If that's what you suggest that's your business. I'd take the different approach I'd mentioned though. It avoids all the unnecessary legal complications.
If the PM had announced that we had killed two Syrian IS terrorists people wouldn't care less I think where the difficulty lies is that they cannot accept that two British citizens were fighting for the enemy and as such are legitimate military targets
Because it won't work. Its like a pyramid. You take the top off and the rest still stands. The government of this country wouldn't collapse if Cameron dropped down dead this morning.
And we've seen what happens when we take the top off in Iraq, Libya.. We create a power vacuum that various factions try to fill.
Ultimately you have to realise what you're fighting isn't an army. It's an idea. They are far more dangerous.
Yep, and some basic (and base) human nature thrown in. So ISIL want a Caliphate with someone as Caliph. Everyone subordinate pays a tithe which gets stashed offshore somewhere. See oilfields and bank raids for more info. But basically a chance to become rich & shameless and call it a religious experience. But there's also Al-Nusra who aren't quite as ambitious and would settle for creating an Emirate in Syria. Preferably around an oilfield and there's naturally be an Emir in charge. They're also Al Qaeda aligned, so could call it 'Al Qaeda In Syria' and create a brand & range of AQIS products.
At the cannon fodder level, it's all just Jihad and the prospect of a happy afterlife. Mugs..
Once you counter the ideology you stop recruitment and support starts drifting away. Once the lower levels of the pyramid are gone. The upper levels start to crumble and eventually falls.
I think it's best to do a bit of both. But basically it's doing the 'pour encourager les autres' thing and discouraging people from taking up arms. Which ought to be easy given the range of nations in the coalition against ISIL.. But then religion is a potent drug. But we should be targetting the grunts to stop them joining up, and also targetting the financiers and propaganda specialists who've been helping recruit.
If the PM had announced that we had killed two Syrian IS terrorists people wouldn't care less I think where the difficulty lies is that they cannot accept that two British citizens were fighting for the enemy and as such are legitimate military targets
The difficulty lies in that I'm not happy just to take the governments word that someone they killed was a terrorist. How do I know that they weren't an innocent person the government killed by mistake but later decided to brand a terrorist to cover it up, or whether they just killed the nearest innocent person they could to appear to be doing something? Without making at least SOME of the evidence publicly available, it's impossible to know whether they are telling the truth or lying.
If the PM had announced that we had killed two Syrian IS terrorists people wouldn't care less I think where the difficulty lies is that they cannot accept that two British citizens were fighting for the enemy and as such are legitimate military targets
I agree. I have no problem with two dead IS jihadi' whatsoever. The evidence of affiliation to an organisation that is hostile to us is there. Details about the specifics would have been nice but unnecessary in this case so far as identification is concerned. My only issue with it. Is that we violated the sovereignty of another nation in the process. This is why the legal advice the government received must be published. The self defence aspect has to be proved.
If the PM had announced that we had killed two Syrian IS terrorists people wouldn't care less I think where the difficulty lies is that they cannot accept that two British citizens were fighting for the enemy and as such are legitimate military targets
No this is a fallacy.
For me and from what I can tell most people that objected to this we never for a question that these individuals were Terrorists, most even believe they deserved what they got. The question is not their death, it's the methodology used by the government.
It's the principle that any and every government should be liable for their actions so they can be deemed legitimate. When you have a break from the norm as in this case, there has to be oversight for piece of mind. History is riddled with people deemed 'terrorists' who were vindicated later. The fear is that a government who isn't accountable to the people no longer works for the people. David Cameron as dragged his feet in accepting accountability, this is the issue.
I fear this is political spin and nothing more, although I accept that these people were criminals, I don't think they posed a credible, clear and immediate threat to our national security to warrant this extra judicial killing. I believe the real story here is that we've been doing this already when parliament specifically voted against military engagement in Syria, and that David Cameron only released this information as political spin to divert from his ineffectiveness with the refugee crisis. That opens up so many cans of worms. A PM that disregards parliamentary order is a dictator. One who admits to it just to detract from something else is incompetent at best and a narcissistic sociopath at worst.
I agree. I have no problem with two dead IS jihadi' whatsoever. The evidence of affiliation to an organisation that is hostile to us is there. Details about the specifics would have been nice but unnecessary in this case so far as identification is concerned. My only issue with it. Is that we violated the sovereignty of another nation in the process. This is why the legal advice the government received must be published. The self defence aspect has to be proved.
