Govt Minister says all British ISIS members should be killed
Scroll to see replies
Original post by ByEeek
Agreed - but I can't help feeling that your later point is somewhat irrelevant as has been played out several times over the year or so. I am not convinced that engaging a guerrilla enemy using conventional war tactics works. This has been born out across the world many times over. But we don't seem learn or adapt our tactics.
I said fewer to come back, not none. And given that we know a few hundred have made trips to and from these zones, to only have a small handful of attacks and attempted attacks is a sign that we're doing well - we'll never completely eliminate them.
And who says we don't? We learn new things all the time, create new ways of engaging them, assist allies in ways we haven't before, train them using methods they haven't used before... Just because it doesn't get publicity (and have a think about why that might be....) doesn't mean it doesn't happen. Why else is the influence of those groups diminishing...?
If they're still active fighters, sure. If they're surrendering, then take them as prisoners and hand them over to Rojava, the KRG, the Iraqis or whoever's running the place for trial.
Original post by AlexanderHam
Rory Stewart, a Minister of State at the Department for International Development, has said that all British members of ISIS should be killed while they are still in Syria rather than allow them to return to the UK.
I agree with this. They are an intolerable threat, they have given up their allegiance to this country and we owe them nothing. It would be safer to kill them while they are over there rather than allow these vicious, cowardly terrorists to filter back here over time.
In other Iraq/Syria news, the ISIS Caliphate is in a state of terminal decline and collapse. Their capital in Raqqa has been taken by the Kurds, they have no more large cities in Iraq. Their territory is now limited to towns in the Euphrates river valley in western Iraq and eastern Syria. With the Kurds and Syrians closing from the west and the Iraqis closing in from the east, it is now only a matter of time before the caliphate is destroyed (see map below; ISIS territory is black, Syrian/Iraqi territory in red and Kurdish territory in yellow)
https://i.imgur.com/ZvbOgDQ.jpg
I agree with this. They are an intolerable threat, they have given up their allegiance to this country and we owe them nothing. It would be safer to kill them while they are over there rather than allow these vicious, cowardly terrorists to filter back here over time.
In other Iraq/Syria news, the ISIS Caliphate is in a state of terminal decline and collapse. Their capital in Raqqa has been taken by the Kurds, they have no more large cities in Iraq. Their territory is now limited to towns in the Euphrates river valley in western Iraq and eastern Syria. With the Kurds and Syrians closing from the west and the Iraqis closing in from the east, it is now only a matter of time before the caliphate is destroyed (see map below; ISIS territory is black, Syrian/Iraqi territory in red and Kurdish territory in yellow)
https://i.imgur.com/ZvbOgDQ.jpg
This is the only way of ensuring that they don't come back to the UK in my view. If someone has been training with ISIS they are a the threat to our national security and although I'd prefer them to be caught and not killed, that just isn't possible at the moment. Personally, I think we should never have been involved in Middle Eastern conflicts in the first place, and we need to get out as soon as possible once ISIS is destroyed in Iraq and Syria.
Original post by SCIENCE :D
The collapse of ISIS in Iraq and Syria will most likely mean a series of bombing campaigns/ terrorist attacks in Europe is incoming.
It's not as if they weren't trying before.
Do you think there was a conversation between Al-Baghdadi and his advisors which went a little something like
''gee daddy do you think we should launch some terror attacks against European targets.
''Oh no we shouldn't fight our enemies unless they take our two biggest cities first''
Original post by ByEeek
Both the minister and yourself don't seem to be very British. What happened to the rule of law? Just because someone is vile doesn't mean we can circumvent the values that uphold out society. ISIS preach and eye-for-an-eye. Don't stoop to their level. We are better than they and one of our core values is innocent until proven guilty. If you want to live in a country that executes people on a whim or has kangaroo courts, go and live in an ISIS stronghold.
These people are guilty. They are not headed for Syria to go on a walking holiday, they are committing treason and choosing of their own volition to fight for an enemy of the west.
I fully support Rory Stewart in saying that coalition forces should be given a simple order when these people are identified.. 'Shoot to kill'.
Original post by Trapz99
This is the only way of ensuring that they don't come back to the UK in my view. If someone has been training with ISIS they are a the threat to our national security and although I'd prefer them to be caught and not killed, that just isn't possible at the moment. Personally, I think we should never have been involved in Middle Eastern conflicts in the first place, and we need to get out as soon as possible once ISIS is destroyed in Iraq and Syria.
If the west withdraws from the Middle East then something akin to ISIS will simply reform.
