RAF bombs ISIS baddies.

woof woof

woof woof

I like a nice Chianti
Suspended / Banned
Messages
43,206
Name
Alan
Edit My Images
No
I'm a bit surprised by this. I'm surprised Cameron didn't duck the issue, get the Americans to do the strike, keep quiet and avoid the controversy.

Wonder if we'll see more of this, slippery slope... mission creep etc.
 
Last edited:
woof woof said:
I'm a bit surprised by this. I'm surprised Cameron didn't duck the issue, get the Americans to do the strike, keep quiet and avoid the controversy.

Wonder if we'll see more of this, slippery slope... mission creep etc.
Click to expand...

Exactly!
Rightly or wrongly Parliament said NO military involvement in Syria. Any excuses from Cameron are just that... excuses. The arrogance of the man is astonishing.
 
But on the other hand... if it's self defence and the alternative to not killing them is an atrocity with innocent people dying on the streets of a UK city...
 
We've only got his word for that, and he is a politician after all...
 
Being a bit more serious, it's not an easy call. Given the previous decision by parliament I suspect that it's dubious at best to call the strike legal but I can well understand it.
The trouble is that there is no real openness and transparency, we just don't know what's really going on. At best it's "self defence" at worst it's murder. I have no time for the terrorists at all, I despise them totally but I do worry about democracy and the rule of law in the UK.
 
I think Cameron played it safe and took legal advice before the strike but that wont silence the critics and human rights opponents. Nothing will and the arguments will go on and on. Back in the days of Tony B. in No. 10 the top lawyer in the land said that a certain little war was legal but few people seem to agree these days and it's usually referred to as an illegal war.
 
To be honest I grow a little tired of the questioning on this, action as I see it decisions have to be mate, sometimes as in this case life and death, only those that need to know, actually know how's and the whys of what happens and the modern phenomena that is trial by media is frankly tiresome...it really goes back to that old slogan "Careless talk costs lives" I am confident in the likes of MI5/MI6/GCHQ to have intercepted enough to warrant this...

As Cameron effectively said he had to make a call, and that was take him out now and be questioned over "should you have done that?" or not take him out and the when he blows up a school/shopping centre face the...you had the chance to take him out and decided not to, how could you fail to take him out by doing that you've caused them to die...

It's my firm belief he has taken the lesser of two evils in this case
 
i'm not a supporter of cameron or this government but his action over sanctioning this is justified and correct ,these TRAITORS and thats the correct term were brought up here and therefore knew where to strike for maximum public damage ,i wonder what the " gooders" and appeasers would say if it was bodies strewn on the streets of london or birmingham etc ,it also shows the danger of letting a ban the bomber like corbyn in to run the opposition party .

the uproar from some quarters shows how far we have probably been infiltrated by the pro muslim support groups and other gooders ,lets get it right its a war that could spill over into WW3 if not contained .i for one cannot see the reasoning in the west trying to de-throne assad when his backers include iran and russia ,it would pitch the west directly against them .
 
Try them for treason, not terrorism, and hang them (I know I know).

Lets have the east vs west war, get it over and done with so we can move on.

I am really unsure of the Iraq war being called illegal, err ask the Kurds if sadam had WMD?
 
I'm all for preventative action, IMHO. Cameron was faced with a tough call and chose the right one. The government are damned if they do, damned if they don't. If one of the jihadists came back and bombed a school. Cameron would have been accused of not being tough enough. As to them being British, that ended the day they decided to partner with ISIS.

One things that really annoys me about this country is its media and opposition political parties. Surely in difficult times we should be showing support and solidarity rather than trying to score points by questioning the decisions. I wonder did anyone ever question Asquith or Churchill about there decisions to declare war on Germany, or accuse them of acting illegally?
 
ChrisHeathcote said:
I'm all for preventative action, IMHO. Cameron was faced with a tough call and chose the right one. The government are damned if they do, damned if they don't. If one of the jihadists came back and bombed a school. Cameron would have been accused of not being tough enough. As to them being British, that ended the day they decided to partner with ISIS.

One things that really annoys me about this country is its media and opposition political parties. Surely in difficult times we should be showing support and solidarity rather than trying to score points by questioning the decisions. I wonder did anyone ever question Asquith or Churchill about there decisions to declare war on Germany, or accuse them of acting illegally?
Click to expand...
Thats because all journalists are scum, and just care about gossip and making money.
 
Wouldn't it be safer to just stop selling them weapons. Stop buying their oil and destroy their heroin crops. With no money or arms, they're nothing.
 
Last edited:
ChrisHeathcote said:
I'm all for preventative action, IMHO. Cameron was faced with a tough call and chose the right one. The government are damned if they do, damned if they don't. If one of the jihadists came back and bombed a school. Cameron would have been accused of not being tough enough. As to them being British, that ended the day they decided to partner with ISIS.

One things that really annoys me about this country is its media and opposition political parties. Surely in difficult times we should be showing support and solidarity rather than trying to score points by questioning the decisions. I wonder did anyone ever question Asquith or Churchill about there decisions to declare war on Germany, or accuse them of acting illegally?
Click to expand...

