This topic has been archived, and won't accept reply postings.
Reports suggest that he might have met his 72 virgins in "paradise":
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/islamic-state/11992668/jihadi-joh...
Let's hope he's in no fit state for them.
https://diaryofaquirkygirl.files.wordpress.com/2012/09/20120911-224117.jpg?...
Post edited at 08:57
6
In reply to FesteringSore:
If its true and he is gone then in the words of Windsor Davies "oh dear, how sad, never mind".
If its true and he is gone then in the words of Windsor Davies "oh dear, how sad, never mind".
27
1
In reply to Clarence:
Excellent. Now we are going to glory in the death of a man.
Do you mind awfully if I do one on Jesus at Easter?
> If its true and he is gone then in the words of Windsor Davies "oh dear, how sad, never mind".
Excellent. Now we are going to glory in the death of a man.
Do you mind awfully if I do one on Jesus at Easter?
5
28
In reply to Mike Highbury:
Isn't that the whole point of easter?
> Excellent. Now we are going to glory in the death of a man.
> Do you mind awfully if I do one on Jesus at Easter?
> Do you mind awfully if I do one on Jesus at Easter?
Isn't that the whole point of easter?
26
In reply to Mike Highbury:
I think the Christians already celebrate this one.
> Do you mind awfully if I do one on Jesus at Easter?
I think the Christians already celebrate this one.
8
In reply to humptydumpty:
Not half as much as I shall.
> I think the Christians already celebrate this one.
Not half as much as I shall.
1
3
In reply to Mike Highbury:
As these subhumans glorify the murdering and raping of "infidels"
> Excellent. Now we are going to glory in the death of a man.
As these subhumans glorify the murdering and raping of "infidels"
2
2
In reply to Mike Highbury:
So your argument is that celebrating the death of a bad person leads automatically to it being alright to celebrate the death of anyone?
So your argument is that celebrating the death of a bad person leads automatically to it being alright to celebrate the death of anyone?
3
3
In reply to Mike Highbury:
I don't think the relatives of the following will be mourning this creature's passing.
James Foley
Steven Sotloff
David Haines
Alan Henning
Peter Kassig
Do what the hell you like!
> Excellent. Now we are going to glory in the death of a man.
I don't think the relatives of the following will be mourning this creature's passing.
James Foley
Steven Sotloff
David Haines
Alan Henning
Peter Kassig
> Do you mind awfully if I do one on Jesus at Easter?
Do what the hell you like!
Post edited at 10:31
22
1
In reply to FesteringSore:
I'm not shedding any tears for him, but I would have preferred him to have stood trial for his crimes rather than be executed, along with everyone else inside the blast radius of the same hellfire missile.
I'm not shedding any tears for him, but I would have preferred him to have stood trial for his crimes rather than be executed, along with everyone else inside the blast radius of the same hellfire missile.
16
4
In reply to Clarence:
Or in the words of David Blunkett re Harold Shipman's suicide "is it too early to open the champagne"
Go on - dislike away.
I dare you, I double dare you
Or in the words of David Blunkett re Harold Shipman's suicide "is it too early to open the champagne"
Go on - dislike away.
I dare you, I double dare you
11
6
In reply to FesteringSore:
DT is a conduit for security service bollocks so take it all with a pound of salt.
D
DT is a conduit for security service bollocks so take it all with a pound of salt.
D
3
In reply to FesteringSore:
It's a shame it all seems to have happened quickly.
It would be far more appropriate if JJ had known he was about to get droned before it actually happened...and if he had died slowly rather than being instantly turned to atoms.
It's a shame it all seems to have happened quickly.
It would be far more appropriate if JJ had known he was about to get droned before it actually happened...and if he had died slowly rather than being instantly turned to atoms.
13
2
In reply to FesteringSore:
Is "not actually worse than ISIS" really the highest moral standard that we want to be holding ourselves to?
> As these subhumans glorify the murdering and raping of "infidels"
Is "not actually worse than ISIS" really the highest moral standard that we want to be holding ourselves to?
9
4
In reply to Lusk:
You say that, but I thought this was interesting, from a friend of Alan Henning:
(Press Association)
I think you are doing the families of the murdered a disservice by suggesting that all they want is revenge.
> I don't think the relatives of the following will be mourning this creature's passing.
> James Foley
> Steven Sotloff
> David Haines
> Alan Henning
> Peter Kassig
> James Foley
> Steven Sotloff
> David Haines
> Alan Henning
> Peter Kassig
You say that, but I thought this was interesting, from a friend of Alan Henning:
> Louise Woodward-Styles, who organised a candlelit vigil for the taxi driver after he was captured by the terrorists, said that, even if British-born Emwazi had been killed, the family of the 47-year-old from Salford would not get closure following his brutal murder.
> She said: “I don’t think there will be closure, particularly for Alan’s family and close friends.
> “His body wasn’t returned home and from that aspect it was something they had to deal with privately. For them to say that Jihadi John has been killed doesn’t mean anything. It is something that the government can say they have done successfully.”
> She added that she would have preferred Emwazi to have been brought back to the UK to face justice.
> “Alan has gone and nothing will bring him back. I’m slightly sceptical about the target being successful. We don’t trust the government when it comes to the war.
> “Drones are not the answer, nor is bombing innocent people. I would rather him be brought back to face justice.”
(Press Association)
I think you are doing the families of the murdered a disservice by suggesting that all they want is revenge.
13
4
In reply to Quiddity:
"Daughter of British victim David Haines says felt 'an instant sense of relief'
"Daughter of British victim David Haines says felt 'an instant sense of relief'
9
1
In reply to Bjartur i Sumarhus:
So? Should we expect all the victims family and friends to react the same way?
So? Should we expect all the victims family and friends to react the same way?
Post edited at 11:24
3
3
2
1
1
4
1
In reply to Dauphin:
Well I don't see many other media sources rushing for the salt:
https://news.google.co.uk/nwshp?hl=en&ei=NslFVuOII8epUd-Er3A&ved=0C...
> DT is a conduit for security service bollocks so take it all with a pound of salt.
> D
Well I don't see many other media sources rushing for the salt:
https://news.google.co.uk/nwshp?hl=en&ei=NslFVuOII8epUd-Er3A&ved=0C...
1
In reply to Bjartur i Sumarhus:
Well you threw it in there without comment, so it came across as if you felt like it negated the previous post.
Well you threw it in there without comment, so it came across as if you felt like it negated the previous post.
1
In reply to Quiddity:
As we were discussing family reactions I thought one from the daughter of a victim was worth adding to that one from Louise Woodward-Styles.
As we were discussing family reactions I thought one from the daughter of a victim was worth adding to that one from Louise Woodward-Styles.
4
In reply to Andy Hardy:
In an ideal world, I'd agree, but that was never going to happen and this seems like the next best option. Given the nature of what he did (and more that he was happy to take credit for whether he actually did it or not) my disappointment is manageable.
Before the rise of ISIS I might also have had qualms that such attacks tend to create martyrs and help recruit jihadists, but since we already seem to be in open conflict with a particularly barbarous jihadist group that wants nothing more than a fight, there comes a point where a proportionate response is required.
