Govt Minister says all British ISIS members should be killed

Original post by RivalPlayer

Leftists will claim these ISIL-loving fanatics wern't thinking straight and didn't know what they were doing, and should, therefore, be reintegrated into British society.

You can thank leftists for defeating ISIS.

Reply 43

username2243339

14

Original post by ChaoticButterfly

You can thank leftists for defeating ISIS.

A new group will take its place. There are plenty of ISIS sympathizers in Europe already - thanks to the leftists who continue to demand them.

Reply 44

ChaoticButterfly

Original post by RivalPlayer

A new group will take its place. There are plenty of ISIS sympathizers in Europe already - thanks to the leftists who continue to demand them.

You have no idea what you are talking about.

Reply 45

username2243339

14

Original post by ChaoticButterfly

You have no idea what you are talking about.

So you're denying that lefties are at the forefront of groups and charities that demand European countries take in more ISIS sympathizers?

Reply 46

ChaoticButterfly

Original post by RivalPlayer

So you're denying that lefties are at the forefront of groups and charities that demand European countries take in more ISIS sympathizers?

Leftists are literally at the forefront in fighting and containing ISIS in that they are on the front line. That's what I'm saying. The YPG is a left wing force.

(edited 6 years ago)

Reply 47

username2243339

14

Original post by ChaoticButterfly

Leftists are literally at the forefront in fighting and containing ISIS in that they are on the front line. That's what I'm saying. The YPG is a left wing force.

Yes, and I am saying that a new group will take its place. Meanwhile European lefties will continue to demand ISIS sympathizers from Islamic troublespots - this is a more immediate threat than a bunch of terrorists running around in a bombed out middle-eastern country.

Reply 48

OP

Original post by hannah00

except ISIS was actively funded by global powers as part of a proxy war.

No, it really wasn't. That's a conspiracy theory from the likes of Alex Jones and other alt-right and hard-left crackpots.

It makes no sense whatsoever, but perhaps more relevant, there is no evidence for it

Reply 49

Ganjaweed Rebel

17

Original post by SCIENCE :D

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.

Allowing terror training camps to pump these monsters out is far scarier.

Reply 50

OP

Original post by anarchism101

That's what I don't get about this announcement. If it's just about combatants then surely we had a policy of killing active combatants already?

I think the distinction is that our current targeted killing programme (for which the British programme is very modest; I think only two or three people have been targeted and killed) is targeting ISIS members inside the Iraq/Syria warzone who pose a threat to us.

I am of the belief that this is entirely legal under international and British law. However, it is a different proposition to ordinary combat operations. For example;

--

Scenario 1. MI6 gets information that there is a British ISIS member operating in Syria who is part of ISIS' external operations cell (planning attacks abroad). GCHQ tracks down this person online and then inserts some malware into their smartphone which covertly switches on the GPS receiver and then broadcasts the current co-ordinates back to a GCHQ listening station, without the user / ISIS member knowing it.

GCHQ provides the co-ordinates of this ISIS terrorist member to the RAF, who deploy a drone overhead. The drone watches him for 24 to 36 hours, and the minister gives the go-ahead to take him out. The RAF watches him from the drone and waits until he gets into a car, and the car is driving in an area without civilians, and then they fire the Hellfire missile and kill the terrorist.

Scenario 2. Some Kurdish pesh forces are advancing towards an ISIS base while an RAF drone provides overwatch, slowly circling overhead and keeping an eye on things. The Kurds then see an ISIS car bomb racing towards their lines, and get on the radio to their RAF liaison, who directs the drone operator to the car bomb. The drone fires its Brimstone missile and turns the car bomb into a flaming wreck.

--

While both are occurring in warzones and both involve combatants, the second scenario directly arises from British support to Kurdish combat operations. The first is a targeted killing programme focusing on British citizens who are members of ISIS but who, at the point of their death, may not be involved in a battle at that very moment. The people targeted in Scenario 1 might be British ISIS members who are involved in ISIS intelligence, or its cyber-warfare division, or else involved in training / planning attacks on Western Europe.

Personally, I believe both are entirely justifiable. As long as they are in the Iraq-Syria theatre, I support killing them. If they turn up in a part of the world without extradition and where we cannot use drones, I support MI6 rubbing them out the old-fashioned way. However, once they are in a place with extradition or in Western Europe, we must attempt to catch them (however, unlike ordinary criminals, I believe it is justified to shoot them in attempting to prevent their escape)

(edited 6 years ago)

Reply 51

Nerry

15

Kill killers? yeah whats wrong with that?

Reply 52

OP

Original post by SCIENCE :D

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.

That's not a reason not to take out the ISIS camps and its territorial lands.

Western Europe has suffered attacks while ISIS was at its peak. While the fall of ISIS might result in a temporary bump in attacks as the terrorists return home (like rats leaving a sinking ship), that will be a short-term trend.

Allowing ISIS to continue to have large amounts of territory, to continue training fighters in their training camps, will mean we just have continuous terror attacks against us with no prospect of an end.

By the way, ISIS is not strengthened by the destruction of the caliphate. By defeating them, we are showing that everything they claimed would happen turned out to be wrong, and everything we said would happen turned out to be right.

ISIS became extremely popular amongst extremist Muslims for a while because it seemed to be winning. Success breeds success, and everyone likes a winner. Now that we have clipped 60,000 of these terrorist arse holes, and taken away their pseudo-state, we have shown that they are like every other failed insurgent group in history. Nothing special about them, they're a bunch of losers and now we have shown it. Every extremist Muslim who travelled there and was killed by Western drones or Pesh rifle bullets died for nothing.

(edited 6 years ago)

Reply 53

OP

Original post by Ninja Squirrel

You do know that the U.S coalition including UK, France etc made a surrender agreement with ISIS?

The Kurdish peshmerga are the ones on the ground in Raqqa, if they would prefer to let the ISIS leave so they can save the lives of their own troops, that is their prerogative.

Given the Syrian government has repeatedly made those sort of deals with Al-Qaeda and ISIS, your criticism rings hollow

Reply 54

nulli tertius

21

Original post by the bear

give them counselling on the NHS

That would be contrary to the Geneva Convention

Reply 55

the bear

Original post by nulli tertius

That would be contrary to the Geneva Convention

Reply 56

Ninja Squirrel

Original post by AlexanderHam

The Kurdish peshmerga are the ones on the ground in Raqqa, if they would prefer to let the ISIS leave so they can save the lives of their own troops, that is their prerogative.

Given the Syrian government has repeatedly made those sort of deals with Al-Qaeda and ISIS, your criticism rings hollow

I think you misread what I said. The U.S coalition made the agreement. At first France objected to the deal because ISIS fighters wanted to flee with their weapons but after they agreed to flee without their weapons, France obliged.

http://www.syriahr.com/en/?p=76204

Reply 57

OP

Original post by Ninja Squirrel

I think you misread what I said. The U.S coalition made the agreement. At first France objected to the deal because ISIS fighters wanted to flee with their weapons but after they agreed to flee without their weapons, France obliged.

http://www.syriahr.com/en/?p=76204

In other words, there is absolutely no independent corroboration for this whatsoever.

What we do know is that even after the collapse of the Assad regime's two-year non-aggression and trading pact with ISIS, they engaged in many such deals where they allowed Al-Qaeda and ISIS fighters to leave peaceably.

But you won't ever criticise the Assad regime for that, will you?

Reply 58

Ninja Squirrel