Neville Chamberlain was the Prime Minister when Britain declared war in 1939. Churchill didn't take over until nearly a year later.
 
There are two separate issues here.
1. These people were British citizens who were only SUSPECTED of being terrorists, and no war has been declared either by this country against Syria or by Syria against us, therefore it was illegal to deliberately kill them. Also, we don't have the death penalty in this country and even if we did have it, it would be wrong for a government to kill anyone unless and until they have been tried and convicted.
2. These people were terrorists and traitors to our (their) country and it was essential to prevent them from carrying out more illegal acts against us. The end justifys the means and we need to trust our security services and government to act as they see fit, based on the knowledge that only they have.

Personally I go for (2. But, only whilst this kind of positive action is exceptional - it should never become the norm, as it has with the USA.
 
I really don't get how this could be 'illegal'. What makes a war legal or not? As has been said, damned if they do and damned if they dont, however I don't like this dipping in and out. IMO we should either do nothing or send everything in. Work with Assad and Russia etc... to wipe them out of Syria.
 
There is a saying..."if you play with fire, you may get burnt"

These "British " citizens went to Syria of their own free will and they knew the risks.

Good riddance I say.
 
What annoys me about this (and all the other ones similar to it) is that they are still referring to them as British Nationals. IMHO they revoked the right to be called that as soon as they started considering any sort of action / terror plot / harm to any other British person. If they have indeed plotted to commit a terrorist act or harm against the UK (or any UK citizens abroad) then they are Traitors and should not be called "British" any more.

lukey1965 said:
Good riddance I say.
Click to expand...
I'll second that.
 
One thought that keeps occurring to me is that I don't know any other occasion on which British civilians have flocked to evil. Maybe flocked isn't the right word but certainly numbers of British civilians have left these shores to fight for or support or at least live under a regime which apparently carries out repeated and numerous evil acts and I don't think that evil is too strong a word. The worst excesses of ISIS seem comparable to those of the Nazis, Pol Pot or anything in history and there just seem to be no limits to them, is there anything they wouldn't do?

Years ago and long before my time British civilians left these shores to fight the rise of fascism in Spain. A just cause many would think. Now "we" flock to support those who would oppress, rape, torture, enslave and murder. How times have changed.
 
Last edited:
We couldn't defeat terrorism with force in northern Ireland. An areas of 5000 square miles and a population of less than 2 million. How are we going to stop a group that spans 15 countries and 100s of thousands of square miles?
 
Last edited:
These terrorists, so called British citizens, hide behind & use the term `British citizens` as a defence. They should be stripped of their citizenship!

As Jeff alluded to, we/the `west` have been infiltrated over many years.
They know they couldn't possibly win with a full on war, so become the enemy within, even hiding behind the protection that our laws (which they don't like or agree with) afford them. Crazy state of affairs!

Edit to add. The do-gooders aren't helping either.
 
Last edited:
ChrisHeathcote said:
The government are damned if they do, damned if they don't. If one of the jihadists came back and bombed a school. Cameron would have been accused of not being tough enough.
Click to expand...

exactly what i said this morning.

british citizens going over there and stirring up poop should be "tidied up" by us. dont see the problem.
 
cambsno said:
I really don't get how this could be 'illegal'. What makes a war legal or not? As has been said, damned if they do and damned if they dont, however I don't like this dipping in and out. IMO we should either do nothing or send everything in. Work with Assad and Russia etc... to wipe them out of Syria.
Click to expand...

I agree with the all or nothing approach, however in today's PC culture and in the wake of the whole Iraq/WMD debacle. I can understand why we do not. In today's society if it went the wrong way it would be political suicide. Also I think after both Iraq and Afghanistan, the approach now is more "we will assist the government in power to sort the problem. However we won't play the aggressor and sort it out for you". There are many that feel that by the west taking force in Afghan/Iraq, That action has lead to the current state of affairs.
 
rjbell said:
We couldn't defeat terrorism with force in northern Ireland. An areas of 5000 square miles and a population of less than 2 million. How are we going to do it do a group that spans 15 countries and 100s of thousands of square miles?
Click to expand...

From what I've read we could have defeated the IRA if we'd wanted to (we knew who they all were and where they lived etc) and indeed a plan to do so was proposed on more than one occasion but the politicians decided that a military solution was unacceptable and I can see the point as killing a few hundred active members would just be the start and those on the periphery would possibly then need to be oppressed for a long time not to mention the outcry there would be both in the UK and from the international community. Maybe with the gift of hindsight the politicians were right and the only viable answer was political?