> I'm not shedding any tears for him, but I would have preferred him to have stood trial for his crimes rather than be executed, along with everyone else inside the blast radius of the same hellfire missile.
In an ideal world, I'd agree, but that was never going to happen and this seems like the next best option. Given the nature of what he did (and more that he was happy to take credit for whether he actually did it or not) my disappointment is manageable.
Before the rise of ISIS I might also have had qualms that such attacks tend to create martyrs and help recruit jihadists, but since we already seem to be in open conflict with a particularly barbarous jihadist group that wants nothing more than a fight, there comes a point where a proportionate response is required.
15
In reply to FesteringSore:
None of them were too keen to reach for it over the WMD 45 minutes shoite either.
D
None of them were too keen to reach for it over the WMD 45 minutes shoite either.
D
1
1
In reply to Clarence:
Wasn't it 'Oh dear, how sad, what a pity, never mind'? This is important stuff.
Steve
> If its true and he is gone then in the words of Windsor Davies "oh dear, how sad, never mind".
Wasn't it 'Oh dear, how sad, what a pity, never mind'? This is important stuff.
Steve
2
In reply to SteveSBlake:
I seem to remember the inclusion of "what a pity" as well but IMDB agrees with my original quote, also "oh dear, how sad, too late" which might also apply.
http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0081878/quotes
I seem to remember the inclusion of "what a pity" as well but IMDB agrees with my original quote, also "oh dear, how sad, too late" which might also apply.
http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0081878/quotes
2
In reply to SteveSBlake:
youtube.com/watch?v=z4uivPpzCGo&
> Wasn't it 'Oh dear, how sad, what a pity, never mind'? This is important stuff.
youtube.com/watch?v=z4uivPpzCGo&
In reply to tom_in_edinburgh:
I found that too, but there were lots of episodes, I'm sure it was used. Now what was this all about originally......
Steve
I found that too, but there were lots of episodes, I'm sure it was used. Now what was this all about originally......
Steve
In reply to FesteringSore:
http://newsthump.com/2015/11/13/jihadi-john-left-hugely-disappointed-by-qua...
You just have to feel sorry for him!
http://newsthump.com/2015/11/13/jihadi-john-left-hugely-disappointed-by-qua...
You just have to feel sorry for him!
In reply to FesteringSore:
It would appear to have messed up some other plans as well:
http://www.thedailymash.co.uk/news/arts-entertainment/jihadi-johns-plans-fo...
It would appear to have messed up some other plans as well:
http://www.thedailymash.co.uk/news/arts-entertainment/jihadi-johns-plans-fo...
In reply to Clarence:
I just got that one [I'm fairly thick] - nice one!
> Something about Jilted John droning on?
I just got that one [I'm fairly thick] - nice one!
In reply to FesteringSore:
Used as a bit of propaganda by one bunch of bastards; then, when they were finished with him, used by another bunch of bastards for a bit of propaganda.
Used as a bit of propaganda by one bunch of bastards; then, when they were finished with him, used by another bunch of bastards for a bit of propaganda.
3
2
In reply to Ramblin dave:
It'll do for me in this particular case, assuming the repoets are correct.
> Is "not actually worse than ISIS" really the highest moral standard that we want to be holding ourselves to?
It'll do for me in this particular case, assuming the repoets are correct.
1
In reply to FesteringSore:
I see there's not much debate of the ethics of this...
Clearly, if they indeed got the right guy (I hope they did) the world is a better off place. A few points that I feel should be made:
1) Use of a drone surely carries a risk that we got the wrong guy. How can they prove he was in the car? Obviously they've got access to intelligence that we won't see, but the body won't be easily identifiable.
2) It took place in the centre of a city. How can they be sure of no collateral?
3) Was it an act of self-defense? Cameron's statement says "He was the lead executioner for Isis and let us never forget he killed many, many Muslims too. He was intent on murdering many more people. This was an act of self-defence." The last statement doesn't follow logically from the previous. Intent is a long stretch from imminence. Again, there may be intelligence that we the public aren't privy to, but these things are usually alluded to. So is this in fact an extra-judicial killing?
I guess that the public will be too pleased with the deserved passing of such a vile individual that they won't care about such questions but they're important nonetheless, especially in light of the fact that JJ wasn't an important central figure in IS and the attack appears motivated by justice and sending a message rather than strategy.
Also interesting that Corbyn has been careful to word his statement in such a way to make it absolutely clear that he doesn't see this as a tragedy.
I see there's not much debate of the ethics of this...
Clearly, if they indeed got the right guy (I hope they did) the world is a better off place. A few points that I feel should be made:
1) Use of a drone surely carries a risk that we got the wrong guy. How can they prove he was in the car? Obviously they've got access to intelligence that we won't see, but the body won't be easily identifiable.
2) It took place in the centre of a city. How can they be sure of no collateral?
3) Was it an act of self-defense? Cameron's statement says "He was the lead executioner for Isis and let us never forget he killed many, many Muslims too. He was intent on murdering many more people. This was an act of self-defence." The last statement doesn't follow logically from the previous. Intent is a long stretch from imminence. Again, there may be intelligence that we the public aren't privy to, but these things are usually alluded to. So is this in fact an extra-judicial killing?
I guess that the public will be too pleased with the deserved passing of such a vile individual that they won't care about such questions but they're important nonetheless, especially in light of the fact that JJ wasn't an important central figure in IS and the attack appears motivated by justice and sending a message rather than strategy.
Also interesting that Corbyn has been careful to word his statement in such a way to make it absolutely clear that he doesn't see this as a tragedy.
Post edited at 16:52
4
1
In reply to Trevers:
Totally agree except
the world is exactly the same
the attack appears motivated by justice and sending a message rather than strategy.
would suggest revenge would be a more appropriate word, though even that's probably irrelevant; more about posturing and message sending than anything. The message of course being one of "look we're doing something" to the converted.
Totally agree except
> Clearly, if they indeed got the right guy (I hope they did) the world is a better off place. A few points that I feel should be made:
the world is exactly the same
the attack appears motivated by justice and sending a message rather than strategy.
would suggest revenge would be a more appropriate word, though even that's probably irrelevant; more about posturing and message sending than anything. The message of course being one of "look we're doing something" to the converted.
1
In reply to FesteringSore:
Maybe those who advocate that he should have been brought back to face justice would explain just how this ideal would have been carried out? And without risk to the lives of any Special Forces or similar they would have expected to have done this on behalf of our society?
Maybe those who advocate that he should have been brought back to face justice would explain just how this ideal would have been carried out? And without risk to the lives of any Special Forces or similar they would have expected to have done this on behalf of our society?
7
2
In reply to FesteringSore:
Given the fact the strike was by drone, and in the middle of a city, there is little chance there were no civilian casualties and it's possible that they even got the wrong person. I doubt there will ever be conclusive evidence that only the intended target was hurt. How can this situation possibly be preferable to chucking him in the back of a van and flying him back to the UK to face trial? Surely if there is "on the ground" intelligence that's deemed adequate by our government to claim he's dead all over the press, these same people on the ground could have at least have attempted to grab him to get him back to the UK. Are we somehow "above the law" when we deal with these people? Should this be OK just because he was a despicable murderer...? How many others can we take out while we're on a roll? There are plenty of others, so if this sort of thing is OK, why not try it with some of the IS funders in the wealthier gulf states? Don't they have blood on their hands too? We like to sell their friends weapons and buy their oil so I guess we won't bother. All BS propaganda to claim we are "winning" against IS, when in fact nothing could probably be further from the truth.
