Jump to content

The Arab Spring and "the War on Terror"


legov

Recommended Posts

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?

Link to comment
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
Link to comment
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.

Link to comment
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.

Link to comment
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?

Link to comment
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.

Link to comment
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
Link to comment
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
Link to comment
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. 

Link to comment
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.

Link to comment
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
Link to comment
Share on other sites

We've got to be careful with absolutes here. Look at NI, lots of very undesirable individuals walking the streets, but a semblance of normal society has returned. To condemn absolutely those who are your current enemy forever gives them no option to evolve their viewpoint either.

Link to comment
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 

Great post, sums up my feelings exactly. 

No, I'm not sad they're dead, but I think if this is to be a regular thing, then we need to debate the fact that we're de facto reintroducing the death penalty for people who join IS in Syria. 

EDIT: I really do think the government should be trying to present at least some evidence that this action was justified by the threat they posed. 

Edited by HanoiVillan
Link to comment
Share on other sites

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.

I'm not saying that anyone has used those precise words and I'm not saying that is the governments position (though I suspect it's the position of quite a number of people in government and probably a huge number of hawks).

I'd be interested to know why, if one holds the positions that once individuals have crossed the Rubicon and fled the West to Syria and joined ISIS they are terrorists and 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, one wouldn't be of the opinion that any IS actors (be they British Jihadis or from elsewhere) are not fair targets for the same actions as were taken in this case?

 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.

Actually, from what I now read Fallon hasn't said that there could well be more but that there are indeed more targets against whom 'if there is no other way of preventing these attacks' they would carry out the same strikes. It's an interesting phrase that Mr Fallon uses (it's a bit of a ticking time bomb style insertion) because it doesn't completely fit with what has come out about the targets taken out a couple of weeks ago (i.e. questions about any imminence of threat, that attacks had already been foiled, &c.).

Of course he's a politician and its their wont to weasel their way around things but it would appear to me from his comments that this is some sort of policy (at least in infant stages).

 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.

I think you may have misunderstood what I meant when I said 'political' decision. It's not about political gain in a party political sense or in a personal popularity sense but it's about making a decision to achieve an end beyond just the crater after the drone strikes - the suggestion in my previous post was 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'.

 

 

 

Apologies if that hasn't come out in any readable form but I'm having a shocker of a time acclimatizing myself to this editor!

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'll finish my comments on the matter with a few quoted lines from David Allen Green's blog on it over at the FT :

There is a good reason why life and death should not depend on the executive’s fiat.

The death of an Isis operative does not matter; but what does matter is that a government capable of killing people does not fall into the habit of casual international homicide, believing it just has to shout “self-defence” and “terrorism” so as to get people to nod-along.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
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 

Great post, sums up my feelings exactly. 

No, I'm not sad they're dead, but I think if this is to be a regular thing, then we need to debate the fact that we're de facto reintroducing the death penalty for people who join IS in Syria. 

EDIT: I really do think the government should be trying to present at least some evidence that this action was justified by the threat they posed. 

Thing is we already have introduced the death penalty for those who join IS and have been bombing them in Iraq for months - at the request of the Iraqi government.

It's the same organisation as that fighting  on territory we recognise as Syria, but for them that international  border no longer exists and was succeeded by their Islamic State. Clearly the IS interpretation of current borders is reflected by the facts on the ground.

What this drone strike has really done is highlighted the absurdity of the UK's current position. You fight IS or you don't. Clinging to a position that events have rendered moot is ridiculous.

Imho Cameron now needs to very realistic about a few things. IS has to fought wherever they are, that includes Syria but also Libya and increasingly the Yemen. He is highly unlikely to get this through a Parliamentary vote and has no chance whatsoever once Corbyn is elected. He doesn't need to, this convention was introduced by Blair to give himself moral top cover for the Iraq invasion. It is not constitutionally required.

He also needs to tell Germany, France and the US that we are going to talk to Putin about a comprehensive political solution for Syria. America is secure behind the Atlantic and Obama is a spanner who has fecked up Middle East policy completely. Germany doesn't really do FP very much but would welcome the chance to start being more pragmatic with Moscow. The French can eat a length, anyone who genuinely believes they are our geopolitical friends needs their heads examined.

The only solution to Syria is political and must include Russia and Iran. That is impossible to achieve while IS dominate so much of the ground. Local forces lack the capacity to decisively push them back, particularly while they are being attacked by the IS airforce in Turkey. We (the West) are going to have to go in or stand aside while the Russians do. From a realpolitik point of view we share Assad's enemies and as long as they exist at current levels of strength and organisation Iraq will also remain a slaughterhouse.

Assad will have to go into exile as part of a managed transition to a new government, but for now it's about the wolf nearest the sleigh and that is IS.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Well, I totally oppose invading Syria, and certainly nothing will persuade me otherwise. So we're implacably opposed on this issue. 

Well that's it then. Pistols at dawn :)     

Do you concede that it is logically, strategically and militarily incoherent to attack IS in Iraq but not in Syria, when chunks of  the former territories of both countries are now incorporated into the Islamic State?   For example had these two little 'erberts been plinked by drones on the Iraqi side of the old border this would be a non-issue and indeed have been done with the full (however legally irrelevant) backing of Parliament.  

I'm not asking you to agree that we should invade, only to recognise the obvious failing in the current  UK arrangements for targeting Islamic State.    

Link to comment
Share on other sites

×
×
  • Create New...
Â