights for isis deserves to be killed. if it was left to the lefties the isis flag would be flying over buckingham palace.

I'm not disagreeing with you at all, but how do you know they were terrorists? I think it's reasonable to be sceptical.

I thought one of them or both of them were in an ISIS video?

When did appearing in a video become the same as convicted by a jury of peers in a court of law?

be great if we could of got them before a court but little chance of that happening  as they fled to syria for some reason.

I agree. As long as they weren't simply fleeing persecution in Cardiff because they'd made some stupid videos when they were younger.

We aren't disagreeing here. we both feel the action taken was correct. I'm suggesting that you don't take what authority figures tell you as fact because it fits with your world view. Stay sceptical.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

because they left hear to go and fight for islamic state and they preached about hate and attacking the uk. for the life of me i cant understand how anyone could stick up for these two people and say maybe they were not terrorists,how can they not be? and its typical of this country to question if it was the right thing to do, of course it was.

How do you know any of these facts? I haven't seen anyone "sticking up for these two people". I've not seen any evidence of them being terrorists. I've read that it is true, but then I've read that Jimmy Saville was a really nice guy. I completely support this action and I expect that we'll learn more about it in time. I'm still sceptical when an authority figure claims something without evidence. Being sceptical should be the norm.

Posting pictures on twitter next to dead people, making jokes about them, posts about how long it took to decapitate them etc is good enough reason for me for our goverment to send out drones and blow them to pieces. I wouldn't waste our ground forces on these despicable humans. They knew what they were letting themselves in for when they left Britain to fight against us. They are Isis fanatics, there's enough proof of that.

 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

This whole situation is an interesting one. From the parliamentary angle to the validity of it at all.

I can't say in that I'm that bothered that either of these 2 has been splattered across some interesting new crater in the Syrian landscape, but equally I'm not too sure I want to justify that with the government telling us 'these guys were a threat, OK?'. I'd like to see some evidence they had planned to attack the UK. I'm not sure that just going to Syria and flapping your idiot lip about ISIS bollocks is something that cashes in your life card. Don't get me wrong, if you're going to Syria to join up, I think you're a word removed and your options no longer include returning to the UK, but I don't think that means the UK has carte blanche to kill you. There are plenty of people worldwide who talk a big game about threats to the UK but that doesn't give us the right to remotely remove them from the earth. If that was the case Anjem Choudhary would have been a smoking crater of slowly cooling glass years ago.

If, however, there was credible evidence they did pose a threat, by which I mean plans were in place and work begun to implement them in earnest, given the situation whereby we can't really secure these people to go through due process, I don't think I raise an issue.

Either way I don't think there's many people shedding a tear for 2 words removed tonight 

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

i just cant believe people are questioning cameron over this, what the hell has he done wrong in all this apart from kill two terrorists who wanted to bring terror to our streets. anyone who fights for isis deserves to be killed. if it was left to the lefties the isis flag would be flying over buckingham palace.

I'm not disagreeing with you at all, but how do you know they were terrorists? I think it's reasonable to be sceptical.

I thought one of them or both of them were in an ISIS video?

When did appearing in a video become the same as convicted by a jury of peers in a court of law?

be great if we could of got them before a court but little chance of that happening  as they fled to syria for some reason.

I agree. As long as they weren't simply fleeing persecution in Cardiff because they'd made some stupid videos when they were younger.

We aren't disagreeing here. we both feel the action taken was correct. I'm suggesting that you don't take what authority figures tell you as fact because it fits with your world view. Stay sceptical.

point taken. i dont think everything i hear about muslims is true,i have my doubts about 9/11 for instance but i think what the world is facing with isis is a problem that needs stamping out quick. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Depending on how much you trust Sky News, there was some very convincing evidence in their undercover report a few weeks ago about the third jihadist killed by the U.S. drone.  I believe he was ISIS's main tech guy and he and his wife were training UK terrorists online and giving them targets including VE Day parades, and also said they already had at least two trained up and ready attack over here.  I'm pretty sure we are better off with these people dead and I'd rather we were taking stronger military action.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

In my mind, once individuals have crossed the Rubicon and fled the West to Syria and joined ISIS they are terrorists. There is no grey area, no room for doubt or debate.

Once intelligence is such they are deemed to be a credible threat to the UK then I would want, no I would expect our Government to take action by whatever means are available to them. Given the location of these individuals and our on going reluctance to put boots on the ground then the action taken seems to me the only available option and one that is entirely justified.

In which case the government should be making the case in general for this kind of action in parliament. Your post recognizes, in part, the point that I am trying to make that it is about more than 'the circumstances of this particular case', it's about a general situation.

If this were to have been a one off action that was actually justified under the article 51 self-defence thing and that the danger was imminent then it's an exception; if, however, it's a case of saying that anyone over there under the IS banner is therefore a terrorist and fair game for assassination (in this case being bombed by a drone controlled by the RAF) whenever the opportunity arises (which was the point I've made several times earlier in the thread) then the government ought to be making the case before parliament. I've been out today but I think I heard Fallon on record earlier saying that there could well be many more such targets to be taken out in the same way and for the same reasons. This would suggest to me that, if not the action itself, the circumstances surrounding it were the result more of a political decision rather than a 'national security' one as a prelude to further action possibly because the government are not prepared to take their case to parliament (or bring a motion) until 'there is consensus'.

I'm not sure there is a 'general situation' though, at this moment in time this is very much isolated incident and unusual course of action, in fact its unique. We've been engaging ISIS for quite some time now and this is the first drone strike/assassination in Syria, more may well follow but we are entering the realms of the unknown there. I think its therefore a bit of a leap to say that the government should be making the case for this kind of action in parliament. Not all military actions need to be passed through parliament after all.

I certainly haven't read anything that even remotely suggests that 'anyone over there under the IS banner is therefore a terrorist and fair game for assassination whenever the opportunity arises' that really is a monumental leap. So your point that if this is what they are saying they should make the case in parliament is a bit of a moot point if you don't mind me saying.

Yes I think Fallon has said that but then what would you expect him to say? He can hardly say "no this is a one off" because he has no idea what might be around the corner, what threat there may be or what action might be deemed necessary. He would literally have to be stupid to say anything other than that this sort of strike could be repeated.

I don't see the justification for your assertion that its a political decision rather than a security one, nor the logic if I'm honest. I'm struggling to see the political gain available to Cameron from this at a time when the media focus is on a humanitarian crisis and when there is little public appetite for enhanced levels of combat. Unless you think its purely to gain a few popularity points but personally I don't buy that.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Sign in to follow this  

×
×
  • Create New...
Â