Given the fact the strike was by drone, and in the middle of a city, there is little chance there were no civilian casualties and it's possible that they even got the wrong person. I doubt there will ever be conclusive evidence that only the intended target was hurt. How can this situation possibly be preferable to chucking him in the back of a van and flying him back to the UK to face trial? Surely if there is "on the ground" intelligence that's deemed adequate by our government to claim he's dead all over the press, these same people on the ground could have at least have attempted to grab him to get him back to the UK. Are we somehow "above the law" when we deal with these people? Should this be OK just because he was a despicable murderer...? How many others can we take out while we're on a roll? There are plenty of others, so if this sort of thing is OK, why not try it with some of the IS funders in the wealthier gulf states? Don't they have blood on their hands too? We like to sell their friends weapons and buy their oil so I guess we won't bother. All BS propaganda to claim we are "winning" against IS, when in fact nothing could probably be further from the truth.
Post edited at 17:54
7
8
In reply to Mike Highbury:
Looks like you went over a lot of heads there. I'd congratulate you if it had been more of a challenge.
> Excellent. Now we are going to glory in the death of a man.
> Do you mind awfully if I do one on Jesus at Easter?
Looks like you went over a lot of heads there. I'd congratulate you if it had been more of a challenge.
1
1
In reply to Trevers:
You seem to be confusing ISIS run Syria with a place that has rule of law and such like.
You seem to be confusing ISIS run Syria with a place that has rule of law and such like.
Post edited at 18:09
4
1
In reply to 1234None:
How can this situation possibly be preferable to chucking him in the back of a van and flying him back to the UK to face trial?
???!!? Sure, just like that. I'm sure ISIS wouldn't mind at all.
How can this situation possibly be preferable to chucking him in the back of a van and flying him back to the UK to face trial?
???!!? Sure, just like that. I'm sure ISIS wouldn't mind at all.
4
2
In reply to 1234None:
You make it sound so very simple. In war you have to choose between bad options. I suspect that in the face of an alternative that involves subjecting a body of very highly trained armed forces guys to an unacceptably high risk of death in an attempt to chuck him in a van, the balance of risk and benefit was blatantly in favour of doing away with him in this way.
> How can this situation possibly be preferable to chucking him in the back of a van and flying him back to the UK to face trial?
You make it sound so very simple. In war you have to choose between bad options. I suspect that in the face of an alternative that involves subjecting a body of very highly trained armed forces guys to an unacceptably high risk of death in an attempt to chuck him in a van, the balance of risk and benefit was blatantly in favour of doing away with him in this way.
8
1
2
In reply to nickinscottishmountains:
Even if it means risking the lives of civilians? This killing is no big success. It's desperately sad where something like this is even considered "necessary". Did killing Bin Laden or Saddam leave us with a safer world? Will killing this guy do so? Flying these glorified model aeroplanes and dropping bombs surely can't be the answer. There will be plenty of others willing to step into his role, and their numbers will swell for as long as we keep up with this current model.
What are the real risks of just leaving them alone? It isn't about good and evil at all, as it is often portrayed in the press. If it were, why not Mugabe, or even some of the top dogs in Saudi etc. Is it about protecting economic interests? Was the same true for Osama and Saddam? If so, it hasn't left the economy in great shape as we didn't give the criminal bankers the same treatment, unfortunately.
You're right...it isn't simple! But that doesn't make it right.
Even if it means risking the lives of civilians? This killing is no big success. It's desperately sad where something like this is even considered "necessary". Did killing Bin Laden or Saddam leave us with a safer world? Will killing this guy do so? Flying these glorified model aeroplanes and dropping bombs surely can't be the answer. There will be plenty of others willing to step into his role, and their numbers will swell for as long as we keep up with this current model.
What are the real risks of just leaving them alone? It isn't about good and evil at all, as it is often portrayed in the press. If it were, why not Mugabe, or even some of the top dogs in Saudi etc. Is it about protecting economic interests? Was the same true for Osama and Saddam? If so, it hasn't left the economy in great shape as we didn't give the criminal bankers the same treatment, unfortunately.
You're right...it isn't simple! But that doesn't make it right.
Post edited at 18:35
5
2
1
1
In reply to 1234None:
If you look at the picture in the Telegraph the drone strike was close to two large and undamaged buildings labelled "ISIS Main HQ" and "Islamic Court". The fact that a building they think is ISIS headquarters is not a smoking hole in the ground shows the US is showing a massive amount of restraint and concern for collateral damage in its targeting.
> Given the fact the strike was by drone, and in the middle of a city, there is little chance there were no civilian casualties and it's possible that they even got the wrong person.
If you look at the picture in the Telegraph the drone strike was close to two large and undamaged buildings labelled "ISIS Main HQ" and "Islamic Court". The fact that a building they think is ISIS headquarters is not a smoking hole in the ground shows the US is showing a massive amount of restraint and concern for collateral damage in its targeting.
6
1
In reply to 1234None:
Let me explain it to you and the other hand wringers.
Assuming he had been caught alive, which also would not have been without risk of collateral damage/injuries. Sadly collateral damage and injuries are a fact of any conflict. He is put on trial. Unless the trial took place in US the most he would have received would have been several consecutive life sentences; my guess being that he would have been out in thirty years. Do you honestly think that, following that time inside, such a fanatical b*****d would drastically change his attitude and come out a reformed character? There is also the likelihood that, if you locked him up and threw away the key then the fawning human rights lawyers(probably led by one Cherie Blair) would have been queuing up to fight his corner. What rights did he grant his victims.
Let me explain it to you and the other hand wringers.
Assuming he had been caught alive, which also would not have been without risk of collateral damage/injuries. Sadly collateral damage and injuries are a fact of any conflict. He is put on trial. Unless the trial took place in US the most he would have received would have been several consecutive life sentences; my guess being that he would have been out in thirty years. Do you honestly think that, following that time inside, such a fanatical b*****d would drastically change his attitude and come out a reformed character? There is also the likelihood that, if you locked him up and threw away the key then the fawning human rights lawyers(probably led by one Cherie Blair) would have been queuing up to fight his corner. What rights did he grant his victims.
9
3
In reply to 1234None:
It comes down to whether or not you think we needed to do something about the likes of him. I do think that. There will always be some risk of damage and death in doing something about him. That isn't a reason not to do it.
It comes down to whether or not you think we needed to do something about the likes of him. I do think that. There will always be some risk of damage and death in doing something about him. That isn't a reason not to do it.
1
In reply to FesteringSore:
Would have preferred the Russians to get him and give him the death he deserved not an instant one he likely had
Would have preferred the Russians to get him and give him the death he deserved not an instant one he likely had
6
1
In reply to MG:
What do you mean? You simply phone up the local police and ask them to arrest him. They pop down in the van, put the cuffs on, take him back to the nick, interview him under PACE and extradite him. It's not like he's in some lawless hellhole full of psychopathic killers or anything.
