The left hand-wring over killing of British Jihadist in Syria
http://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2015/sep/07/uk-forces-airstrike-killed-isis-briton-reyaad-khan-syria
http://www.theguardian.com/world/2015/sep/07/drone-british-citizens-syria-uk-david-cameron
http://www.channel4.com/news/british-isis-recruits-confirmed-killed-in-airstrike
I don't get this. ISIS are our enemies, right? So if you join up with them and appear in their videos, why is anyone surprised when you have a big, red target on your back?
http://www.theguardian.com/world/2015/sep/07/drone-british-citizens-syria-uk-david-cameron
http://www.channel4.com/news/british-isis-recruits-confirmed-killed-in-airstrike
I don't get this. ISIS are our enemies, right? So if you join up with them and appear in their videos, why is anyone surprised when you have a big, red target on your back?
Scroll to see replies
The point is that if you are going to try to claim that you are better than ISIS you should be prepared to conduct yourself in a way that is absolutely beyond reproach.
This killing was.
-Conducted in an area we aren't at war with.
-Conducted in an area of the world parliament specifically said no to military action.
-All evidence both before and after the event will be classified. Not even parliamentary committee will be allowed to see it if Fallon gets his way.
-Any legal advice will not be published.
-Outside legal jurisdiction.
-Using drone strikes which aren't exactly known for their lack of collateral damage.
This killing was.
-Conducted in an area we aren't at war with.
-Conducted in an area of the world parliament specifically said no to military action.
-All evidence both before and after the event will be classified. Not even parliamentary committee will be allowed to see it if Fallon gets his way.
-Any legal advice will not be published.
-Outside legal jurisdiction.
-Using drone strikes which aren't exactly known for their lack of collateral damage.
Original post by mojojojo101
The point is that if you are going to try to claim that you are better than ISIS you should be prepared to conduct yourself in a way that is absolutely beyond reproach.
This killing was.
-Conducted in an area we aren't at war with.
-Conducted in an area of the world parliament specifically said no to military action.
-All evidence both before and after the event will be classified. Not even parliamentary committee will be allowed to see it if Fallon gets his way.
-Any legal advice will not be published.
-Outside legal jurisdiction.
-Using drone strikes which aren't exactly known for their lack of collateral damage.
This killing was.
-Conducted in an area we aren't at war with.
-Conducted in an area of the world parliament specifically said no to military action.
-All evidence both before and after the event will be classified. Not even parliamentary committee will be allowed to see it if Fallon gets his way.
-Any legal advice will not be published.
-Outside legal jurisdiction.
-Using drone strikes which aren't exactly known for their lack of collateral damage.
It was conducted against those we've been publicly "at war" with for a long time.
In previous Parliamentary sessions the PM said he "reserved the right" to act outside areas previously listed where there was clear threat / reason to.
Classified evidence isn't the same as no evidence. And all that's achieved by releasing evidence is armchair pundits like yourself pour over it to no gain whatsoever and it encourages others.
Just because other countries haven't used UAVs in a way we'd like - different ROEs - doesn't mean we should be tarred with the same brush. This was a perfectly clinical surgical strike conducted with expertise by the RAF and worked perfectly.
Original post by mojojojo101
The point is that if you are going to try to claim that you are better than ISIS you should be prepared to conduct yourself in a way that is absolutely beyond reproach.
This killing was.
-Conducted in an area we aren't at war with.
-Conducted in an area of the world parliament specifically said no to military action.
-All evidence both before and after the event will be classified. Not even parliamentary committee will be allowed to see it if Fallon gets his way.
-Any legal advice will not be published.
-Outside legal jurisdiction.
-Using drone strikes which aren't exactly known for their lack of collateral damage.
This killing was.
-Conducted in an area we aren't at war with.
-Conducted in an area of the world parliament specifically said no to military action.
-All evidence both before and after the event will be classified. Not even parliamentary committee will be allowed to see it if Fallon gets his way.
-Any legal advice will not be published.
-Outside legal jurisdiction.
-Using drone strikes which aren't exactly known for their lack of collateral damage.
Lol should have called Captain Sweden
Whilst people who join ISIS, or even think about joining ISIS for a split second, are likely to be some of the most morally repugnant people on Earth, instead of celebrating these strikes with emotional outbursts like "yay, we got the terrorist scum", let's ask some questions about the consequences of our actions.
One question is: does this set a dangerous precedent? Should the State be allowed to decide who is a terrorist without accountability, and carry out targeted killings as a result?
