This page is no longer updated, and is the old forum. For new topics visit the New HOL forum.
French bomb ISIS
Register | Edit Profile | Subscriptions | Forum Rules | Log In
 Cucking Funt  Clapham on the Back 29 Sep 15 10.51am |
  |
|---|---|
|
Quote dannyh at 29 Sep 2015 10.46am
Quote jamiemartin721 at 29 Sep 2015 10.38am
Quote Cucking Funt at 29 Sep 2015 10.29am
Quote jamiemartin721 at 29 Sep 2015 10.23am
Quote Cucking Funt at 29 Sep 2015 8.25am
Quote jamiemartin721 at 28 Sep 2015 10.17pm
Quote Stuk at 28 Sep 2015 4.06pm
Not bloody likely. I see the, waste of space, Greens have decided to try and waste more money, as they don't think we should've killed those w***ers in Syria. Hopefully they simply get told to sod off, by whomever needs to make the decision. Personally, I have no problem with killing people in IS provided its done with oversight and within the law. Or is there a new rule by which the Prime Minister and a selected few have the arbitrary decision on who lives and dies?
Actually, yes they were. More or less, plus I distinctly remember them hanging a s**tload of war criminals after the second world war (and arresting and punishing even some allied soliders for crimes committed during war, including unlawful killing). Also, we're not talking about 'giving them a warning' before we blow up a known IS location (perfectly legal) were talking about killing specific people with drone strikes, who are suspected of being part of terrorist organization, on the basis of intelligence reports. That's never gone badly wrong before. Its not like we recently invaded an entire country on utterly false intelligence and the say so of a Prime Minister. That hasn't at all blown up in our faces (infact an indirect result is the creation of ISIS, from Al-Qaeda in Iraq, and the fact we're bombing the f**k out of Syria now. When the state kills individuals, it needs to legally determine the right to do so, and that its actions are lawful (and that the targets are actually reasonably likely to be guilty of something).
No, because he was a known Nazi, a member of the German SS and well known to be a enemy. The uniform was a give away. I do think killing IS members is justifiable, I'd just like it to actually be shown to be justified. Rule of law. Heydrich was targeted by a specialist team directed by Czech agents. Of course on the basis of faulty information the Nazis then destroyed two villages in reprisal for the assassination. I'd rather we were on the first side, rather than ending up doing the later. Will not lose one wink of sleep over any IS members British or otherwise who get blown to bits, in fact I'd like to shake the hand of the pilot who dropped the bomb and buy him a beer. Any who thinks differently (maybe not the shake hand and beer bit) is by definition of their opinion an apologist handringer whose head is so far up thier own liberal hippy arse they can lick their own tonsils. IS is a cancer on this world, and like Cancer it needs cutting out and treating before it spreads.
|
|
 Alert a moderator to this post |
  |
| jamiemartin721 Reading 29 Sep 15 11.38am |
|
|---|---|
|
Quote Cucking Funt at 29 Sep 2015 10.51am
Quote dannyh at 29 Sep 2015 10.46am
Quote jamiemartin721 at 29 Sep 2015 10.38am
Quote Cucking Funt at 29 Sep 2015 10.29am
Quote jamiemartin721 at 29 Sep 2015 10.23am
Quote Cucking Funt at 29 Sep 2015 8.25am
Quote jamiemartin721 at 28 Sep 2015 10.17pm
Quote Stuk at 28 Sep 2015 4.06pm
Not bloody likely. I see the, waste of space, Greens have decided to try and waste more money, as they don't think we should've killed those w***ers in Syria. Hopefully they simply get told to sod off, by whomever needs to make the decision. Personally, I have no problem with killing people in IS provided its done with oversight and within the law. Or is there a new rule by which the Prime Minister and a selected few have the arbitrary decision on who lives and dies?
