Although you can expect the usual from the swivel eye and the Zionists posters, I think that the issue is actually quite complex:

Firstly, we are nor at war, we have not declared war and the Government would be extremely unwilling to recognise ISIL as a national state. Therefore, it was not an attack on foreign armed forces, but British subjects. It is interesting to know if they have actually committed an offence against UK law?

Secondly, the two British IS fighters were definitely not acting in the interest of the British Government, they more than likely have killed Syrian and Iraqi fighters. Unlike Jihadi John I am unaware that they have committed / participated in atrocities or genocide. Therefore, should they be considered any different to the British that fought Franco and the Nationalists in Spain?

Thirdly, it has been mooted today that they may have been involved in terrorists activities in the UK; however, nothing has been disclosed.

Fourth, although we do not have the death penalty is it a "extra-judicial execution" similar to a South American Junta?

Fifth,I doubt for the swivel eye, I need write no more than The EU Charter on Human Rights.

My view is that although Cameroon has acted outside the Law, and has set a worrying precedent of execution without recourse to a justice system; in a similar manner, to Blair. He believes that he is acting in the best interest of the UK people has a whole.

As for the morality, he is a politician nuff said.

"Everything is air-droppable at least once."

"When the going gets tough, the tough call for close air support."

Not diversionary, just saying like.

Quite interesting, he seems to argue on the crux “Principles relevant to the scope of a state’s right of self-defense against an imminent or actual armed attack by nonstate actors”

"Everything is air-droppable at least once."

"When the going gets tough, the tough call for close air support."

Who on this thread has been an apologist for the 'so called' islamic state? Name and shame them with evidence of their support. We could get them arrested for treason and everything I reckon.

Excellent point, but I would suggest that it was not Rambo but the US depiction of Desert Shield / Storm that drives peoples perception of a "clean war". But perhaps they missed the pictures of the Iraqi retreat from Kuwait.

Historically, to dampen the affects of the televised horror of war, I would recognise Churchill's refusal to allow colour bulletins and Thatcher's enforced delay on certain aspects of news from the Falklands. There's a whole different debate around the wrongs and rights of censorship.

"Everything is air-droppable at least once."

"When the going gets tough, the tough call for close air support."

They're a f***ing evil threat to Gaza and its occupants. As long as they're not harming us though, we'll just let them carry on with illegally grabbing land, imposing blockades, and murdering children.

It was my dream to play for Palace and to make my debut. I've always played for the club so if I'm playing here, I wouldn't want to be anywhere else.

- John Bostock (Nov 2007)