You can only say that we have violated another nations sovereignty if they actually have control of that area and somehow I doubt Assad is going to make any noise about this attack
I think it's best to do a bit of both. But basically it's doing the 'pour encourager les autres' thing and discouraging people from taking up arms. Which ought to be easy given the range of nations in the coalition against ISIL.. But then religion is a potent drug. But we should be targetting the grunts to stop them joining up, and also targetting the financiers and propaganda specialists who've been helping recruit.
I agree. But I think containment has a more important role. If we can keep them in Syria and isolated. Eventually they will burn themselves out. Stopping the supply of fresh jihadi is the key. If we stop, or at least limit that, the burden on the rest becomes greater. Same goes for the financiers and their supply chain. If they are all in the same place they will look internally for the enemy not externally. That's when some drift away and the rest start tearing themselves apart.
You can only say that we have violated another nations sovereignty if they actually have control of that area and somehow I doubt Assad is going to make any noise about this attack
We recognise the borders of Syria. We do not recognise the Islamic state. What Assad thinks is irrelevant. We have either violated Syrian sovereignty or we have recognised the Islamic state. The only way we can show we have not done either of those is to prove self defence. That's why the legal advice must be published.
No, I'm saying that they were right in this instance. But governments using the military to kill their own citizens is always concerning, so it's right that we be given evidence to prove the government weren't lying about Mr X being a terrorist.
We only have this one case to go on, and they've told us enough to make you happy.
We recognise the borders of Syria. We do not recognise the Islamic state. What Assad thinks is irrelevant. We have either violated Syrian sovereignty or we have recognised the Islamic state. The only way we can show we have not done either of those is to prove self defence. That's why the legal advice must be published.
Like it or not Assad is the leader of Syria so what he thinks is relevant
I agree. But I think containment has a more important role. If we can keep them in Syria and isolated. Eventually they will burn themselves out. Stopping the supply of fresh jihadi is the key.
Yup. But we.. seem to have a problem with that. A lot seem to be getting through our 'ally', Turkey. Who seems more interested in clobbering the Kurds, who've been pretty successful at fighting against ISIL and some of the other radical Sunni groups.. But that's one of those tricky issues for our diplomats to sort out, along with who's been funding and supporting ISIL.
Again it doesn't matter if we recognize him or not he is the leader of the country
Not in the eyes of the UK. The British position is that we recognise Syria as a nation but we don't recognise the Assad government. What we've done, unless we can prove self defence, is to recognise the Islamic state organisation as the legitimate government of Syria.
For me and from what I can tell most people that objected to this we never for a question that these individuals were Terrorists, most even believe they deserved what they got. The question is not their death, it's the methodology used by the government.
It's the principle that any and every government should be liable for their actions so they can be deemed legitimate. When you have a break from the norm as in this case, there has to be oversight for piece of mind. History is riddled with people deemed 'terrorists' who were vindicated later. The fear is that a government who isn't accountable to the people no longer works for the people. David Cameron as dragged his feet in accepting accountability, this is the issue.
I fear this is political spin and nothing more, although I accept that these people were criminals, I don't think they posed a credible, clear and immediate threat to our national security to warrant this extra judicial killing. I believe the real story here is that we've been doing this already when parliament specifically voted against military engagement in Syria, and that David Cameron only released this information as political spin to divert from his ineffectiveness with the refugee crisis. That opens up so many cans of worms. A PM that disregards parliamentary order is a dictator. One who admits to it just to detract from something else is incompetent at best and a narcissistic sociopath at worst.
That's just your opinion though. Have you got any proof that that's the case?
Not in the eyes of the UK. The British position is that we recognise Syria as a nation but we don't recognise the Assad government. What we've done, unless we can prove self defence, is to recognise the Islamic state organisation as the legitimate government of Syria.
If we don't recognize Assad as the leader then it follows that we don't recognize Syria as a nation , you can't recognize any area as a sovereign nation unless you accept it also has a government
We only have this one case to go on, and they've told us enough to make you happy.
Yes but to discuss the complexities surrounding things like this I asked would people be ok if there had been no publicly available evidence and many said yes, and it was to them that I addressed my further point. You don't seem too keen on discussing a hypothetical but sometimes it is important to take the wider picture into context when discussing a specific incident.
That's just your opinion though. Have you got any proof that that's the case?
There is proof we're involved in military engagement in Syria when our Parliament voted against it. This attack is one, also they inadvertently released RAF pilot schedules in Syria a couple months ago. I would read that as David Cameron being a dictator if he commissioned military action specifically against the express vote of Parliament not to. That's why he has to prove there were extra judicial grounds for this operation.
Either way after Iraq and the clusterduck it turned out to be, and the fact that every single one of us is now living in more dangerous times because our government lied to us, we should all be questioning the reasoning behind every single military engagement our country decides to engage in.