Actually, yes they were. More or less, plus I distinctly remember them hanging a s**tload of war criminals after the second world war (and arresting and punishing even some allied soliders for crimes committed during war, including unlawful killing). Also, we're not talking about 'giving them a warning' before we blow up a known IS location (perfectly legal) were talking about killing specific people with drone strikes, who are suspected of being part of terrorist organization, on the basis of intelligence reports. That's never gone badly wrong before. Its not like we recently invaded an entire country on utterly false intelligence and the say so of a Prime Minister. That hasn't at all blown up in our faces (infact an indirect result is the creation of ISIS, from Al-Qaeda in Iraq, and the fact we're bombing the f**k out of Syria now. When the state kills individuals, it needs to legally determine the right to do so, and that its actions are lawful (and that the targets are actually reasonably likely to be guilty of something).
No, because he was a known Nazi, a member of the German SS and well known to be a enemy. The uniform was a give away. I do think killing IS members is justifiable, I'd just like it to actually be shown to be justified. Rule of law. Heydrich was targeted by a specialist team directed by Czech agents. Of course on the basis of faulty information the Nazis then destroyed two villages in reprisal for the assassination. I'd rather we were on the first side, rather than ending up doing the later. Will not lose one wink of sleep over any IS members British or otherwise who get blown to bits, in fact I'd like to shake the hand of the pilot who dropped the bomb and buy him a beer. Any who thinks differently (maybe not the shake hand and beer bit) is by definition of their opinion an apologist handringer whose head is so far up thier own liberal hippy arse they can lick their own tonsils. IS is a cancer on this world, and like Cancer it needs cutting out and treating before it spreads.
God you don't half go on. Yes, we should target and kill IS assets (not saying we shouldn't), and we should also verify that actually we're killing the right people. Not just some brown guy who maybe that person, and not just taking the word of a few individuals who its in the best interest of to say, yes that's the guy. The difference between WWII and IS, is the stakes. IS aren't an existential threat to the UK, in any lifetime way shape or form. When you cut out a cancer, its vital that you don't actually remove the whole organ and introduce infection in the process. The US have been down this route, and low and behold, poor intelligence verification on targets resulted in massive civilian casualties among the people you're trying to protect, which invariably leds to more terrorists. Same with Ireland, shooting IRA, fair game. Saying you shot a lot of IRA, when in fact they were protestors, and then covering it up, just let to a massive escalation recruitment for the provisional IRA.
"One Nation Under God, has turned into One Nation Under the Influence of One Drug" |
|
| Alert a moderator to this post |
|
| jamiemartin721 Reading 29 Sep 15 11.46am |
|
|---|---|
|
Quote Stuk at 29 Sep 2015 10.48am
Quote jamiemartin721 at 29 Sep 2015 10.29am
Quote Stuk at 29 Sep 2015 10.15am
Quote jamiemartin721 at 28 Sep 2015 10.17pm
Quote Stuk at 28 Sep 2015 4.06pm
Not bloody likely. I see the, waste of space, Greens have decided to try and waste more money, as they don't think we should've killed those w***ers in Syria. Hopefully they simply get told to sod off, by whomever needs to make the decision. Personally, I have no problem with killing people in IS provided its done with oversight and within the law. Or is there a new rule by which the Prime Minister and a selected few have the arbitrary decision on who lives and dies? It's not a new one, no. It's the one he quoted from the UN charter of rights, that the US have been using for about a decade in pakistan without the hoo hah we've got for doing it once, on so-called British citizens. That's the US, they didn't recently have parliament decide not to expand airstrikes into Syria. I don't want a 'we have the right', all I want is that people are accountable for the decisions they make when conducting what essentially amounts to an assassination - i.e. A judge maybe, to actually determine that the information presented of someone actually being a valid target is crosses a reasonable threshold. Because what you have otherwise, is the state executing people without trial or oversight, on the basis of intelligence, which lets face it was a dogs breakfast over Iraq. Accountability. Preferably before we start doing things like firing drone missiles into Wedding parties or houses where 'someone might be' and killing a shed load of civilians, and then deciding its better to cover it all up. Just like we were sure WMD were in Iraq, and the British weren't complicit in torture, or rendition.