There's no doubt that the two men killed in these strikes belonged to a terrorist organisation, but we've seen the United States government expand their drone strike targets to include people they don't even know the identify of, on the basis that there has been suspicious behaviour around their location. These are known as signature strikes. This carries with it a high risk of killing innocent civilians, and the statistics released by human rights organisations seem to corroborate this.
Whilst killing innocent civilians is bad in itself, there are consequences to doing that as well, namely increasing the risk that people will become radicalised - when we kill innocent civilians, it can instantly be turned into another propaganda tool of organisations like ISIL and Al-Qaeda.
Then again, conventional warfare, it is argued, may be even more damaging to civilians. But, there's still the question: should we be involved in military action in Iraq and Syria at all? It will achieve very little, surely: there's no reason to expect the failure to contain terror with military action to suddenly be turned into a success.
What we need to do is investigate the reports that our ally, Turkey, has been involved in secret deals with ISIS; look at the breeding ground of terror which is Saudi Arabia and support an arms embargo against them; and look at where ISIS are getting their funds and arms from. Finally, we should support the people who have been most effectively fighting ISIS, namely the Kurds, both in the PKK and the YPG/YPJ. Once again, this means that we have to get our ally, Turkey, to stop attacking the Kurds and start attacking ISIS.
One question is: does this set a dangerous precedent? Should the State be allowed to decide who is a terrorist without accountability, and carry out targeted killings as a result?
There's no doubt that the two men killed in these strikes belonged to a terrorist organisation, but we've seen the United States government expand their drone strike targets to include people they don't even know the identify of, on the basis that there has been suspicious behaviour around their location. These are known as signature strikes. This carries with it a high risk of killing innocent civilians, and the statistics released by human rights organisations seem to corroborate this.
Whilst killing innocent civilians is bad in itself, there are consequences to doing that as well, namely increasing the risk that people will become radicalised - when we kill innocent civilians, it can instantly be turned into another propaganda tool of organisations like ISIL and Al-Qaeda.
Then again, conventional warfare, it is argued, may be even more damaging to civilians. But, there's still the question: should we be involved in military action in Iraq and Syria at all? It will achieve very little, surely: there's no reason to expect the failure to contain terror with military action to suddenly be turned into a success.
What we need to do is investigate the reports that our ally, Turkey, has been involved in secret deals with ISIS; look at the breeding ground of terror which is Saudi Arabia and support an arms embargo against them; and look at where ISIS are getting their funds and arms from. Finally, we should support the people who have been most effectively fighting ISIS, namely the Kurds, both in the PKK and the YPG/YPJ. Once again, this means that we have to get our ally, Turkey, to stop attacking the Kurds and start attacking ISIS.
Original post by Drewski
And all that's achieved by releasing evidence is armchair pundits like yourself pour over it to no gain whatsoever and it encourages others.
I'm sorry but that is a ridiculous reason not to release evidence.You release evidence so people who do know what they are talking about can look at it. There are reasons to keep things secret but that really isn't one of them.
"We mustn't publish our new findings in quantum mechanics because armchair pundits will form their usual crazy new age conclusions. So non one must know of our new findings other than a tight knit circle"
(edited 8 years ago)
Original post by ChaoticButterfly
I'm sorry but that is a ridiculous reason not to release evidence.You release evidence so people who do know what they are talking about can look at it. There are reasons to keep things secret but that really isn't one of them.
"We mustn't publish our new findings in quantum mechanics because armchair pundits will form their usual crazy new age conclusions. So non one must know of our new findings other than a tight knit circle"
"We mustn't publish our new findings in quantum mechanics because armchair pundits will form their usual crazy new age conclusions. So non one must know of our new findings other than a tight knit circle"
I really don't care. The overwhelming majority of people would not make head nor tail of detailed legal argument and would just jump to conclusions. If they're going to do that they might as well do that without the effort of trying to be clear in the first place.
The people who matter have had the evidence, elected officials, the attorney General and the military and they've made the decision and acted upon it. Job done.
Original post by Drewski
The people who matter have had the evidence, elected officials, the attorney General and the military and they've made the decision and acted upon it. Job done.
Yes, the "people who matter" also had the "evidence" that Iraq had Weapons of Mass Destruction.
It's incredibly naive to put one's faith in "the people who matter", namely state officials whose decision-making capabilities are often blinded by a variety of cognitive biases.
We should, at the very least, have someone independent of the government, such as a legal expert, to look at this "evidence".