Oh..
> How can this situation possibly be preferable to chucking him in the back of a van and flying him back to the UK to face trial?
> ???!!? Sure, just like that. I'm sure ISIS wouldn't mind at all.
What do you mean? You simply phone up the local police and ask them to arrest him. They pop down in the van, put the cuffs on, take him back to the nick, interview him under PACE and extradite him. It's not like he's in some lawless hellhole full of psychopathic killers or anything.
Oh..
12
1
In reply to MG:
Surely that's all the more reason that a civilised nation like ours doesn't carry out or support executions within Syria?
> You seem to be confusing ISIS run Syria with a place that has rule of law and such like.
Surely that's all the more reason that a civilised nation like ours doesn't carry out or support executions within Syria?
2
In reply to FesteringSore:
I'll try not to insult you by being patronising. Shame you couldn't manage to do the same.
In what way will this leave us with a safer world? Taking this strike as part of the wider Western/Saudi/Qatari campaign in the Middle East, I'm really interested in whether you think it's part of a decent strategy that will really have a positive long term impact. It definitely will not contribute to peace in the region in my view. You choose to ignore the fact that past strikes - on people with much more significance than Jihadi John - have had little to no impact on reducing extremist terrorism or mass killing in the Middle East. Given these facts, I'm interested in exactly why you think it's necessary to drop bombs on people in this way, people who are acting in Syria and Iraq, nowhere near the UK. If you think it's simply the "right" thing to do, can't you think of any other tyrants elsewhere in the world that we choose not to deal with like this, and can't you think of any reasons why? The people of the Middle East aren't daft, and many can see that much of the current action in the region is about protection of economic interests, and a desperate desire not to upset the Saudis and their other friends too much.
The UK/USA approach in Iraq, Afghanistan and now Syria has not been much of a success. All I'm saying is that the whole way we respond to this situation needs to radically change if we want real resolution in the longer term.
Jihadi John killed how many innocent civilians? How many have the Saudis killed over the past year, and how many have our bombs killed in Syria. I'm not saying this guy isn't a despicable human being. He is, without a doubt, and because of that the propaganda in our media stirs up strong feelings...to the point that many want him dead. Of course, the reverse of this is when we, and the USA etc, kill innocent civilians with our bombs, this too can be used as propaganda to stir up further extremist feelings and actions in people just like Jihadi John. These people act based on misguided interpretations of a book written centuries ago. Probably not the brightest, and obviously a bit twisted in their thinking. Consequently, there will be many more queuing up to be martyred, so the strike - apart from being useful propaganda - isn't going to be very effective at all.
> Let me explain it to you and the other hand wringers.
I'll try not to insult you by being patronising. Shame you couldn't manage to do the same.
In what way will this leave us with a safer world? Taking this strike as part of the wider Western/Saudi/Qatari campaign in the Middle East, I'm really interested in whether you think it's part of a decent strategy that will really have a positive long term impact. It definitely will not contribute to peace in the region in my view. You choose to ignore the fact that past strikes - on people with much more significance than Jihadi John - have had little to no impact on reducing extremist terrorism or mass killing in the Middle East. Given these facts, I'm interested in exactly why you think it's necessary to drop bombs on people in this way, people who are acting in Syria and Iraq, nowhere near the UK. If you think it's simply the "right" thing to do, can't you think of any other tyrants elsewhere in the world that we choose not to deal with like this, and can't you think of any reasons why? The people of the Middle East aren't daft, and many can see that much of the current action in the region is about protection of economic interests, and a desperate desire not to upset the Saudis and their other friends too much.
The UK/USA approach in Iraq, Afghanistan and now Syria has not been much of a success. All I'm saying is that the whole way we respond to this situation needs to radically change if we want real resolution in the longer term.
Jihadi John killed how many innocent civilians? How many have the Saudis killed over the past year, and how many have our bombs killed in Syria. I'm not saying this guy isn't a despicable human being. He is, without a doubt, and because of that the propaganda in our media stirs up strong feelings...to the point that many want him dead. Of course, the reverse of this is when we, and the USA etc, kill innocent civilians with our bombs, this too can be used as propaganda to stir up further extremist feelings and actions in people just like Jihadi John. These people act based on misguided interpretations of a book written centuries ago. Probably not the brightest, and obviously a bit twisted in their thinking. Consequently, there will be many more queuing up to be martyred, so the strike - apart from being useful propaganda - isn't going to be very effective at all.
Post edited at 04:34
7
3
In reply to MG:
If this is so hard to imagine, how can anyone claim to have hit the right person using a drone? Intelligence on the ground? Communicating with us regularly and reliably? I'm sure ISIS wouldn't mind at all. I accept your point, but it still doesn't add up. And that's ignoring the fact that in the big scheme of things, this is likely to have absolutely no impact at all on the situation in the Middle East. Hardly a major triumph.
> How can this situation possibly be preferable to chucking him in the back of a van and flying him back to the UK to face trial?
> ???!!? Sure, just like that. I'm sure ISIS wouldn't mind at all
If this is so hard to imagine, how can anyone claim to have hit the right person using a drone? Intelligence on the ground? Communicating with us regularly and reliably? I'm sure ISIS wouldn't mind at all. I accept your point, but it still doesn't add up. And that's ignoring the fact that in the big scheme of things, this is likely to have absolutely no impact at all on the situation in the Middle East. Hardly a major triumph.
3
In reply to FesteringSore:
Personally speaking I couldn't give a t**s that he has (probably) been killed, or how he has been killed.
There are some that would have liked him brought before a court of law, even if we forget the practicalities of carrying that out (which some seem to do).
But I would bet that once he had been tried and sentenced to life imprisonment, many of those who wanted that action would be thinking it too lenient and wishing for a death sentence.
He's gone, good riddance and it sends a small message out to ISIS that even individuals secure in their country can be tracked and killed, I think they are more likely to understand and fear that message than the threat of a UK prison sentence.
Personally speaking I couldn't give a t**s that he has (probably) been killed, or how he has been killed.
There are some that would have liked him brought before a court of law, even if we forget the practicalities of carrying that out (which some seem to do).
But I would bet that once he had been tried and sentenced to life imprisonment, many of those who wanted that action would be thinking it too lenient and wishing for a death sentence.
He's gone, good riddance and it sends a small message out to ISIS that even individuals secure in their country can be tracked and killed, I think they are more likely to understand and fear that message than the threat of a UK prison sentence.
5
In reply to 1234None:
I suggest you might want to read Lord Dannatt's comment in today's Telegraph. In essence drone attacks, contrary to what many believe, are not conducted randomly or indiscriminately. They are the end result of possibly months of intelligence gathering and consultations involving service personnel and international lawyers. The drone will actually "observe" the potential target possibly for days prior to the hit.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/islamic-state/11994792/Drone-atta...
> If this is so hard to imagine, how can anyone claim to have hit the right person using a drone? Intelligence on the ground?
I suggest you might want to read Lord Dannatt's comment in today's Telegraph. In essence drone attacks, contrary to what many believe, are not conducted randomly or indiscriminately. They are the end result of possibly months of intelligence gathering and consultations involving service personnel and international lawyers. The drone will actually "observe" the potential target possibly for days prior to the hit.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/islamic-state/11994792/Drone-atta...