How is a judge better qualified to determine a valid target than the military? People act like the PM just did this all on his own. The decision probably involved quite a lot of people, and a lot more qualified people than those that Mr & Mrs Smith voted for as they said they'll keep our local library open. Then we go into amdram... "what if a wedding or house full of civlians get killed..." Because he has no vested interest in determining the validity of a target, and can make a verdict based on the provision of evidence? I'm not comfortable with targeted assassination just on the say so of those who want to kill someone. I think its fairly reasonable, that when determining a hit list of people its 'necessary' to kill, that maybe we verify to the best of our ability, that maybe they are actually people we need to kill, and that the evidence is sufficient that killing them is valid and that you can show that there was some kind of oversight. Do you really think the UK should be killing people just because a small group in the military have made that decision that they guilty? Or do you think somekind of reasonable process with independent verification (from outside government) is necessary. Because the first one that's not actually an IS victim will be a PR disaster, and a coup for IS.
"One Nation Under God, has turned into One Nation Under the Influence of One Drug" |
|
| Alert a moderator to this post |
|
| Cucking Funt Clapham on the Back 29 Sep 15 11.46am |
|
|---|---|
|
Quote jamiemartin721 at 29 Sep 2015 11.38am
Quote Cucking Funt at 29 Sep 2015 10.51am
Quote dannyh at 29 Sep 2015 10.46am
Quote jamiemartin721 at 29 Sep 2015 10.38am
Quote Cucking Funt at 29 Sep 2015 10.29am
Quote jamiemartin721 at 29 Sep 2015 10.23am
Quote Cucking Funt at 29 Sep 2015 8.25am
Quote jamiemartin721 at 28 Sep 2015 10.17pm
Quote Stuk at 28 Sep 2015 4.06pm
Not bloody likely. I see the, waste of space, Greens have decided to try and waste more money, as they don't think we should've killed those w***ers in Syria. Hopefully they simply get told to sod off, by whomever needs to make the decision. Personally, I have no problem with killing people in IS provided its done with oversight and within the law. Or is there a new rule by which the Prime Minister and a selected few have the arbitrary decision on who lives and dies?
Actually, yes they were. More or less, plus I distinctly remember them hanging a s**tload of war criminals after the second world war (and arresting and punishing even some allied soliders for crimes committed during war, including unlawful killing). Also, we're not talking about 'giving them a warning' before we blow up a known IS location (perfectly legal) were talking about killing specific people with drone strikes, who are suspected of being part of terrorist organization, on the basis of intelligence reports. That's never gone badly wrong before. Its not like we recently invaded an entire country on utterly false intelligence and the say so of a Prime Minister. That hasn't at all blown up in our faces (infact an indirect result is the creation of ISIS, from Al-Qaeda in Iraq, and the fact we're bombing the f**k out of Syria now. When the state kills individuals, it needs to legally determine the right to do so, and that its actions are lawful (and that the targets are actually reasonably likely to be guilty of something).
No, because he was a known Nazi, a member of the German SS and well known to be a enemy. The uniform was a give away. I do think killing IS members is justifiable, I'd just like it to actually be shown to be justified. Rule of law. Heydrich was targeted by a specialist team directed by Czech agents. Of course on the basis of faulty information the Nazis then destroyed two villages in reprisal for the assassination. I'd rather we were on the first side, rather than ending up doing the later. Will not lose one wink of sleep over any IS members British or otherwise who get blown to bits, in fact I'd like to shake the hand of the pilot who dropped the bomb and buy him a beer. Any who thinks differently (maybe not the shake hand and beer bit) is by definition of their opinion an apologist handringer whose head is so far up thier own liberal hippy arse they can lick their own tonsils. IS is a cancer on this world, and like Cancer it needs cutting out and treating before it spreads.
God you don't half go on. Yes, we should target and kill IS assets (not saying we shouldn't), and we should also verify that actually we're killing the right people. Not just some brown guy who maybe that person, and not just taking the word of a few individuals who its in the best interest of to say, yes that's the guy. The difference between WWII and IS, is the stakes. IS aren't an existential threat to the UK, in any lifetime way shape or form. When you cut out a cancer, its vital that you don't actually remove the whole organ and introduce infection in the process. The US have been down this route, and low and behold, poor intelligence verification on targets resulted in massive civilian casualties among the people you're trying to protect, which invariably leds to more terrorists. Same with Ireland, shooting IRA, fair game. Saying you shot a lot of IRA, when in fact they were protestors, and then covering it up, just let to a massive escalation recruitment for the provisional IRA.