(edited 8 years ago)
Original post by viddy9
Yes, the "people who matter" also had the "evidence" that Iraq had Weapons of Mass Destruction.
It's incredibly naive to put one's faith in "the people who matter", namely state officials whose decision-making capabilities are often blinded by a variety of cognitive biases.
We should, at the very least, have someone independent of the government, such as a legal expert, to look at this "evidence".
It's incredibly naive to put one's faith in "the people who matter", namely state officials whose decision-making capabilities are often blinded by a variety of cognitive biases.
We should, at the very least, have someone independent of the government, such as a legal expert, to look at this "evidence".
And why is it that the Armed Forces are not considered independent? They are not appointed by the Government. They were here before them and will be there after them.
Original post by angryjobseeker
The blind trust you place in the authorities is disturbing, to put it mildly.
Indeed Islamic State has no one's interests at heart, but I don't see why we seem to automatically be in a state of war and are getting dragged into this conflict.
It would be better to stand back and observe than attacking them and making them more likely to commit an attack on this country.
No doubt you will claim such a position is cowardly or some other right wing buzzword, however being the "grey man" has a lot of benefits and that is what we should try to be in these situations where there isn't a direct threat.
Indeed Islamic State has no one's interests at heart, but I don't see why we seem to automatically be in a state of war and are getting dragged into this conflict.
It would be better to stand back and observe than attacking them and making them more likely to commit an attack on this country.
No doubt you will claim such a position is cowardly or some other right wing buzzword, however being the "grey man" has a lot of benefits and that is what we should try to be in these situations where there isn't a direct threat.
Better to stand back when it's known that they are attempting to coordinate attacks in our own country or in those of our allies? Better to stand back and allow someone else to do our dirty work? Better to stand back and allow people to inflict harm at will because we couldn't possibly risk offending people?
The pair of you made valid points and I understand them completely.
I just don't care. I can't get myself worked up about this.
(edited 8 years ago)
Original post by angryjobseeker
The blind trust you place in the authorities is disturbing, to put it mildly.
Indeed Islamic State has no one's interests at heart, but I don't see why we seem to automatically be in a state of war and are getting dragged into this conflict.
It would be better to stand back and observe than attacking them and making them more likely to commit an attack on this country.
No doubt you will claim such a position is cowardly or some other right wing buzzword, however being the "grey man" has a lot of benefits and that is what we should try to be in these situations where there isn't a direct threat.
Indeed Islamic State has no one's interests at heart, but I don't see why we seem to automatically be in a state of war and are getting dragged into this conflict.
It would be better to stand back and observe than attacking them and making them more likely to commit an attack on this country.
No doubt you will claim such a position is cowardly or some other right wing buzzword, however being the "grey man" has a lot of benefits and that is what we should try to be in these situations where there isn't a direct threat.
Do you expect every arrest, search warrant and military action to be run past the public every time? It's not feasible. And the general public aren't the best qualified to judge - the authorities are, and that's why those people are in those jobs.
It's not good to 'stand back and observe' when you know certain people are "plotting to attack high-profile public commemorations in the UK"? The role of the government is to keep their country and people as safe as possible, and that's exactly what they've done. It's certainly better than not acting.
Original post by Drewski
I really don't care. The overwhelming majority of people would not make head nor tail of detailed legal argument and would just jump to conclusions. If they're going to do that they might as well do that without the effort of trying to be clear in the first place.
The people who matter have had the evidence, elected officials, the attorney General and the military and they've made the decision and acted upon it. Job done.
The people who matter have had the evidence, elected officials, the attorney General and the military and they've made the decision and acted upon it. Job done.
This is all well and good but they didn't run this evidence - which might be integral to future operatives as well for all we know - past random people on student Internet forums first.
They'd have said no to the strike no matter what evidence there was anyway but how can you call yourself any better than ISIS when you just go and target people in wars without the concent of random pacifists online and in parliament?
Original post by Drewski
I really don't care. The overwhelming majority of people would not make head nor tail of detailed legal argument and would just jump to conclusions. If they're going to do that they might as well do that without the effort of trying to be clear in the first place.
The people who matter have had the evidence, elected officials, the attorney General and the military and they've made the decision and acted upon it. Job done.
The people who matter have had the evidence, elected officials, the attorney General and the military and they've made the decision and acted upon it. Job done.
Because that has never ever gone wrong or had problems in the entire history of nation states.
Original post by Drewski
I just don't care. I can't get myself worked up about this.
I just don't care. I can't get myself worked up about this.