The peoples of the Middle East value religion more than liberty. They are not capable of governing themselves and within a decade if left to it, an ISIS like group will be spreading across the Middle East like a plague.
For what Saddam did to Kuwait, we were most certainly right to involve ourselves.
Original post by Rakas21
If the west withdraws from the Middle East then something akin to ISIS will simply reform.
The peoples of the Middle East value religion more than liberty. They are not capable of governing themselves and within a decade if left to it, an ISIS like group will be spreading across the Middle East like a plague.
For what Saddam did to Kuwait, we were most certainly right to involve ourselves.
The peoples of the Middle East value religion more than liberty. They are not capable of governing themselves and within a decade if left to it, an ISIS like group will be spreading across the Middle East like a plague.
For what Saddam did to Kuwait, we were most certainly right to involve ourselves.
If they value religion more than liberty that's their choice. We should stay out of their nations and focus on our own country. Who are we to tell others how to live their lives? The west was in the Middle East when ISIS began. It's been more than a decade after the Iraq war and we are not a single bit safer in the UK as a result. I just think that interfering in a foreign country's issues is wrong; let's focus on creating a better future for people in the UK.
(edited 6 years ago)
Original post by ByEeek
Both the minister and yourself don't seem to be very British. What happened to the rule of law?
If it was unlawful to kill British citizens in Syria in drone strikes, then I would oppose it.
It is not unlawful. They have willingly adhered to our enemies and placed themselves in an active combat zone as part of an enemy army. We have every right under international law to act to neutralise that threat.
Original post by Trapz99
The west was in the Middle East when ISIS began
Do you recall when this war really began? Tell me, how did it start again? Something about Al-Qaeda terrorists slamming airliners into buildings in downtown New York, killing thousands?
As for being no safer, we clearly are safer by having an Afghanistan ruled by a democratically-elected government rather than being under the rule of the Taliban, which created an ungoverned space in which the Al-Qaeda training camps, where the 9/11 hijackers trained, bloomed and prospered.
If ISIS is some legitimate nationalist expression of Arab anti-imperialism (a revolting and offensive idea), then why has ISIS expended so much energy enslaving Yezidis, blowing up Shi'a mosques and beheading Alawites? It's because it does have to do with religion.
(edited 6 years ago)
Original post by AlexanderHam
Do you recall when this war really began? Tell me, how did it start again? Something about Al-Qaeda terrorists slamming airliners into buildings in downtown New York, killing thousands?
Wasn't it about those weapons of mass destruction that definitely existed?
Your rationale for interfering in a foreign country's affairs seems to be 'but but but 9/11'
Seriously, why are we in Iraq? Why are we in Syria? How has it made the UK safer? We have had five terror attacks this year.
(edited 6 years ago)
Original post by Trapz99
Wasn't it about those weapons of mass destruction that definitely existed?
You are confusing two separate things. The War on Terror started when Osama bin Laden's terrorist underlings crashed four airliners into the Twin Towers and Pentagon on September 11th, 2001, killing 3,000 Americans. Are you saying the United States should have done nothing in response to that?
My full comment was (subsequent edit);
Do you recall when this war really began? Tell me, how did it start again? Something about Al-Qaeda terrorists slamming airliners into buildings in downtown New York, killing thousands?
As for being no safer, we clearly are safer by having an Afghanistan ruled by a democratically-elected government rather than being under the rule of the Taliban, which created an ungoverned space in which the Al-Qaeda training camps, where the 9/11 hijackers trained, bloomed and prospered.
If ISIS is some legitimate nationalist expression of Arab anti-imperialism (a revolting and offensive idea), then why has ISIS expended so much energy enslaving Yezidis, blowing up Shi'a mosques and beheading Alawites? It's because it does have to do with religion.
Original post by itsfantanoooo
Don't think anyone can disagree tbh.
However there's more issues that need to be addressed when you're the govt of this country. They are still british passport holders and bureaucracy dictates that a bunch of other things to be considered. So for ppl getting outraged that theyre being let in, shut up.
However there's more issues that need to be addressed when you're the govt of this country. They are still british passport holders and bureaucracy dictates that a bunch of other things to be considered. So for ppl getting outraged that theyre being let in, shut up.
Original post by TaintedLight
I don't mind if they aren't killed in Syria. They can be killed in Turkey / UK / Germany / US.
Original post by SMEGGGY
US have insisted no ISIL fighters of US citizenship should,be caught. UK should say the same. :fuhrer:
Posted from TSR Mobile
Posted from TSR Mobile
Even in america a country with the actual death penalty, its considered controversial to assassinate US citizen.