Whadda shame.
|
|
| Alert a moderator to this post |
|
| jamiemartin721 Reading 29 Sep 15 11.52am |
|
|---|---|
|
Quote dannyh at 29 Sep 2015 10.46am
Quote jamiemartin721 at 29 Sep 2015 10.38am
Quote Cucking Funt at 29 Sep 2015 10.29am
Quote jamiemartin721 at 29 Sep 2015 10.23am
Quote Cucking Funt at 29 Sep 2015 8.25am
Quote jamiemartin721 at 28 Sep 2015 10.17pm
Quote Stuk at 28 Sep 2015 4.06pm
Not bloody likely. I see the, waste of space, Greens have decided to try and waste more money, as they don't think we should've killed those w***ers in Syria. Hopefully they simply get told to sod off, by whomever needs to make the decision. Personally, I have no problem with killing people in IS provided its done with oversight and within the law. Or is there a new rule by which the Prime Minister and a selected few have the arbitrary decision on who lives and dies?
Actually, yes they were. More or less, plus I distinctly remember them hanging a s**tload of war criminals after the second world war (and arresting and punishing even some allied soliders for crimes committed during war, including unlawful killing). Also, we're not talking about 'giving them a warning' before we blow up a known IS location (perfectly legal) were talking about killing specific people with drone strikes, who are suspected of being part of terrorist organization, on the basis of intelligence reports. That's never gone badly wrong before. Its not like we recently invaded an entire country on utterly false intelligence and the say so of a Prime Minister. That hasn't at all blown up in our faces (infact an indirect result is the creation of ISIS, from Al-Qaeda in Iraq, and the fact we're bombing the f**k out of Syria now. When the state kills individuals, it needs to legally determine the right to do so, and that its actions are lawful (and that the targets are actually reasonably likely to be guilty of something).
No, because he was a known Nazi, a member of the German SS and well known to be a enemy. The uniform was a give away. I do think killing IS members is justifiable, I'd just like it to actually be shown to be justified. Rule of law. Heydrich was targeted by a specialist team directed by Czech agents. Of course on the basis of faulty information the Nazis then destroyed two villages in reprisal for the assassination. I'd rather we were on the first side, rather than ending up doing the later. Will not lose one wink of sleep over any IS members British or otherwise who get blown to bits, in fact I'd like to shake the hand of the pilot who dropped the bomb and buy him a beer, whether it is legal in the eyes of two rug unchers from the green party is totally and utterly irrelevant. Any who thinks differently (maybe not the shake hand and beer bit) is by definition of their opinion an apologist handringer whose head is so far up thier own liberal hippy arse they can lick their own tonsils. IS is a cancer on this world, and like Cancer it needs cutting out and treating before it spreads. Edited by dannyh (29 Sep 2015 10.48am) Me neither, I just want to have some kind of actually reliable accountability that they were IS. I don't even care about whether they were involved in a plot or not, and that killing them was necessary to prevent that plot. You join IS, you've 'put on the uniform' and are a valid target. As a rule, I'm not keen on my government conducting assassinations, and only having to have their own word that it was justified, and then having the benefit of 'national security' to cover up any f**k ups. They need not only to be sure themselves, but able to convincing demonstrate that the target was infact justified.
"One Nation Under God, has turned into One Nation Under the Influence of One Drug" |
|
| Alert a moderator to this post |
|
| jamiemartin721 Reading 29 Sep 15 11.57am |
|
|---|---|
|
Quote Cucking Funt at 29 Sep 2015 11.46am
Quote jamiemartin721 at 29 Sep 2015 11.38am
Quote Cucking Funt at 29 Sep 2015 10.51am
Quote dannyh at 29 Sep 2015 10.46am
Quote jamiemartin721 at 29 Sep 2015 10.38am
Quote Cucking Funt at 29 Sep 2015 10.29am
Quote jamiemartin721 at 29 Sep 2015 10.23am
Quote Cucking Funt at 29 Sep 2015 8.25am
Quote jamiemartin721 at 28 Sep 2015 10.17pm
Quote Stuk at 28 Sep 2015 4.06pm
Not bloody likely. I see the, waste of space, Greens have decided to try and waste more money, as they don't think we should've killed those w***ers in Syria. Hopefully they simply get told to sod off, by whomever needs to make the decision. Personally, I have no problem with killing people in IS provided its done with oversight and within the law. Or is there a new rule by which the Prime Minister and a selected few have the arbitrary decision on who lives and dies?