If we don't recognize Assad as the leader then it follows that we don't recognize Syria as a nation , you can't recognize any area as a sovereign nation unless you accept it also has a government
Wrong. You can recognise one without the other. We recognised Belgium even though it went almost two years without a government. We recognised the USA when it's government shut down. We recognise the Vatican despite it not having a traditional government. We recognised Somalia when it was a lawless state devoid of government.
Wrong. You can recognise one without the other. We recognised Belgium even though it went almost two years without a government. We recognised the USA when it's government shut down. We recognise the Vatican despite it not having a traditional government. We recognised Somalia when it was a lawless state devoid of government.
You can't have a sovereign nation unless it also has a government it defies the very definition of the word
Here's a thought, why didn't they kill Baghdadi instead of some low level foot soldiers?
Perhaps because he's better protected than others? Difficult to get sufficient intel on when, where and how he's going to be travelling.
Of course we could always just target where he's staying - after all nobody is going to moan if we blow up his building and the buildings on either side............................oh, hang on.
There is proof we're involved in military engagement in Syria when our Parliament voted against it. This attack is one, also they inadvertently released RAF pilot schedules in Syria a couple months ago. I would read that as David Cameron being a dictator if he commissioned military action specifically against the express vote of Parliament not to. That's why he has to prove there were extra judicial grounds for this operation.
Either way after Iraq and the clusterduck it turned out to be, and the fact that every single one of us is now living in more dangerous times because our government lied to us, we should all be questioning the reasoning behind every single military engagement our country decides to engage in.
Not really the case though.
Those RAF personnel were not flying for the RAF. They are seconded to and commanded by the USA.
And you can quesion as many military ops as you want - doesn't mean anyone is going to get an answer. I'm reminded of the story of the late Christopher Lee, when he was asked about his SAS duties during WW2.
He replied "Can you keep a secret?"
The reporter said, "Yes"
He came back with, "So can I"
They were being paid by the RAF, they were RAF personnel, not working on a private or civilian capacity. The rest is typical Tory straw clutching spin
Bullsh*t.
When you are seconded to another country, you come under their command and control. That's the whole damn point of the secondments - to learn how others operate and how best to integrate our ops with theirs.
When you are seconded to another country, you come under their command and control. That's the whole damn point of the secondments - to learn how others operate and how best to integrate our ops with theirs.
Okay, so what about this attack, is that not a direct contradiction of a parliamentary vote?
Comments
If the PM had announced that we had killed two Syrian IS terrorists people wouldn't care less I think where the difficulty lies is that they cannot accept that two British citizens were fighting for the enemy and as such are legitimate military targets
And we've seen what happens when we take the top off in Iraq, Libya.. We create a power vacuum that various factions try to fill.
Yep, and some basic (and base) human nature thrown in. So ISIL want a Caliphate with someone as Caliph. Everyone subordinate pays a tithe which gets stashed offshore somewhere. See oilfields and bank raids for more info. But basically a chance to become rich & shameless and call it a religious experience. But there's also Al-Nusra who aren't quite as ambitious and would settle for creating an Emirate in Syria. Preferably around an oilfield and there's naturally be an Emir in charge. They're also Al Qaeda aligned, so could call it 'Al Qaeda In Syria' and create a brand & range of AQIS products.
At the cannon fodder level, it's all just Jihad and the prospect of a happy afterlife. Mugs..
I think it's best to do a bit of both. But basically it's doing the 'pour encourager les autres' thing and discouraging people from taking up arms. Which ought to be easy given the range of nations in the coalition against ISIL.. But then religion is a potent drug. But we should be targetting the grunts to stop them joining up, and also targetting the financiers and propaganda specialists who've been helping recruit.
The difficulty lies in that I'm not happy just to take the governments word that someone they killed was a terrorist. How do I know that they weren't an innocent person the government killed by mistake but later decided to brand a terrorist to cover it up, or whether they just killed the nearest innocent person they could to appear to be doing something? Without making at least SOME of the evidence publicly available, it's impossible to know whether they are telling the truth or lying.
I agree. I have no problem with two dead IS jihadi' whatsoever. The evidence of affiliation to an organisation that is hostile to us is there. Details about the specifics would have been nice but unnecessary in this case so far as identification is concerned. My only issue with it. Is that we violated the sovereignty of another nation in the process. This is why the legal advice the government received must be published. The self defence aspect has to be proved.
No this is a fallacy.
For me and from what I can tell most people that objected to this we never for a question that these individuals were Terrorists, most even believe they deserved what they got. The question is not their death, it's the methodology used by the government.