6
In reply to FesteringSore:
I suggest you might want to read reports like this.
http://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2014/nov/24/-sp-us-drone-strikes-kill-11...
I suggest you might want to read reports like this.
http://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2014/nov/24/-sp-us-drone-strikes-kill-11...
In reply to FesteringSore:
Probably not with this one. He was clearly a sadist who loved killing, and doesn't fit the normal terrorist insurgent profile. With many others though, I suspect they could be reformed.
Do you understand why it's of utmost importance that the human rights of even the most despicable, depraved criminals are preserved?
> Do you honestly think that, following that time inside, such a fanatical b*****d would drastically change his attitude and come out a reformed character?
Probably not with this one. He was clearly a sadist who loved killing, and doesn't fit the normal terrorist insurgent profile. With many others though, I suspect they could be reformed.
> There is also the likelihood that, if you locked him up and threw away the key then the fawning human rights lawyers(probably led by one Cherie Blair) would have been queuing up to fight his corner. What rights did he grant his victims.
Do you understand why it's of utmost importance that the human rights of even the most despicable, depraved criminals are preserved?
3
8
In reply to nickinscottishmountains:
I'd agree with you on that if he was a high-ranking figure in ISIS, or was about to carry out some attack imminently.
> It comes down to whether or not you think we needed to do something about the likes of him. I do think that. There will always be some risk of damage and death in doing something about him. That isn't a reason not to do it.
I'd agree with you on that if he was a high-ranking figure in ISIS, or was about to carry out some attack imminently.
2
In reply to Trevers:
Do you understand why it's of utmost importance that the human rights of the victims of the most despicable, depraved criminals are preserved?
Fixed that for you.
(The rights that he denied his victims of are of far more concern to me than his rights.)
Do you understand why it's of utmost importance that the human rights of the victims of the most despicable, depraved criminals are preserved?
Fixed that for you.
(The rights that he denied his victims of are of far more concern to me than his rights.)
Post edited at 12:04
5
2
In reply to FesteringSore:
Childish and pathetic
> Do you understand why it's of utmost importance that the human rights of the victims of the most despicable, depraved criminals are preserved?
> Fixed that for you.
Childish and pathetic
5
9
In reply to Trevers:
Not really because your comment clearly illustrates that you are more concerned about his rights than those of his victims.
Try telling the victims' families that his rights are important. Most, I'm sure, would remind you of what THEY have lost, the anguish they have suffered and what they will suffer for the rest of their lives.
Those who show more concern for the rights of these barbarian are beneath contempt.
> Childish and pathetic
Not really because your comment clearly illustrates that you are more concerned about his rights than those of his victims.
Try telling the victims' families that his rights are important. Most, I'm sure, would remind you of what THEY have lost, the anguish they have suffered and what they will suffer for the rest of their lives.
Those who show more concern for the rights of these barbarian are beneath contempt.
Post edited at 12:09
5
3
In reply to FesteringSore:
All you've managed to show is that you're incapable of nuanced thought or intelligent discussion.
> Not really because your comment clearly illustrates that you are more concerned about his rights than those of his victims.
> Try telling the victims' families that his rights are important. Most, I'm sure, would remind you of what THEY have lost, the anguish they have suffered and what they will suffer for the rest of their lives.
> Those who show more concern for the rights of these barbarian are beneath contempt.
All you've managed to show is that you're incapable of nuanced thought or intelligent discussion.
6
7
In reply to FesteringSore:
Here's the problem with your logic.
Person C feels person B denied the rights of person A, and so Person C denies the rights of Person B.
Person D feels Person C denied the rights of Person B, and so Person D denies the rights of Person C.
Person E feels Person D denied the rights of Person C, and so Person E denies the rights of Person D.
Person F feels Person E denied the rights of Person D, and so Person F denies the rights of Person E.
Repeat the operation 7.3bn times (as of July 2015) and we end up in an anarchic World where every conceivable atrocity is fair game because "he started it!"
Here's the problem with your logic.
Person C feels person B denied the rights of person A, and so Person C denies the rights of Person B.
Person D feels Person C denied the rights of Person B, and so Person D denies the rights of Person C.
Person E feels Person D denied the rights of Person C, and so Person E denies the rights of Person D.
Person F feels Person E denied the rights of Person D, and so Person F denies the rights of Person E.
Repeat the operation 7.3bn times (as of July 2015) and we end up in an anarchic World where every conceivable atrocity is fair game because "he started it!"
3
1
In reply to FesteringSore:
You're ignoring the point that his death will make no difference to the bigger picture of what's happening in that region (and all too often now, outside it!). Money and intelligence would be better focused on actions that might actually lead to a long term solution, rather than just a bit of "we are winning" propaganda, when we clearly are winning nothing. There are way too many others willing to step into this guy's shoes to even think it'll make a difference. Even the families of many of his victims acknowledge that this isn't the best way forward.
You're ignoring the point that his death will make no difference to the bigger picture of what's happening in that region (and all too often now, outside it!). Money and intelligence would be better focused on actions that might actually lead to a long term solution, rather than just a bit of "we are winning" propaganda, when we clearly are winning nothing. There are way too many others willing to step into this guy's shoes to even think it'll make a difference. Even the families of many of his victims acknowledge that this isn't the best way forward.
3
3
In reply to 1234None:
I'm not sure about making no difference about the bigger picture.
1)The possible consequences for trying to run a publicity campaign centred on publication of atrocities have been clearly spelled out, no matter how anonymous you might think you are.
2)The precautions you have been taking to avoid detection are clearly not working.
3) The precautions you are taking which make your lifestyle hard - constantly moving, not having an internet foot print, no phone etc - will now have to be ratcheted up a notch, making life even harder for Daesh key players.
4) These precautions make co-ordination and running of any campaign, press or military hard. And now its going to be harder.
5) Yes. You do need to be paranoid. Not the best way of running a functional team in any context.
> You're ignoring the point that his death will make no difference to the bigger picture of what's happening in that region (and all too often now, outside it!). Money and intelligence would be better focused on actions that might actually lead to a long term solution, rather than just a bit of "we are winning" propaganda, when we clearly are winning nothing. There are way too many others willing to step into this guy's shoes to even think it'll make a difference. Even the families of many of his victims acknowledge that this isn't the best way forward.
I'm not sure about making no difference about the bigger picture.
1)The possible consequences for trying to run a publicity campaign centred on publication of atrocities have been clearly spelled out, no matter how anonymous you might think you are.
2)The precautions you have been taking to avoid detection are clearly not working.
3) The precautions you are taking which make your lifestyle hard - constantly moving, not having an internet foot print, no phone etc - will now have to be ratcheted up a notch, making life even harder for Daesh key players.
4) These precautions make co-ordination and running of any campaign, press or military hard. And now its going to be harder.
5) Yes. You do need to be paranoid. Not the best way of running a functional team in any context.
4
In reply to off-duty:
On the mark....a clear message to would be jihadi's sat here on their laptops, effective because he cannot recruit and offer his IT skills to Isis and also would be a relentless threat. Breaking down their communications and making life hard for them is an effective strategy in disrupting what they are able to do...