Actually, yes they were. More or less, plus I distinctly remember them hanging a s**tload of war criminals after the second world war (and arresting and punishing even some allied soliders for crimes committed during war, including unlawful killing). Also, we're not talking about 'giving them a warning' before we blow up a known IS location (perfectly legal) were talking about killing specific people with drone strikes, who are suspected of being part of terrorist organization, on the basis of intelligence reports. That's never gone badly wrong before. Its not like we recently invaded an entire country on utterly false intelligence and the say so of a Prime Minister. That hasn't at all blown up in our faces (infact an indirect result is the creation of ISIS, from Al-Qaeda in Iraq, and the fact we're bombing the f**k out of Syria now. When the state kills individuals, it needs to legally determine the right to do so, and that its actions are lawful (and that the targets are actually reasonably likely to be guilty of something).
No, because he was a known Nazi, a member of the German SS and well known to be a enemy. The uniform was a give away. I do think killing IS members is justifiable, I'd just like it to actually be shown to be justified. Rule of law. Heydrich was targeted by a specialist team directed by Czech agents. Of course on the basis of faulty information the Nazis then destroyed two villages in reprisal for the assassination. I'd rather we were on the first side, rather than ending up doing the later. Will not lose one wink of sleep over any IS members British or otherwise who get blown to bits, in fact I'd like to shake the hand of the pilot who dropped the bomb and buy him a beer. Any who thinks differently (maybe not the shake hand and beer bit) is by definition of their opinion an apologist handringer whose head is so far up thier own liberal hippy arse they can lick their own tonsils. IS is a cancer on this world, and like Cancer it needs cutting out and treating before it spreads.
God you don't half go on. Yes, we should target and kill IS assets (not saying we shouldn't), and we should also verify that actually we're killing the right people. Not just some brown guy who maybe that person, and not just taking the word of a few individuals who its in the best interest of to say, yes that's the guy. The difference between WWII and IS, is the stakes. IS aren't an existential threat to the UK, in any lifetime way shape or form. When you cut out a cancer, its vital that you don't actually remove the whole organ and introduce infection in the process. The US have been down this route, and low and behold, poor intelligence verification on targets resulted in massive civilian casualties among the people you're trying to protect, which invariably leds to more terrorists. Same with Ireland, shooting IRA, fair game. Saying you shot a lot of IRA, when in fact they were protestors, and then covering it up, just let to a massive escalation recruitment for the provisional IRA.
Whadda shame. I was paraphrasing you in reference to myself.... Bad day for Irony today. Probably could do with a smoke mind. Yes, we should kill and strike IS targets. Its a war. But we should also be very certain that what we're striking are IS targets and not something that just looked like one, or was down to poor Human Intelligence (or unreliable intelligence, such as by factions with a vested interest in using UK resources to their own end). Problem is, sooner or later you're trusting people on the ground, in a multi-factional civil war to target an enemy, that's difficult to actually identify. There were problems with this in Afghanistan, in which local factions and tribal groups would identify rival factions and tribal groups, as Taliban, and eventually the were Taliban.
