So long Jihad John?

I'd have thought maybe we could have taken the moral high ground and not caused more bloodshed and caught him alive. One point I'd like to add: if so much effort has been put into tracking down this one man, why couldn't the same have been put in to save the people he killed?

efforts to rescue people from isis have been made

http://www.theguardian.com/world/2015/oct/22/us-special-forces-free-kurdish-hostages-isis-iraq

also killing somebody easier than rescue them. For the former you can send a drone for the latter you need a co-ordinated effort involving multiple ground troops. same with capturing sombody alive.

Im not saying that putting him on trail would be wrong, far from it. But just like with the police in regards to capturing certain criminals lethal forces is something that really should be an option.

Reply 61

United1892

12

Original post by Good bloke

He said, verbatim:

There was no attempt whatsoever that I can see to arrest him, to put him on trial, to go through that process.

This was an assassination attempt, and is yet another tragedy, upon a tragedy, upon a tragedy.

The World Trade Centre was a tragedy, the attack on Afghanistan was a tragedy, the war in Iraq was a tragedy. Tens of thousands of people have died. Torture has come back on to the world stage, been canonised virtually into law by Guantanamo and Bagram.

Can’t we learn some lessons over this?

That isn't saying the lack of a trial is a tragedy. It is saying the assassination is a tragedy (along with the other deaths).

It's clearly saying that the lack of the trial is tragedy.

Reply 62

woIfie

2

Original post by United1892

It's clearly saying that the lack of the trial is tragedy.

No, he said his death was a tragedy. Do you think the lack of trial for Emwazi was a tragedy? And if Corbyn thinks it, why did he instead say that Emwazi had been "held accountable"?

It really is faintly pathetic how Corbyn supporters will rationalise and justify all the backflips he's doing, and even manage to convince themselves that they are consistent. It's almost as though they are completely papered over the obvious cognitive dissonance, and it's ignore the inconsistencies and on with the revolution comrades.

One week Corbyn is dead set against austerity, the next he signs up to Osborne's austerity plans. One week Corbyn says that death by drone is a tragedy, the next he says that terrorists killed by drones have been "held accountable". One week he criticises the Gulf States like Qatar in the most vociferous terms, the next week he's accepting £20,000 from them.

Does this man have any principles that aren't up for sale or negotiation, depending on how he perceives his best interests?

Reply 63

KingBradly

1

Original post by yasaminO_o

I'd have thought maybe we could have taken the moral high ground and not caused more bloodshed and caught him alive. One point I'd like to add: if so much effort has been put into tracking down this one man, why couldn't the same have been put in to save the people he killed?

This is actually the stupidest thing I've read on here for a while. And that really is saying something.

First of all, this is not about taking the moral high-ground. It's about eliminating a threat.

Secondly, how would one go about capturing him alive? Honestly, I'm genuinely interested to hear how you think you could go about such an operation.

Thirdly, how does blowing people up with a drone compare to sneaking up on them and taking their hostages without them seeing you and putting bullets in the hostage's brains?

Reply 64

KimKallstrom

14

Original post by woIfie

No, he said his death was a tragedy. Do you think the lack of trial for Emwazi was a tragedy? And if Corbyn thinks it, why did he instead say that Emwazi had been "held accountable"?

It really is faintly pathetic how Corbyn supporters will rationalise and justify all the backflips he's doing, and even manage to convince themselves that they are consistent. It's almost as though they are completely papered over the obvious cognitive dissonance, and it's ignore the inconsistencies and on with the revolution comrades.

One week Corbyn is dead set against austerity, the next he signs up to Osborne's austerity plans. One week Corbyn says that death by drone is a tragedy, the next he says that terrorists killed by drones have been "held accountable". One week he criticises the Gulf States like Qatar in the most vociferous terms, the next week he's accepting £20,000 from them.

Does this man have any principles that aren't up for sale or negotiation, depending on how he perceives his best interests?

This is why 99% of this supporters are people who didn't event know vwho he was a year ago and everyone else recgognises who he is and has been for the last 30 years - a little scum bag.

Reply 65

Josb

6

Some lefties will say that his death was illegal.

Reply 66

callum_law

6

I am not sure what's worse. His brutal murder of innocents ... or the fact he got a 2.2 from Westminster.

Reply 67

the bear

20

Original post by Good bloke

Time for some clerihews I think:

Jihadi John (Mohammed Emwazi)
Went to the desert, joined ISIS, but was he
As pleased to be hit by a missile and shredded
As he was to preach over the men he beheaded?

Jihadi John
Did things that were wrong;
His pet was a tapir
And now he’s just vapour.