Unless someone poses a imminent threat they should have a trial, innocent until proven guilty. You dont go hand out the death penalty for making a few youtube videos when the person has no operational role or carries a weapon.
Its amazing how so many people in the media are just happy to bring back the death penalty by stealth. Anyone with even a small understanding of insurgencies would know, heavy handed tactics just make the problem worse.
Original post by AlexanderHam
You are confusing two separate things. The War on Terror started when Osama bin Laden's terrorist underlings crashed four airliners into the Twin Towers and Pentagon on September 11th, 2001, killing 3,000 Americans. Are you saying the United States should have done nothing in response to that?
My full comment was (subsequent edit);
Do you recall when this war really began? Tell me, how did it start again? Something about Al-Qaeda terrorists slamming airliners into buildings in downtown New York, killing thousands?
As for being no safer, we clearly are safer by having an Afghanistan ruled by a democratically-elected government rather than being under the rule of the Taliban, which created an ungoverned space in which the Al-Qaeda training camps, where the 9/11 hijackers trained, bloomed and prospered.
If ISIS is some legitimate nationalist expression of Arab anti-imperialism (a revolting and offensive idea), then why has ISIS expended so much energy enslaving Yezidis, blowing up Shi'a mosques and beheading Alawites? It's because it does have to do with religion.
My full comment was (subsequent edit);
Do you recall when this war really began? Tell me, how did it start again? Something about Al-Qaeda terrorists slamming airliners into buildings in downtown New York, killing thousands?
As for being no safer, we clearly are safer by having an Afghanistan ruled by a democratically-elected government rather than being under the rule of the Taliban, which created an ungoverned space in which the Al-Qaeda training camps, where the 9/11 hijackers trained, bloomed and prospered.
If ISIS is some legitimate nationalist expression of Arab anti-imperialism (a revolting and offensive idea), then why has ISIS expended so much energy enslaving Yezidis, blowing up Shi'a mosques and beheading Alawites? It's because it does have to do with religion.
The correct response to a devastating terror attack would be to improve security and have tighter security controls at airports, public places. There should also be an investigation of who did the attack, who funded the attack and who knew about it. But taking military action against a country which had questionable links to the attack itself, killing hundreds of thousands of innocent people in that country and, as a result, increasing anti-western sentiment in that country does not help in preventing future attacks.
Let's say that Afghanistan was controlled by the Taliban. As long as we keep tight security controls and secure borders, Afghanistan isn't going to send us terrorists and definitely isn't going to attack us directly. It's not our business who runs Afghanistan.
I'm not saying that ISIS's motive is anti-imperialism. But it's hard to deny that it draws support from people, both from the Middle East and western Muslims, who are frustrated by imperialism. ISIS uses that deep anti-western sentiment to draw these people to their ideology.
(edited 6 years ago)
Original post by Rakas21
These people are guilty. They are not headed for Syria to go on a walking holiday, they are committing treason and choosing of their own volition to fight for an enemy of the west.
I fully support Rory Stewart in saying that coalition forces should be given a simple order when these people are identified.. 'Shoot to kill'.
I fully support Rory Stewart in saying that coalition forces should be given a simple order when these people are identified.. 'Shoot to kill'.
It should be decided by a court of law and a jury if someone is a member of ISIS, not by a solider in drone command center.
Having weak intel that someone at some point was in the same building as someone who might be in ISIS doesnt make that person a terrorist. They could have gone to syria to help with the aid effort or fight Assad Regime. Plenty of white british people go and promote russian fake news on twitter or russian foreign policy , you dont see them being accused of treason.
Original post by Rakas21
If the west withdraws from the Middle East then something akin to ISIS will simply reform.
The peoples of the Middle East value religion more than liberty. They are not capable of governing themselves and within a decade if left to it, an ISIS like group will be spreading across the Middle East like a plague.
For what Saddam did to Kuwait, we were most certainly right to involve ourselves.
The peoples of the Middle East value religion more than liberty. They are not capable of governing themselves and within a decade if left to it, an ISIS like group will be spreading across the Middle East like a plague.
For what Saddam did to Kuwait, we were most certainly right to involve ourselves.
except ISIS was actively funded by global powers as part of a proxy war. Something like ISIS could easily be west, if russia funded right wing groups and armed them.
valuing religion more than democracy, doesnt mean they want ISIS. The west actively created failed states in Libya, Syria and Iraq, the people of thoose countries are not to blame.
civilisation that values peace ? yea like the 100 year war, WW1,WW2 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/European_wars_of_religion
What saddam did to kuwait, is no different to the US did the dozen odd countries it has occupied over the past century
Original post by Ganjaweed Rebel
It's not as if they weren't trying before.