"One Nation Under God, has turned into One Nation Under the Influence of One Drug" |
|
| Alert a moderator to this post |
|
 coulsdoneagle  London 29 Sep 15 12.21pm |
|
|---|---|
|
Back to the french bombing. They are being morons and refusing to use intelligence from the allies. A lack of central intelligence is going to mean that wrong targets get hit. Any who the French have been bombing Syria for months have now said will start. It's not news they are just stopping denying what they already were doing
|
|
| Alert a moderator to this post |
|
| Stuk Top half 29 Sep 15 12.31pm |
|
|---|---|
|
Quote jamiemartin721 at 29 Sep 2015 11.46am
Quote Stuk at 29 Sep 2015 10.48am
Quote jamiemartin721 at 29 Sep 2015 10.29am
Quote Stuk at 29 Sep 2015 10.15am
Quote jamiemartin721 at 28 Sep 2015 10.17pm
Quote Stuk at 28 Sep 2015 4.06pm
Not bloody likely. I see the, waste of space, Greens have decided to try and waste more money, as they don't think we should've killed those w***ers in Syria. Hopefully they simply get told to sod off, by whomever needs to make the decision. Personally, I have no problem with killing people in IS provided its done with oversight and within the law. Or is there a new rule by which the Prime Minister and a selected few have the arbitrary decision on who lives and dies? It's not a new one, no. It's the one he quoted from the UN charter of rights, that the US have been using for about a decade in pakistan without the hoo hah we've got for doing it once, on so-called British citizens. That's the US, they didn't recently have parliament decide not to expand airstrikes into Syria. I don't want a 'we have the right', all I want is that people are accountable for the decisions they make when conducting what essentially amounts to an assassination - i.e. A judge maybe, to actually determine that the information presented of someone actually being a valid target is crosses a reasonable threshold. Because what you have otherwise, is the state executing people without trial or oversight, on the basis of intelligence, which lets face it was a dogs breakfast over Iraq. Accountability. Preferably before we start doing things like firing drone missiles into Wedding parties or houses where 'someone might be' and killing a shed load of civilians, and then deciding its better to cover it all up. Just like we were sure WMD were in Iraq, and the British weren't complicit in torture, or rendition.
How is a judge better qualified to determine a valid target than the military? People act like the PM just did this all on his own. The decision probably involved quite a lot of people, and a lot more qualified people than those that Mr & Mrs Smith voted for as they said they'll keep our local library open. Then we go into amdram... "what if a wedding or house full of civlians get killed..." Because he has no vested interest in determining the validity of a target, and can make a verdict based on the provision of evidence? I'm not comfortable with targeted assassination just on the say so of those who want to kill someone. I think its fairly reasonable, that when determining a hit list of people its 'necessary' to kill, that maybe we verify to the best of our ability, that maybe they are actually people we need to kill, and that the evidence is sufficient that killing them is valid and that you can show that there was some kind of oversight. Do you really think the UK should be killing people just because a small group in the military have made that decision that they guilty? Or do you think somekind of reasonable process with independent verification (from outside government) is necessary. Because the first one that's not actually an IS victim will be a PR disaster, and a coup for IS.
If they left here to fight for them or even support them, thats good enough for me. And that they have is not in doubt. We should definitely be killing, where possible, those that have the capacity to return to the UK. They haven't gone there for a jolly, so f*** 'em. Why take the risk.
Optimistic as ever |
|
| Alert a moderator to this post |
|
| jamiemartin721 Reading 29 Sep 15 12.50pm |
|
|---|---|
|
Quote Stuk at 29 Sep 2015 12.31pm
Quote jamiemartin721 at 29 Sep 2015 11.46am
Quote Stuk at 29 Sep 2015 10.48am
Quote jamiemartin721 at 29 Sep 2015 10.29am
Quote Stuk at 29 Sep 2015 10.15am
Quote jamiemartin721 at 28 Sep 2015 10.17pm
Quote Stuk at 28 Sep 2015 4.06pm
Not bloody likely. I see the, waste of space, Greens have decided to try and waste more money, as they don't think we should've killed those w***ers in Syria. Hopefully they simply get told to sod off, by whomever needs to make the decision. Personally, I have no problem with killing people in IS provided its done with oversight and within the law. Or is there a new rule by which the Prime Minister and a selected few have the arbitrary decision on who lives and dies? It's not a new one, no. It's the one he quoted from the UN charter of rights, that the US have been using for about a decade in pakistan without the hoo hah we've got for doing it once, on so-called British citizens. That's the US, they didn't recently have parliament decide not to expand airstrikes into Syria. I don't want a 'we have the right', all I want is that people are accountable for the decisions they make when conducting what essentially amounts to an assassination - i.e. A judge maybe, to actually determine that the information presented of someone actually being a valid target is crosses a reasonable threshold. Because what you have otherwise, is the state executing people without trial or oversight, on the basis of intelligence, which lets face it was a dogs breakfast over Iraq. Accountability. Preferably before we start doing things like firing drone missiles into Wedding parties or houses where 'someone might be' and killing a shed load of civilians, and then deciding its better to cover it all up. Just like we were sure WMD were in Iraq, and the British weren't complicit in torture, or rendition.