On the mark....a clear message to would be jihadi's sat here on their laptops, effective because he cannot recruit and offer his IT skills to Isis and also would be a relentless threat. Breaking down their communications and making life hard for them is an effective strategy in disrupting what they are able to do...
1
In reply to 1234None:
Some relatives are glad, most wanted him to face trial, obviously the best option but this was the next option.
I think it will make a difference. I think many thought they were untouchable out there.
Some relatives are glad, most wanted him to face trial, obviously the best option but this was the next option.
I think it will make a difference. I think many thought they were untouchable out there.
1
4
1
In reply to pec:
If you think killing Jihadi John and others like him is any sort of triumph, or even a small part of a "solution" then you really do have no idea about extremism and/or the conflicts in the Middle East and their root causes.
There is a long list of people we've killed under the pretence it would reduce terrorist attacks. I'm not seeing much evidence of efficacy for this approach. Are you?
I also don't see civilian casualties in conventional Syrian bombing raids as acceptable collateral damage. Regardless what you read in the press in the UK the civilian casualty count is high already. The real casualties if this approach continues will be the millions of ordinary Syrian and Iraqi people. Convince yourself that killing other people is OK and that our government is protecting us from evil if you wish. I'm afraid I cannot do the same. Are you really so sure our government's approach is the best available option here, and will - in the long term - result in a safer world? Let's see how it unfolds....
If you think killing Jihadi John and others like him is any sort of triumph, or even a small part of a "solution" then you really do have no idea about extremism and/or the conflicts in the Middle East and their root causes.
There is a long list of people we've killed under the pretence it would reduce terrorist attacks. I'm not seeing much evidence of efficacy for this approach. Are you?
I also don't see civilian casualties in conventional Syrian bombing raids as acceptable collateral damage. Regardless what you read in the press in the UK the civilian casualty count is high already. The real casualties if this approach continues will be the millions of ordinary Syrian and Iraqi people. Convince yourself that killing other people is OK and that our government is protecting us from evil if you wish. I'm afraid I cannot do the same. Are you really so sure our government's approach is the best available option here, and will - in the long term - result in a safer world? Let's see how it unfolds....
Post edited at 16:01
2
2
In reply to 1234None:
What do you suggest the French authorities should have done last night? Your ideals are fine but do you really have a solution?
What do you suggest the French authorities should have done last night? Your ideals are fine but do you really have a solution?
3
In reply to 1234None:
If you genuinely can't see how targetted strikes at core members of a terrorist organisation can not fit in as part of a solution, then perhaps you don't understand anything about terrorism.
I certainly wouldn't promote bombing civilians in Syria. It's just a pity that Assad and his ally Putin don't appear to agree.
Unlike the UK who have, rightly or wrongly, rejected direct military involvement.
> If you think killing Jihadi John and others like him is any sort of triumph, or even a small part of a "solution" then you really do have no idea about extremism and/or the conflicts in the Middle East and their root causes. I'd rather be exiled to cloud 9 than subscribe to some Daily Mail mentality that dropping bombs from model aeroplanes is OK, whoever the target. You seem to have taken out a very long term subscription.
If you genuinely can't see how targetted strikes at core members of a terrorist organisation can not fit in as part of a solution, then perhaps you don't understand anything about terrorism.
> I also don't see civilian casualties in conventional Syrian bombing raids as acceptable collateral damage. Regardless what you read in the press in the UK the civilian casualty count is high already. The real casualties if this approach continues will be the millions of ordinary Syrian and Iraqi people. Convince yourself that killing other people is OK and that our government is protecting us from evil if you wish. I'm afraid I cannot do the same. Are you really so sure our government's approach is the best available option here, and will - in the long term - result in a safer world? Let's see how it unfolds....
I certainly wouldn't promote bombing civilians in Syria. It's just a pity that Assad and his ally Putin don't appear to agree.
Unlike the UK who have, rightly or wrongly, rejected direct military involvement.
1
In reply to abr1966:
I don't think he's suggesting that the police shouldn't shoot to kill when a terrorist is killing innocents in front of them.
> What do you suggest the French authorities should have done last night? Your ideals are fine but do you really have a solution?
I don't think he's suggesting that the police shouldn't shoot to kill when a terrorist is killing innocents in front of them.
1
1
In reply to abr1966:
I believe that we have reached the point where military action by Western nations of any sort in the Middle East will only provide for future attacks in Europe and the USA. It's unlikely to result in less attacks and based on recent history, has merely served to stoke up further extremist sentiment. Every civilian death...even by rebels who were armed by the USA or UK is used as justification for atrocities. Let the Saudis, Qataris, UAE and Kuwait sort it out. We've sold them enough weapons and military equipment... I think my position is fairly clear, and it's based on many long discussions with Syrians, Iraqis, Kuwaitis and others in the region. I think IS and anyone associated with them are despicable, but current and previous UK intervention has only served to make matters worse. Interesting discussion, but disappointing and sad in many ways.
I believe that we have reached the point where military action by Western nations of any sort in the Middle East will only provide for future attacks in Europe and the USA. It's unlikely to result in less attacks and based on recent history, has merely served to stoke up further extremist sentiment. Every civilian death...even by rebels who were armed by the USA or UK is used as justification for atrocities. Let the Saudis, Qataris, UAE and Kuwait sort it out. We've sold them enough weapons and military equipment... I think my position is fairly clear, and it's based on many long discussions with Syrians, Iraqis, Kuwaitis and others in the region. I think IS and anyone associated with them are despicable, but current and previous UK intervention has only served to make matters worse. Interesting discussion, but disappointing and sad in many ways.
2
1
In reply to off-duty:
How about bombing of civilians elsewhere? We do little to moan about the current Saudi action in Yemen. Also, our own raids elsewhere in the region haven't exactly been without civilian casualties. It also wasn't really that long ago that we imposed sanctions on Iraq that most likely resulted in the death of several hundred thousand people. The Iraqi people aren't going to thank us for sorting out Saddam when we leave them with this mess instead. Our collateral damage in the region gives the nutters plenty of material for their recruitment campaigns. The more people we kill...whoever they are...the more fuel for the fire. Anyway. That's me done. Despicable people, the lot of them, but only time will tell if killing them in the Middle East will lessen attacks in Europe.
How about bombing of civilians elsewhere? We do little to moan about the current Saudi action in Yemen. Also, our own raids elsewhere in the region haven't exactly been without civilian casualties. It also wasn't really that long ago that we imposed sanctions on Iraq that most likely resulted in the death of several hundred thousand people. The Iraqi people aren't going to thank us for sorting out Saddam when we leave them with this mess instead. Our collateral damage in the region gives the nutters plenty of material for their recruitment campaigns. The more people we kill...whoever they are...the more fuel for the fire. Anyway. That's me done. Despicable people, the lot of them, but only time will tell if killing them in the Middle East will lessen attacks in Europe.
1
1
In reply to Trevers:
Of course I wasn't.
> I don't think he's suggesting that the police shouldn't shoot to kill when a terrorist is killing innocents in front of them.
