This page is no longer updated, and is the old forum.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
 dannyh  wherever I lay my hat....... 29 Sep 15 1.52pm |
  |
|---|---|
|
Quote jamiemartin721 at 29 Sep 2015 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.
They go through Turkey first ( in the main ) why not just introduce random checks for profiles that fit to verify there business in turkey. The Americans do it for just about anyone who enters the country, as do the Auzzies. I dont wait a police state or soldiers at Airports (f*** that I'd have to work for living), or any of that lefty paranoia to come to pass. However to ignore the threat of militant Islamic threats to UK security is as daft as it a plain case of denial. To Deny there are no go Zones in Heavily islamic populated areas of the UK already is ignoring facts. We need to do something, and the longer it is left, the more extreme the eventual measure will have to be.
"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 |
  |
| Stuk Top half 29 Sep 15 1.55pm |
|
|---|---|
|
Quote jamiemartin721 at 29 Sep 2015 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. You need to grasp that not everything can and will be done by the methods you approve of, or believe should be followed. These were c***s, now they're dead c***s. You can't give someone a fair trial when they've f***ed off to Syria to kill people. I wouldn't care if we were doing it on a daily basis. You've gone there and we don't want you back, and there's only one way to guarantee that. Edited by Stuk (29 Sep 2015 1.55pm)
Optimistic as ever |
|
| Alert a moderator to this post |
|
| jamiemartin721 Reading 29 Sep 15 2.44pm |
|
|---|---|
|
Quote Stuk at 29 Sep 2015 1.55pm
You need to grasp that not everything can and will be done by the methods you approve of, or believe should be followed. So what you're saying is, that even if you can't be reasonably sure of the intelligence, you should kill the target, just in case it is the right person? Doesn't have to be a fair trial, but putting all that authority in the hands of a select few and then not making them accountable is a mistake. Its not much to ask for, is it, that every time the state kills someone by executive order, that an independent body adjudicate the validity of that order in line with the evidence? Even if its done retrospectively.
"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 2.50pm |
|
|---|---|
|
Quote matt_himself at 27 Sep 2015 10.13am
Glad to see someone is doing something: Let's hope we follow them. We have been, even though we didn't actually get parliamentary approval, the UK has 'lent' aircraft in support of US missions in Syria (which means that aircraft are technically under US control and authority, rather than British).
"One Nation Under God, has turned into One Nation Under the Influence of One Drug" |
|
| Alert a moderator to this post |
|
| Stuk Top half 29 Sep 15 3.16pm |
|
|---|---|
|
Quote jamiemartin721 at 29 Sep 2015 2.44pm
Quote Stuk at 29 Sep 2015 1.55pm
You need to grasp that not everything can and will be done by the methods you approve of, or believe should be followed. So what you're saying is, that even if you can't be reasonably sure of the intelligence, you should kill the target, just in case it is the right person? Doesn't have to be a fair trial, but putting all that authority in the hands of a select few and then not making them accountable is a mistake. Its not much to ask for, is it, that every time the state kills someone by executive order, that an independent body adjudicate the validity of that order in line with the evidence? Even if its done retrospectively. Edited by jamiemartin721 (29 Sep 2015 2.46pm)
The only thing the Greens seem to be bitching about is taht they didn't get another vote on it. And no one cares about that or them. Yes it is too much to ask for. It's a waste of time and money.
Optimistic as ever |
|
| Alert a moderator to this post |
|
| jamiemartin721 Reading 29 Sep 15 3.35pm |
|
|---|---|
|
Quote Stuk at 29 Sep 2015 3.16pm
Quote jamiemartin721 at 29 Sep 2015 2.44pm
Quote Stuk at 29 Sep 2015 1.55pm
You need to grasp that not everything can and will be done by the methods you approve of, or believe should be followed. So what you're saying is, that even if you can't be reasonably sure of the intelligence, you should kill the target, just in case it is the right person? Doesn't have to be a fair trial, but putting all that authority in the hands of a select few and then not making them accountable is a mistake. Its not much to ask for, is it, that every time the state kills someone by executive order, that an independent body adjudicate the validity of that order in line with the evidence? Even if its done retrospectively. Edited by jamiemartin721 (29 Sep 2015 2.46pm)
The only thing the Greens seem to be bitching about is taht they didn't get another vote on it. And no one cares about that or them. Yes it is too much to ask for. It's a waste of time and money. Job done this time, and fair enough, provided they killed who they claimed they killed I don't have a problem (although I'm curious as some of the claims made about the targets and imminent attacks but that's by the by). I think the Greens issue is however somewhat valid, given the law, and that is the job of opposition in parliament, to hold the government to its own laws.