In the case of Islamic fundamentalism I don't know what political solution there could be. If we give them everything they want today I'm pretty sure they'll find that they want more tomorrow and whatever they want today or tomorrow our conversion to Islam, our complete submission and an end to our way of life will be on the list somewhere sometime. The IRA never wanted to rule the world and convert everyone to their faith. I can't see a political solution and I can't see a military one either. I'm pretty sure that at the cost of a few hundred or low thousands dead a coalition of US and UK forces and anyone else who wants to join in could capture every foot of ground currently controlled by Islamic extremists but that's the easy bit and it all goes wrong when the easy war is over and the body bags continue to trickle home during the nation building and public opinion starts to turn. We've seen it in Iraq and Afghanistan and sadly we may see it again one day in the future. Wars are easy to initially win in a few months or short number of years but we have no stomach to stick it out for 50 years to build a peace.

I don't know what the answer to Islamic extremism is. Maybe only time and a slow change in Islam can stop the madness we see all over the world.

One thing which has saddened me is the way in which soldiers, police and even politicians are pursued after the event. I wont give examples but maybe we can all recall them and I do wonder if I'd ever be willing to fight for Britain... knowing that my actions would be scrutinised and questioned for generations afterwards. What was the department in 1984 which continually rewrote history? What seemed right at the time is seen to be wrong long after the event. Sometimes I think that we should find a way to stop revisiting past events and judging those who acted in what they thought at the time was our best interest.
 
rjbell said:
Wouldn't it be safer to just stop selling them weapons. Stop buying their oil and destroy their heroin crops. With no money or arms, they're nothing.
Click to expand...

And where do you propose that we get an equivalent to the heavy grade middle east oil that is absolutely vital for the production of plastics, rubber, tarmac, etc.etc.
It's not as if there have been no attempts to source an alternative to buying from that volatile region. We don't buy their oil because we like them or they buy a few arms (they'd soon buy arms from elsewhere if we slammed the door - in our own face).
 
This (excellent) thread very neatly illustrates the complexity of decisions that need to be made in the modern world (was it ever thus?). Newspaper headlines which propose black/white solutions in a phrase or sentence and which many people use as their only opinion guide do nothing to reveal the complexity of a situation and it's possible solutions.

As a centre-left Labour supporter for about 50 years, I have little reason to like David Cameron but I quail at the thought of having to make decisions as Prime Minister as he does every day.

Anthony.
 
One of my concerns is that these 2 may be considered martyrs and we have now condemned a gross of virgins:exit:
 
arclight said:
And where do you propose that we get an equivalent to the heavy grade middle east oil that is absolutely vital for the production of plastics, rubber, tarmac, etc.etc.
It's not as if there have been no attempts to source an alternative to buying from that volatile region. We don't buy their oil because we like them or they buy a few arms (they'd soon buy arms from elsewhere if we slammed the door - in our own face).
Click to expand...
Its been 40 years since Saudi started flexing their muscles with creating the oil crisis. We should have spent this time reducing our dependency of oil. Of course the oil companies powers on government has stopped this from happening. Now as you've mentioned we have little choice.
 
Last edited:
woof woof said:
From what I've read we could have defeated the IRA if we'd wanted to (we knew who they all were and where they lived etc) and indeed a plan to do so was proposed on more than one occasion but the politicians decided that a military solution was unacceptable and I can see the point as killing a few hundred active members would just be the start and those on the periphery would possibly then need to be oppressed for a long time not to mention the outcry there would be both in the UK and from the international community. Maybe with the gift of hindsight the politicians were right and the only viable answer was political?

In the case of Islamic fundamentalism I don't know what political solution there could be. If we give them everything they want today I'm pretty sure they'll find that they want more tomorrow and whatever they want today or tomorrow our conversion to Islam, our complete submission and an end to our way of life will be on the list somewhere sometime. The IRA never wanted to rule the world and convert everyone to their faith. I can't see a political solution and I can't see a military one either. I'm pretty sure that at the cost of a few hundred or low thousands dead a coalition of US and UK forces and anyone else who wants to join in could capture every foot of ground currently controlled by Islamic extremists but that's the easy bit and it all goes wrong when the easy war is over and the body bags continue to trickle home during the nation building and public opinion starts to turn. We've seen it in Iraq and Afghanistan and sadly we may see it again one day in the future. Wars are easy to initially win in a few months or short number of years but we have no stomach to stick it out for 50 years to build a peace.

I don't know what the answer to Islamic extremism is. Maybe only time and a slow change in Islam can stop the madness we see all over the world.

One thing which has saddened me is the way in which soldiers, police and even politicians are pursued after the event. I wont give examples but maybe we can all recall them and I do wonder if I'd ever be willing to fight for Britain... knowing that my actions would be scrutinised and questioned for generations afterwards. What was the department in 1984 which continually rewrote history? What seemed right at the time is seen to be wrong long after the event. Sometimes I think that we should find a way to stop revisiting past events and judging those who acted in what they thought at the time was our best interest.
Click to expand...


You are right there is no political solution but as long as we are killing fathers and sons there will be no shortage of recruits.
 
ChasG said:
One of my concerns is that these 2 may be considered martyrs and we have now condemned a gross of virgins:exit:
Click to expand...

Are you sure it's 72 each? I always assumed they were, shall we say, shared...?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top