Of course I wasn't.
1
In reply to 1234None:
I haven't commented on wider civilian casualties in other conflicts. I have commented on the death of Jihadi John.
Your approach to the geo-political problems of world might best be described as isolationist, but more realistically appears to be ostrich-like.
> How about bombing of civilians elsewhere? We do little to moan about the current Saudi action in Yemen. Also, our own raids elsewhere in the region haven't exactly been without civilian casualties. It also wasn't really that long ago that we imposed sanctions on Iraq that most likely resulted in the death of several hundred thousand people. The Iraqi people aren't going to thank us for sorting out Saddam when we leave them with this mess instead. Our collateral damage in the region gives the nutters plenty of material for their recruitment campaigns. The more people we kill...whoever they are...the more fuel for the fire. Anyway. That's me done. Despicable people, the lot of them, but only time will tell if killing them in the Middle East will lessen attacks in Europe.
I haven't commented on wider civilian casualties in other conflicts. I have commented on the death of Jihadi John.
Your approach to the geo-political problems of world might best be described as isolationist, but more realistically appears to be ostrich-like.
2
1
In reply to off-duty:
It's not that targeted though is it?
http://mobile.nytimes.com/2015/04/24/world/asia/drone-strikes-reveal-uncomf...
It's not that targeted though is it?
http://mobile.nytimes.com/2015/04/24/world/asia/drone-strikes-reveal-uncomf...
In reply to gd303uk:
I'll get back to you when I find the post where I backed a US policy of drone strikes.
Until then I can only work with the drone strike on Jihadi John which appears to be when he was specifically identified getting into a specific car.
> It's not that targeted though is it?
> mobile.nytimes.com/2015/04/24/world/asia/drone-strikes-reveal-uncomfortable-truth-us-is-often...
I'll get back to you when I find the post where I backed a US policy of drone strikes.
Until then I can only work with the drone strike on Jihadi John which appears to be when he was specifically identified getting into a specific car.
1
1
In reply to 1234None:
How do you know this though....it could be that watching their own arses constantly has prevented more offensive acts in Europe?!
Every civilian death...even by rebels who were armed by the USA or UK is used as justification for atrocities. Let the Saudis, Qataris, UAE and Kuwait sort it out.
I think I'd like to agree with you but they haven't got any recent history of sorting things out and very little effort currently..
We've sold them enough weapons and military equipment... I think my position is fairly clear, and it's based on many long discussions with Syrians, Iraqis, Kuwaitis and others in the region.
I agree. Drones won't resolve much but can interrupt and minimise, they can also contribute such as supporting the Kurds etc..
> I believe that we have reached the point where military action by Western nations of any sort in the Middle East will only provide for future attacks in Europe and the USA. It's unlikely to result in less attacks and based on recent history, has merely served to stoke up further extremist sentiment.
How do you know this though....it could be that watching their own arses constantly has prevented more offensive acts in Europe?!
Every civilian death...even by rebels who were armed by the USA or UK is used as justification for atrocities. Let the Saudis, Qataris, UAE and Kuwait sort it out.
I think I'd like to agree with you but they haven't got any recent history of sorting things out and very little effort currently..
We've sold them enough weapons and military equipment... I think my position is fairly clear, and it's based on many long discussions with Syrians, Iraqis, Kuwaitis and others in the region.
I agree. Drones won't resolve much but can interrupt and minimise, they can also contribute such as supporting the Kurds etc..
Post edited at 17:33
In reply to off-duty:
you said this,
"If you genuinely can't see how targetted strikes at core members of a terrorist organisation can not fit in as part of a solution, then perhaps you don't understand anything about terrorism."
if you can't see how these "targeted air strikes on core members" include the killing of innocent civilians adds to the problem, then maybe you don't understand how terrorists are created.
you said this,
"If you genuinely can't see how targetted strikes at core members of a terrorist organisation can not fit in as part of a solution, then perhaps you don't understand anything about terrorism."
if you can't see how these "targeted air strikes on core members" include the killing of innocent civilians adds to the problem, then maybe you don't understand how terrorists are created.
Post edited at 17:34
1
2
In reply to gd303uk:
If you think a targetted strike includes some of the cock-ups that are alleged to have occurred from US drones, then can I make it clear - I can see many flaws in the apparent US policy in relation to drone strikes. Not least being their lack of targetting.
> you said this,
> "If you genuinely can't see how targetted strikes at core members of a terrorist organisation can not fit in as part of a solution, then perhaps you don't understand anything about terrorism."
> if you can't see how these "targeted air strikes on core members" include the killing of innocent civilians adds to the problem, then maybe you don't understand how terrorists are created.
If you think a targetted strike includes some of the cock-ups that are alleged to have occurred from US drones, then can I make it clear - I can see many flaws in the apparent US policy in relation to drone strikes. Not least being their lack of targetting.
1
In reply to gd303uk:
then maybe you don't understand how terrorists are created.
- maybe you can add to this by including your view of how they are created? For example people like 'jihadi John'....?
then maybe you don't understand how terrorists are created.
- maybe you can add to this by including your view of how they are created? For example people like 'jihadi John'....?
1
In reply to All:
My understanding is that these bar stewards have clearly stated that their aim is the imposition of a world wide islamic state and death to all "infidels". Are we going to or do they really expect us to roll over and let that happen? Do they really not expect an "equal and opposite" reaction?
My understanding is that these bar stewards have clearly stated that their aim is the imposition of a world wide islamic state and death to all "infidels". Are we going to or do they really expect us to roll over and let that happen? Do they really not expect an "equal and opposite" reaction?
Post edited at 18:25
3
2
In reply to abr1966:
Isn't it obvious? Jihadi John was a poor, uneducated Syrian peasant who, following a drone strike on his family, became a terrorist to fight the US.
Oh...
Born in Kuwait, educated to degree level in the UK, worked for a Kuwaiti software company, no connection with Syria other than using it as a playground to kill aid workers and journalists. Apart from following a cerain religion that has nothing whatsoever to do with cultivating batshit mental arseholes I can't see any ties to Syria.
> - maybe you can add to this by including your view of how they are created? For example people like 'jihadi John'....?
Isn't it obvious? Jihadi John was a poor, uneducated Syrian peasant who, following a drone strike on his family, became a terrorist to fight the US.
Oh...
Born in Kuwait, educated to degree level in the UK, worked for a Kuwaiti software company, no connection with Syria other than using it as a playground to kill aid workers and journalists. Apart from following a cerain religion that has nothing whatsoever to do with cultivating batshit mental arseholes I can't see any ties to Syria.
Post edited at 18:53
13
In reply to abr1966:
MJ Rosenberg has a view you might like to read.
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/mj-rosenberg/its-time-to-reconsider-us_b_3146...
MJ Rosenberg has a view you might like to read.
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/mj-rosenberg/its-time-to-reconsider-us_b_3146...
In reply to gd303uk:
It doesn't tell me anything about people like 'jihad John' or why English born kids are going off to Syria or Iraq!
I've met a few of what were considered terrorists in Northern Ireland.....mostly a bunch of thugs, sociopaths and misfits bullied into it. A few nasty 'big' people behind the scenes using the mayhem they create to run organised crime and drug trafficking.