How is a judge better qualified to determine a valid target than the military? People act like the PM just did this all on his own. The decision probably involved quite a lot of people, and a lot more qualified people than those that Mr & Mrs Smith voted for as they said they'll keep our local library open. Then we go into amdram... "what if a wedding or house full of civlians get killed..." Because he has no vested interest in determining the validity of a target, and can make a verdict based on the provision of evidence? I'm not comfortable with targeted assassination just on the say so of those who want to kill someone. I think its fairly reasonable, that when determining a hit list of people its 'necessary' to kill, that maybe we verify to the best of our ability, that maybe they are actually people we need to kill, and that the evidence is sufficient that killing them is valid and that you can show that there was some kind of oversight. Do you really think the UK should be killing people just because a small group in the military have made that decision that they guilty? Or do you think somekind of reasonable process with independent verification (from outside government) is necessary. Because the first one that's not actually an IS victim will be a PR disaster, and a coup for IS.
If they left here to fight for them or even support them, thats good enough for me. And that they have is not in doubt. We should definitely be killing, where possible, those that have the capacity to return to the UK. They haven't gone there for a jolly, so f*** 'em. Why take the risk. Actually the prime minister said that they 'had no kill list' and that 'these individuals were killed to prevent imminent attacks', and that's why the action was taken - and that's important as well, as the UK Parliament, over a year ago, did not authorize airstrikes into Syria against IS. So in effect, the Prime Minister has also overruled the express will of Parliament (a parliament in which he was Prime Minister). But that's a slightly separate issue. No, I don't, they've a vested interest in supporting the Prime Ministers decision and can make political capital from 'Striking at IS'. Same reason why we have trial by a jury of our peers, you cannot just take the word of one side as being reliable and valid. Its about evidence. And what we are talking about here are effectively executions conducted at the command of the Prime Minister, without trial etc. It undermines a principle that is at the basis of UK law since the magna carta, the right to some form of fair trial.
"One Nation Under God, has turned into One Nation Under the Influence of One Drug" |
|
| Alert a moderator to this post |
|
| dannyh wherever I lay my hat....... 29 Sep 15 1.29pm |
|
|---|---|
|
If you are in IS held territory, with a Britsh Passport ( and still in contact with your own head by way of your neck) and are not part of any aid organistaion. You get bombed. DanH I said Bombed not bummed put your passport away.
"It's not the bullet that's got my name on it that concerns me; it's all them other ones flyin' around marked 'To Whom It May Concern.'" |
|
| Alert a moderator to this post |
|
| Cucking Funt Clapham on the Back 29 Sep 15 1.32pm |
|
|---|---|
|
Quote dannyh at 29 Sep 2015 1.29pm
If you are in IS held territory, with a Britsh Passport ( and still in contact with your own head by way of your neck) and are not part of any aid organistaion. You get bombed. DanH I said Bombed not bummed put your passport away. He likes a brown boy, does Dan.
|
|
| Alert a moderator to this post |
|
| jamiemartin721 Reading 29 Sep 15 1.41pm |
|
|---|---|
|
Quote dannyh at 29 Sep 2015 1.29pm
If you are in IS held territory, with a Britsh Passport ( and still in contact with your own head by way of your neck) and are not part of any aid organistaion. You get bombed. DanH I said Bombed not bummed put your passport away. How are you going to verify they have a British Passport? Wouldn't be the first person who's travelled on a false, or stolen passport (or applied for one in someone elses name with photo). Passport control in Syria seems to be limited.
"One Nation Under God, has turned into One Nation Under the Influence of One Drug" |
|
| Alert a moderator to this post |
|
Login / RegisterNew users
Registration is now on our new message board
Existing users
To login with your existing username you will need to convert your account over to the new message board.
Sponsors
All images and text on this site are copyright © 1999-2024 The Holmesdale Online, unless otherwise stated.
Web Design by Guntrisoft Ltd.