It's the principle that any and every government should be liable for their actions so they can be deemed legitimate. When you have a break from the norm as in this case, there has to be oversight for piece of mind. History is riddled with people deemed 'terrorists' who were vindicated later. The fear is that a government who isn't accountable to the people no longer works for the people. David Cameron as dragged his feet in accepting accountability, this is the issue.
I fear this is political spin and nothing more, although I accept that these people were criminals, I don't think they posed a credible, clear and immediate threat to our national security to warrant this extra judicial killing. I believe the real story here is that we've been doing this already when parliament specifically voted against military engagement in Syria, and that David Cameron only released this information as political spin to divert from his ineffectiveness with the refugee crisis. That opens up so many cans of worms. A PM that disregards parliamentary order is a dictator. One who admits to it just to detract from something else is incompetent at best and a narcissistic sociopath at worst.
You can only say that we have violated another nations sovereignty if they actually have control of that area and somehow I doubt Assad is going to make any noise about this attack
I agree. But I think containment has a more important role. If we can keep them in Syria and isolated. Eventually they will burn themselves out. Stopping the supply of fresh jihadi is the key. If we stop, or at least limit that, the burden on the rest becomes greater. Same goes for the financiers and their supply chain. If they are all in the same place they will look internally for the enemy not externally. That's when some drift away and the rest start tearing themselves apart.
We recognise the borders of Syria. We do not recognise the Islamic state. What Assad thinks is irrelevant. We have either violated Syrian sovereignty or we have recognised the Islamic state. The only way we can show we have not done either of those is to prove self defence. That's why the legal advice must be published.
We only have this one case to go on, and they've told us enough to make you happy.
Like it or not Assad is the leader of Syria so what he thinks is relevant
But we don't recognise Assad. We do recognise Syria however.
Again it doesn't matter if we recognize him or not he is the leader of the country
Yup. But we.. seem to have a problem with that. A lot seem to be getting through our 'ally', Turkey. Who seems more interested in clobbering the Kurds, who've been pretty successful at fighting against ISIL and some of the other radical Sunni groups.. But that's one of those tricky issues for our diplomats to sort out, along with who's been funding and supporting ISIL.
Not in the eyes of the UK. The British position is that we recognise Syria as a nation but we don't recognise the Assad government. What we've done, unless we can prove self defence, is to recognise the Islamic state organisation as the legitimate government of Syria.
That's just your opinion though. Have you got any proof that that's the case?
If we don't recognize Assad as the leader then it follows that we don't recognize Syria as a nation , you can't recognize any area as a sovereign nation unless you accept it also has a government
Yes but to discuss the complexities surrounding things like this I asked would people be ok if there had been no publicly available evidence and many said yes, and it was to them that I addressed my further point. You don't seem too keen on discussing a hypothetical but sometimes it is important to take the wider picture into context when discussing a specific incident.
There is proof we're involved in military engagement in Syria when our Parliament voted against it. This attack is one, also they inadvertently released RAF pilot schedules in Syria a couple months ago. I would read that as David Cameron being a dictator if he commissioned military action specifically against the express vote of Parliament not to. That's why he has to prove there were extra judicial grounds for this operation.
Either way after Iraq and the clusterduck it turned out to be, and the fact that every single one of us is now living in more dangerous times because our government lied to us, we should all be questioning the reasoning behind every single military engagement our country decides to engage in.
Wrong. You can recognise one without the other. We recognised Belgium even though it went almost two years without a government. We recognised the USA when it's government shut down. We recognise the Vatican despite it not having a traditional government. We recognised Somalia when it was a lawless state devoid of government.
You can't have a sovereign nation unless it also has a government it defies the very definition of the word
Perhaps because he's better protected than others? Difficult to get sufficient intel on when, where and how he's going to be travelling.
Of course we could always just target where he's staying - after all nobody is going to moan if we blow up his building and the buildings on either side............................oh, hang on.
Not really the case though.
Those RAF personnel were not flying for the RAF. They are seconded to and commanded by the USA.
And you can quesion as many military ops as you want - doesn't mean anyone is going to get an answer. I'm reminded of the story of the late Christopher Lee, when he was asked about his SAS duties during WW2.
He replied "Can you keep a secret?"
The reporter said, "Yes"
He came back with, "So can I"
They were being paid by the RAF, they were RAF personnel, not working on a private or civilian capacity. The rest is typical Tory straw clutching spin
Bullsh*t.
When you are seconded to another country, you come under their command and control. That's the whole damn point of the secondments - to learn how others operate and how best to integrate our ops with theirs.
Okay, so what about this attack, is that not a direct contradiction of a parliamentary vote?