In this incident neither do I. I just do not see the problem with having evidence available for anyone to look at. You are worked up enough to be against that.
You also do not have to be an expert in a particular field to read abstracts or conclusions from experts of that field.
(edited 8 years ago)
Original post by ChaoticButterfly
Because that has never ever gone wrong or had problems in the entire history of nation states.
Both systems have been thoroughly abused in the past.
In this incident neither do I. I just do not see the problem with having evidence available for anyone to look at. You are worked up enough to be against that.
You also do not have to be an expert in a particular field to read abstracts or conclusions from experts of that field.
You also do not have to be an expert in a particular field to read abstracts or conclusions from experts of that field.
I don't see what there is to be gained from such a thing. What would they do, un-kill them?
Original post by angryjobseeker
This place is very right wing for a student forum, I am quite frankly disgusted.
Then you're free to leave. No-one's making you come here. And students have as much right as anyone else to come from all over the political spectrum. If anything, you expecting all students to think exactly the same is worse.
Original post by angryjobseeker
Well I know that you are no longer a student so perhaps you should leave? Just because you are ex military you think you should blindly follow authority.
Who says I'm no longer a student?
I may no longer be at university but that's not the same thing.
What gives you the right to dictate who can and can't use this, or who can and can't comment, or where that person should be on the political spectrum?
Original post by angryjobseeker
Well you told me to leave first. And you are very authoritarian which I am against so I won't bow down to you. End of the day take the government's words at your peril because no authorities are truth worthy in the end.
I offered you the choice, that's different. You claimed to be "quite frankly disgusted" at the notion that - shock horror - people might hold different opinions to yourself. My pointing out that you are free to leave was an attempt to calm those ruffled feathers on your poor sheltered back and to prevent you from becoming "quite frankly disgusted" at the notion of plurality.
If we hadn't let them in the country in the first place we wouldn't be having this discussion
Original post by angryjobseeker
Well you told me to leave first. And you are very authoritarian which I am against so I won't bow down to you. End of the day take the government's words at your peril because no authorities are truth worthy in the end.
You have issues.
Original post by angryjobseeker
Well you told me to leave first. And you are very authoritarian which I am against so I won't bow down to you. End of the day take the government's words at your peril because no authorities are truth worthy in the end.
Yet these same authorities are the ones paying you job seeker's allowance?
Quick Reply
Related discussions
- Shamima Begum was made a scapegoat – we would welcome her back, say Bethnal Green res
- Teacher killed in France school stabbing
- Five SAS soldiers arrested for alleged war crimes in Syria
- phyiscs magnetism gcse
- PLEASE HELP (the curious incident of the dog in the night time)
- Ucas mistake, doing alevels atm
- [Official thread] Hamas-Israel Conflict
- Do ECT years straight away or should I go abroad?
- My dad doesn’t wash his hands after pouring bleach
- I was wandering if my son with ADHD will be rejected from the army?
- English Literature Macbeth
- History Edexcel A level Britain Transformed and USA Conformity and Challenge
- My partner (29f) cried and told me (27m) that I have been "terrorizing" her
- I think i'm losing a friendship because of the Israel-Palestine conflict
- I am an Israeli - AMA
- I really struggled for time in my economics exams
- [Official Thread] Russian invasion of Ukraine
- Thinking about dropping out of Uni. Am I to behind.
- Roedean vs. Benenden
- can someone give me a mark out of 24 and a grade.
Latest
Trending
Last reply 2 days ago
Why is the political left now censorious and authoritarian??Last reply 2 days ago
Is it true that British unis are prejudiced towards degrees from Scottish unis?Last reply 2 days ago
If the Russell Group was now a fair representation of what it still claims to beLast reply 2 weeks ago
TSR Goes Green: How important will the environment be in this year's election?Last reply 2 weeks ago
Research Rankings of universities if you add Research Quality & Intensity percentagesLast reply 1 month ago
Is University of Birmingham prestigious and respected well enough in UK ?Trending
Last reply 2 days ago
Why is the political left now censorious and authoritarian??Last reply 2 days ago
Is it true that British unis are prejudiced towards degrees from Scottish unis?Last reply 2 days ago
If the Russell Group was now a fair representation of what it still claims to beLast reply 2 weeks ago
TSR Goes Green: How important will the environment be in this year's election?Last reply 2 weeks ago
Research Rankings of universities if you add Research Quality & Intensity percentagesLast reply 1 month ago
Is University of Birmingham prestigious and respected well enough in UK ?