"One Nation Under God, has turned into One Nation Under the Influence of One Drug" |
|
| Alert a moderator to this post |
|
| Stuk Top half 29 Sep 15 4.45pm |
|
|---|---|
|
Quote jamiemartin721 at 29 Sep 2015 3.35pm
Quote Stuk at 29 Sep 2015 3.16pm
Quote jamiemartin721 at 29 Sep 2015 2.44pm
Quote Stuk at 29 Sep 2015 1.55pm
You need to grasp that not everything can and will be done by the methods you approve of, or believe should be followed. So what you're saying is, that even if you can't be reasonably sure of the intelligence, you should kill the target, just in case it is the right person? Doesn't have to be a fair trial, but putting all that authority in the hands of a select few and then not making them accountable is a mistake. Its not much to ask for, is it, that every time the state kills someone by executive order, that an independent body adjudicate the validity of that order in line with the evidence? Even if its done retrospectively. Edited by jamiemartin721 (29 Sep 2015 2.46pm)
The only thing the Greens seem to be bitching about is taht they didn't get another vote on it. And no one cares about that or them. Yes it is too much to ask for. It's a waste of time and money. Job done this time, and fair enough, provided they killed who they claimed they killed I don't have a problem (although I'm curious as some of the claims made about the targets and imminent attacks but that's by the by). I think the Greens issue is however somewhat valid, given the law, and that is the job of opposition in parliament, to hold the government to its own laws.
Remember that no politician does anything unless there's self-interest, even those looney slags.
Optimistic as ever |
|
| Alert a moderator to this post |
|
| jamiemartin721 Reading 30 Sep 15 9.27am |
|
|---|---|
|
Quote Stuk at 29 Sep 2015 4.45pm
Quote jamiemartin721 at 29 Sep 2015 3.35pm
Quote Stuk at 29 Sep 2015 3.16pm
Quote jamiemartin721 at 29 Sep 2015 2.44pm
Quote Stuk at 29 Sep 2015 1.55pm
You need to grasp that not everything can and will be done by the methods you approve of, or believe should be followed. So what you're saying is, that even if you can't be reasonably sure of the intelligence, you should kill the target, just in case it is the right person? Doesn't have to be a fair trial, but putting all that authority in the hands of a select few and then not making them accountable is a mistake. Its not much to ask for, is it, that every time the state kills someone by executive order, that an independent body adjudicate the validity of that order in line with the evidence? Even if its done retrospectively. Edited by jamiemartin721 (29 Sep 2015 2.46pm)
The only thing the Greens seem to be bitching about is taht they didn't get another vote on it. And no one cares about that or them. Yes it is too much to ask for. It's a waste of time and money. Job done this time, and fair enough, provided they killed who they claimed they killed I don't have a problem (although I'm curious as some of the claims made about the targets and imminent attacks but that's by the by). I think the Greens issue is however somewhat valid, given the law, and that is the job of opposition in parliament, to hold the government to its own laws.
Remember that no politician does anything unless there's self-interest, even those looney slags. True, and that's why I believe that a government cannot be trusted with drone strikes without independent oversight. Present the case to an independent board and judge, to decide if something is legal and justified.
"One Nation Under God, has turned into One Nation Under the Influence of One Drug" |
|
| Alert a moderator to this post |
|
| Stuk Top half 30 Sep 15 1.31pm |
|
|---|---|
|
Quote jamiemartin721 at 30 Sep 2015 9.27am
Quote Stuk at 29 Sep 2015 4.45pm
Quote jamiemartin721 at 29 Sep 2015 3.35pm
Quote Stuk at 29 Sep 2015 3.16pm
Quote jamiemartin721 at 29 Sep 2015 2.44pm
Quote Stuk at 29 Sep 2015 1.55pm
You need to grasp that not everything can and will be done by the methods you approve of, or believe should be followed. So what you're saying is, that even if you can't be reasonably sure of the intelligence, you should kill the target, just in case it is the right person? Doesn't have to be a fair trial, but putting all that authority in the hands of a select few and then not making them accountable is a mistake. Its not much to ask for, is it, that every time the state kills someone by executive order, that an independent body adjudicate the validity of that order in line with the evidence? Even if its done retrospectively. Edited by jamiemartin721 (29 Sep 2015 2.46pm)
The only thing the Greens seem to be bitching about is taht they didn't get another vote on it. And no one cares about that or them. Yes it is too much to ask for. It's a waste of time and money. Job done this time, and fair enough, provided they killed who they claimed they killed I don't have a problem (although I'm curious as some of the claims made about the targets and imminent attacks but that's by the by). I think the Greens issue is however somewhat valid, given the law, and that is the job of opposition in parliament, to hold the government to its own laws.
Remember that no politician does anything unless there's self-interest, even those looney slags. True, and that's why I believe that a government cannot be trusted with drone strikes without independent oversight. Present the case to an independent board and judge, to decide if something is legal and justified.
Optimistic as ever |
|
| Alert a moderator to this post |
|
| oldcodger 30 Sep 15 9.50pm |
|
|---|---|
|
|
|
| Alert a moderator to this post |
|
| jamiemartin721 Reading 01 Oct 15 10.02am |
|
|---|---|
|
Quote Stuk at 30 Sep 2015 1.31pm
The military is independent enough of goverment for me. Operationally they perform the strike, as such they cannot be considered independent. They won't have been providing the evidence, or evaluating its reliability or its legality. When establishing someones guilt and evidence to that guilt, the Judicary are the ideally placed experts to rule on whether the evidence presented is sufficient to determining they're guilty.
"One Nation Under God, has turned into One Nation Under the Influence of One Drug" |
|
| Alert a moderator to this post |
|
| chris123 hove actually 01 Oct 15 10.13am |
|
|---|---|
|
Quote oldcodger at 30 Sep 2015 9.50pm
|
|
| 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.