Going outside the law and spirit of our law is something we should only ever pursue in specific individual case, where all other options are exhausted.

The recent cases where the Security Services have been implicit in torture and rendition shame us, and validate the cause of the enemy far more than they serve any real long term goal.

So far the only reason we've 'removed citizenship' from individuals, is to allow them to be targeted for drone strikes, without it violating our own laws of responsibility.

In reality, we have, along with the US, declared a war on some terrorism, specifically certain Islamist terrorists, we shouldn't really be too surprised when we then become the target of terrorist attacks against our citizens.

We need to remain firm but fair and just, ruled by due process whenever possible. We should of course reserve the right to retaliate and eliminate targets of opportunity that arise, militarily, judicially and when necessary through extra-judicial measures.

But we also must accept the responsibility when we get it wrong or get caught out breaking our own laws.

"One Nation Under God, has turned into One Nation Under the Influence of One Drug"
[Link]

Its a threat, but in terms of a real threat to national security, stability of the nation and the British way of life its fairly minimal. Its a serious matter, and one we need to remain focused on, but if we keep wetting our knickers in any conflict when the enemy causes casualties, civilian or military, we're only going to end up losing.

We're in a war, and its inevitable that people will die, that cannot be avoided. Acting as if its 1939, the Army is in retreat and the Germans are at the door, every time we suffer an attack ultimately will end up feeding into a defeat. Turning every casualty into a media story hampered the long term ambitions in Afghanistan and Iraq, and the same will apply to the war on terror.

We need to eliminate the threat, definitely, but in doing so, we will also have to accept that threat will now exist for at least another generation. The successes against Al-Qaeda groups has produced groups like IS, that have effectively formed a 'second generation' of Islamist terrorists aimed at the west.

Terrorist groups invariably see themselves as a vanguard movement, their aim is to create reprisals and repression of those they claim to represent, marginalizing those people, and drawing them onto their side of the fence (ultimately radicalizing them).

Its a long war situation, there isn't an easy way out, because even if we crushed IS militarily in Syria and Iraq, their affilates and ideological supporters have essentially become the new Al-Qaeda franchise.

Eventually IS will likely end up destroyed, and its survivors will form a new organization that will declare war on the west and so on.

Usually these kinds of conflicts run to 20-30 years before either petering out, negotiated settlements or being overtaken by social changes (or a combination of all these).

Each generation of terrorist group becomes more efficient and effective than its predecessor, as it learns from its failures.

"One Nation Under God, has turned into One Nation Under the Influence of One Drug"
[Link]

9 of the 12 definitely, given they're British children (oldest is 15), who aren't legally accountable. The other three, well as prisoners they are entitled to health care and treatment.

I'd imagine the ISIS Health service is more geared towards trauma treatment.

"One Nation Under God, has turned into One Nation Under the Influence of One Drug"
[Link]

They didn't nearly kill the entire cabinet, they managed to bomb the Brighton Hotel and launch a rocket attack on Downing Street. Neither attack would likely have resulted in the loss of the entire cabinet, and civil contingencies exist that can deal with that event anyhow.

The number of active IRA members, doesn't really describe the effectiveness or size of the organization. The Provisionals generally had very few active service units in operation at any given time. Those cells would carry out attacks and bombings, but they were supported by other cells that dealt with this like logistical support, intelligence, counter intelligence, operational planning etc that all would then be fed to an ASU. Someone would build the bomb, another group would move it from the bomb maker to the armoury, another group would then supply it to the ASU would would deploy it, and then another group would have set up 'escape plans' for the ASU (and many of these groups would have little or no interaction) - It makes the most of skill sets and allows focused training (and in theory makes it harder to infiltrate)

So you might have three active service units on the mainland, of say 15 people in total, but they would be backed by a much larger organization.

As such an ASU was only focused on conducting the operation. Most militaries work this way, there are those that 'engage the enemy' and those who 'make it possible'.

"One Nation Under God, has turned into One Nation Under the Influence of One Drug"
[Link]

Sounds like you wouldn't get twitchy until the IS flag was flying over Parliament. Glad you're not in charge.

Not really, I like to understand how things work and operate. I think its vital to understand an enemy, who it is, what it wants, how it functions etc if you want to defeat it. This isn't a conflict that can be won purely on a militarily basis.

"One Nation Under God, has turned into One Nation Under the Influence of One Drug"
[Link]