Do you think there was a conversation between Al-Baghdadi and his advisors which went a little something like
''gee daddy do you think we should launch some terror attacks against European targets.
''Oh no we shouldn't fight our enemies unless they take our two biggest cities first''
Do you think there was a conversation between Al-Baghdadi and his advisors which went a little something like
''gee daddy do you think we should launch some terror attacks against European targets.
''Oh no we shouldn't fight our enemies unless they take our two biggest cities first''
However when you have a possible 800+ defeated ISIS fighters returning to Europe, Do you not think that there is a chance that the terror risk from ISIS in Europe will not drastically increase.
Just because ISIS has been 'defeated' in a geographical sense, does not mean that they are any weaker ideologically.
the thought of trained ISIS fighters returning to Europe is a scary one.
So they should. They leave to join ISIS with intent on killing. They should be exterminated.
Original post by AlexanderHam
Rory Stewart, a Minister of State at the Department for International Development, has said that all British members of ISIS should be killed while they are still in Syria rather than allow them to return to the UK.
I agree with this. They are an intolerable threat, they have given up their allegiance to this country and we owe them nothing. It would be safer to kill them while they are over there rather than allow these vicious, cowardly terrorists to filter back here over time.
In other Iraq/Syria news, the ISIS Caliphate is in a state of terminal decline and collapse. Their capital in Raqqa has been taken by the Kurds, they have no more large cities in Iraq. Their territory is now limited to towns in the Euphrates river valley in western Iraq and eastern Syria. With the Kurds and Syrians closing from the west and the Iraqis closing in from the east, it is now only a matter of time before the caliphate is destroyed (see map below; ISIS territory is black, Syrian/Iraqi territory in red and Kurdish territory in yellow)
https://i.imgur.com/ZvbOgDQ.jpg
I agree with this. They are an intolerable threat, they have given up their allegiance to this country and we owe them nothing. It would be safer to kill them while they are over there rather than allow these vicious, cowardly terrorists to filter back here over time.
In other Iraq/Syria news, the ISIS Caliphate is in a state of terminal decline and collapse. Their capital in Raqqa has been taken by the Kurds, they have no more large cities in Iraq. Their territory is now limited to towns in the Euphrates river valley in western Iraq and eastern Syria. With the Kurds and Syrians closing from the west and the Iraqis closing in from the east, it is now only a matter of time before the caliphate is destroyed (see map below; ISIS territory is black, Syrian/Iraqi territory in red and Kurdish territory in yellow)
https://i.imgur.com/ZvbOgDQ.jpg
You do know that the U.S coalition including UK, France etc made a surrender agreement with ISIS? They were given permission to leave Raqqa and they would not be killed or arrested and were free to go on their way... I'm actually in shock they would make such an agreement.
Original post by hannah00
It should be decided by a court of law and a jury if someone is a member of ISIS, not by a solider in drone command center.
It should.
But this isn't your local high street. This is a warzone.
This isn't a place with police on the beat. This isn't a place where people can be arrested.
If you can spot them, if you can identify them, you take them out.
Original post by ByEeek
Both the minister and yourself don't seem to be very British. What happened to the rule of law? Just because someone is vile doesn't mean we can circumvent the values that uphold out society. ISIS preach and eye-for-an-eye. Don't stoop to their level. We are better than they and one of our core values is innocent until proven guilty. If you want to live in a country that executes people on a whim or has kangaroo courts, go and live in an ISIS stronghold.
We are at war with ISIS. These people are enemy combatants in a warzone, killing them through military means should not be controversial. They are absolutely legitimate military targets.
Quick Reply
Related discussions
- Reshuffle: David Cameron is back and Braverman sacked
- Shamima Begum was made a scapegoat – we would welcome her back, say Bethnal Green res
- Student loan
- The Coronation of His Majesty the King [TV Discussion Thread]
- ucas loan application
- Is the UK prepared for WW3?
- [Official thread] Hamas-Israel Conflict
- British icon party ideas
- I am an Israeli - AMA
- Rishi Sunak working towards general election in 'second half of the year'
- how could anyone be pro-israel?
- I have no friends, no relationship, nothing, I'm rejected for my Nationality
- What would I get out for this essay I wrote for english language paper 2 question 5
- UK politics AUA (Ask Us Anything) – no question too simple!
- [Official Thread] Russian invasion of Ukraine
- Retro TV?
- Michelle O’Neil becomes the first nationalist First Minister in Northern Ireland
- which poems can war photographer be compaed to??
- how to become a government minister?
- Cameron-comeback, opinions?
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 ?