I suspect a lot of the so called 'islamic' idiots are not much different.
It doesn't tell me anything about people like 'jihad John' or why English born kids are going off to Syria or Iraq!
I've met a few of what were considered terrorists in Northern Ireland.....mostly a bunch of thugs, sociopaths and misfits bullied into it. A few nasty 'big' people behind the scenes using the mayhem they create to run organised crime and drug trafficking.
I suspect a lot of the so called 'islamic' idiots are not much different.
Post edited at 19:23
1
In reply to FesteringSore:
Are we 'equal' to Islamic state?
What a miserable and chilling thought.
> My understanding is that these bar stewards have clearly stated that their aim is the imposition of a world wide islamic state and death to all "infidels". Are we going to or do they really expect us to roll over and let that happen? Do they really not expect an "equal and opposite" reaction?
Are we 'equal' to Islamic state?
What a miserable and chilling thought.
1
2
In reply to FesteringSore:
I suspect that's exactly what you'll be doing. Unless you've already booked your flight tickets to Syria that is
I suspect that's exactly what you'll be doing. Unless you've already booked your flight tickets to Syria that is
1
2
In reply to FesteringSore:
No.
But if our reaction shows the same disregard for humanity as they demonstrate, then all we are are sadists with bigger guns.
We have to stick to the values that make us better than terrorists- observing laws, responding proportionately.
But that doesn't mean we just roll over- we have fought more serious threats in the past and won, and won without compromising the values that we have fought for.
And now France looks like its invoking article 5, we will have a legitimate right to escalate military action against IS, which is as pointed out on another thread, most definitely a state, and one that is hostile towards us.
No.
But if our reaction shows the same disregard for humanity as they demonstrate, then all we are are sadists with bigger guns.
We have to stick to the values that make us better than terrorists- observing laws, responding proportionately.
But that doesn't mean we just roll over- we have fought more serious threats in the past and won, and won without compromising the values that we have fought for.
And now France looks like its invoking article 5, we will have a legitimate right to escalate military action against IS, which is as pointed out on another thread, most definitely a state, and one that is hostile towards us.
4
1
In reply to off-duty:
I haven't commented on the world. I have commented on the Middle East region. If isolationist or ostrich like means I can empathise with the people of this region and think about the situation compassionately, then go ahead with your patronising labelling of my approach. if any of this were happening in your back yard, you may think differently about how acceptable bombing raids of any sort (drones or otherwise) are. I don't agree with you but, unlike you, I'm not going to label your approach with patronising terms....it really doesn't help reasoned discussion.
> Your approach to the geo-political problems of world might best be described as isolationist, but more realistically appears to be ostrich-like.
I haven't commented on the world. I have commented on the Middle East region. If isolationist or ostrich like means I can empathise with the people of this region and think about the situation compassionately, then go ahead with your patronising labelling of my approach. if any of this were happening in your back yard, you may think differently about how acceptable bombing raids of any sort (drones or otherwise) are. I don't agree with you but, unlike you, I'm not going to label your approach with patronising terms....it really doesn't help reasoned discussion.
1
1
In reply to abr1966:
All good points and well made.
We don't exactly have much history of just backing off and letting the region sort out its own troubles though, do we? So who knows what would happen if we did exactly that? Even when the UK and USA aren't openly meddling they have frequently been involved in "behind the scenes" manipulation with secret services etc. It's civilian deaths, meddling and frequent destabilisation that have fuelled the fires for the extremists to recruit so many people. At least it is in the views of many moderate people in the Middle East when I have spoken with them about it. I simply think continuing in the same way will lead to a worsening of the situation, rather than any improvement. I haven't got more to add.
All good points and well made.
We don't exactly have much history of just backing off and letting the region sort out its own troubles though, do we? So who knows what would happen if we did exactly that? Even when the UK and USA aren't openly meddling they have frequently been involved in "behind the scenes" manipulation with secret services etc. It's civilian deaths, meddling and frequent destabilisation that have fuelled the fires for the extremists to recruit so many people. At least it is in the views of many moderate people in the Middle East when I have spoken with them about it. I simply think continuing in the same way will lead to a worsening of the situation, rather than any improvement. I haven't got more to add.
1
1
In reply to nickinscottishmountains:
And if it's you son or daughter, mother of father who happens to be one or all of the "collateral" damage would you still feel the same way then?
Like above I won't shed a tear for him, but there are more issues than revenge in wishing we'd got him back here and in court. What about the intelligence he could give about the rest of IS? What about information on how and why he was radicalised, and maybe this information would help us stop others taking the same route.
Wishing we could have put him on trial doesn't mean we'd rather he was free to carry on, why is it that people always have to go to extremes? There's a very intelligent middle ground yet people choose to ignore that.
> It comes down to whether or not you think we needed to do something about the likes of him. I do think that. There will always be some risk of damage and death in doing something about him. That isn't a reason not to do it.
And if it's you son or daughter, mother of father who happens to be one or all of the "collateral" damage would you still feel the same way then?
Like above I won't shed a tear for him, but there are more issues than revenge in wishing we'd got him back here and in court. What about the intelligence he could give about the rest of IS? What about information on how and why he was radicalised, and maybe this information would help us stop others taking the same route.
Wishing we could have put him on trial doesn't mean we'd rather he was free to carry on, why is it that people always have to go to extremes? There's a very intelligent middle ground yet people choose to ignore that.
3
3
In reply to krikoman:
It's the sort of polarisation you refer to that results in cycles of violence perpetuating themselves.
See Norman Tebbit's remarks in the Telegraph today for example:
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/politics/Jeremy_Corbyn/11997192/Jeremy-Corb...
> Wishing we could have put him on trial doesn't mean we'd rather he was free to carry on, why is it that people always have to go to extremes? There's a very intelligent middle ground yet people choose to ignore that.
It's the sort of polarisation you refer to that results in cycles of violence perpetuating themselves.
See Norman Tebbit's remarks in the Telegraph today for example:
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/politics/Jeremy_Corbyn/11997192/Jeremy-Corb...
In reply to krikoman:
Really? What is that in this case? (Leaving absurd fantasies of arresting him to one side)
> Wishing we could have put him on trial doesn't mean we'd rather he was free to carry on, why is it that people always have to go to extremes? There's a very intelligent middle ground yet people choose to ignore that.
Really? What is that in this case? (Leaving absurd fantasies of arresting him to one side)
1
In reply to tom_in_edinburgh:
Well said.
Why do we need a special justification to kill enemy fighters in a war? Given the US are bombing IS in Syria (i.e. killing enemy fighters) why does this case bring up human rights issues?
> If you look at the picture in the Telegraph the drone strike was close to two large and undamaged buildings labelled "ISIS Main HQ" and "Islamic Court". The fact that a building they think is ISIS headquarters is not a smoking hole in the ground shows the US is showing a massive amount of restraint and concern for collateral damage in its targeting.
Well said.
Why do we need a special justification to kill enemy fighters in a war? Given the US are bombing IS in Syria (i.e. killing enemy fighters) why does this case bring up human rights issues?
This topic has been archived, and won't accept reply postings.
Elsewhere on the site
Loading Notifications...