Drone strike in Syria

[Baldseagull]

I don't see a problem with it, by joining ISIS and inviting others to join on video is a declaration of war on the UK. My only surprise is that they knew where they were to carry out the operation.

Shame we cannot carry out a drone strike on Choudary in the UK.

He will be leaving Belmarsh around 2.30 today if you want to find him.

 

[severnside gull]

I have two issues.
One is that bomb strikes in Syria were expressly forbidden by Parliament, right or wrong. It rather raises questions for the legitimacy of Cameron and his government although the support he is getting is somewhat amusing in a hypocritical sort of way as it seems to come from many who have branded Blair a war criminal. My second concern is that Blair's intelligence was clearly wrong whilst Cameron's comes from similar sources.

That said I believe that when people join ISIS they declare war on our society. I'm not sure they get what they deserve as one lurid headline has it today but they certainly got what they asked for........... Martyrdom in the eyes of their fellows.
I'm not sure about the legality of the decision making process but I have no sympathy for anyone who has any part in ISIS still less those targeted on this occasion

 

[BigGully]

My heart certainly doesn't bleed for them either. They made their choice, and paid for it with their lives.

But does this now represent a new phase of another conflict we're going to get directly involved with ? If there's one thing history has taught us, once you start upping the stakes, its a slippery slope towards getting drawn deeper and deeper in.

But we are already involved, it seems ISIS is running amok in Syria parts of Afghanistan and Iraq, nearly 1000 British citizens are fighting with them, many thousands here in the UK are likely to at least sympathise with ISIS's aims and Europe is having to absorb a million refugees which I am guessing will become a far greater number.

Personally I look back with frustration that we needed to get ourselves involved in Iraq, but it seems a little too late to somehow now become a passive bystander, I might feel indifferent to putting troops on the ground but I dont know what constitutes effective combat, but if our government want to start picking off individual groups of terrorists that pose a threat to the UK or major airstrikes on ISIS strongholds it seems quite reasonable perhaps preferable.

 

[symyjym]

My heart certainly doesn't bleed for them either. They made their choice, and paid for it with their lives.

But does this now represent a new phase of another conflict we're going to get directly involved with ? If there's one thing history has taught us, once you start upping the stakes, its a slippery slope towards getting drawn deeper and deeper in.

It's not another conflict it's the continuation of the War in Iraq. Just because the US left Iraq in 2011 and declared the war was over it doesn't mean it was. We upped the stakes in 2003.

 

[Easy 10]

In the grand scheme of things, these two individuals were not worth the price of the missile if they were not a threat to the UK. Their demise will in no way have any effect on the war in Syria, or draw us into the conflict there, does not improve our standing with the US or secure oil supplies, so I see no reason to be cynical.

But does their execution represent an escalation in the UK's policy on dealing with jihadists ? Its easy to say "well they deserved it", but Parliament voted against airstrikes in Syria some time ago, and Parliament was bypassed on this occasion to carry this execution out (presumably as a window of opportunity presented itself).

There is apparently a caveat that allowed this action to be taken if those killed were posing a real and imminent threat to the UK. That's exactly what Cameron is using to justify bypassing what MP's voted for a couple of years ago. But I can't help wondering if this is the start of more drone strikes and further escalations that end up....well, who knows where.

 

[KZNSeagull]

But does their execution represent an escalation in the UK's policy on dealing with jihadists ? Its easy to say "well they deserved it", but Parliament voted against airstrikes in Syria some time ago, and Parliament was bypassed on this occasion to carry this execution out (presumably as a window of opportunity presented itself).

There is apparently a caveat that allowed this action to be taken if those killed were posing a real and imminent threat to the UK. That's exactly what Cameron is using to justify bypassing what MP's voted for a couple of years ago. But I can't help wondering if this is the start of more drone strikes and further escalations that end up....well, who knows where.

The vote in 2013 was against bombing Assad in Syria. This action was taken under article 51(?) of the UN charter. The two are therefore not related in any way. At least, that is what was being said on Sky News last night by the former Attorney General. If there were any doubts about it's legality, I doubt that DC would have acted in this way.

 

[carlzeiss]

[yt]Dy4HA3vUv2c[/YT]

 

[Pavilionaire]

So we're told, and that's all we'll ever know about it. Again, we just have to "trust" our politicians on it, exactly as we did with the whole WMD argument.

Hard not to be cynical though, isn't it ? Air strikes in Syria could be the thin end of a very, very big wedge which I thought we were doing everything to avoid. But now...we're getting sucked in.

For better or worse we were sucked in when George W Bush started giving speeches about "smoking out" Bin Laden and Blair went along with him.

My first thought was that you could take anyone out over there and claim they were planning acts of terror on British soil. Who will be able to prove any different?

It is clear why for decades the British were content to co-exist with despots, tyrants and dictators who ruled their people with fear. This government is making it up as it goes along, there is no coherent policy about the Middle East situation, just a series of reaction that vacillate according to their interpretation of public opinion, e.g. no Syrian refugees? UK voters not happy. Ok, 10,000? Still not happy. Oh ****, Germany's taking hundreds of thousands, OK how about 20,000? etc etc.

 

[symyjym]

 

[Easy 10]

For better or worse we were sucked in when George W Bush started giving speeches about "smoking out" Bin Laden and Blair went along with him.

My first thought was that you could take anyone out over there and claim they were planning acts of terror on British soil. Who will be able to prove any different?

It is clear why for decades the British were content to co-exist with despots, tyrants and dictators who ruled their people with fear. This government is making it up as it goes along, there is no coherent policy about the Middle East situation, just a series of reaction that vacillate according to their interpretation of public opinion, e.g. no Syrian refugees? UK voters not happy. Ok, 10,000? Still not happy. Oh ****, Germany's taking hundreds of thousands, OK how about 20,000? etc etc.

Well put. I agree, it doesn't seem part of a wider strategy, it IS just policy on the hoof. The justification will always be that "this action directly thwarted an imminent terrorist atrocity on British soil" - and who can ever argue against that ?

Thing is, I just find it so, so hard to believe them.

 

[Easy 10]

The vote in 2013 was against bombing Assad in Syria. This action was taken under article 51(?) of the UN charter. The two are therefore not related in any way. At least, that is what was being said on Sky News last night by the former Attorney General. If there were any doubts about it's legality, I doubt that DC would have acted in this way.

Loopholes and semantics I guess, they'll always leave some wiggle-room, but it does leave the door open to carte-blanche policy. When it comes down to it, it seems they can justify pretty much anything they want once its done.

 

[Jim D]

This strike just about defines the term 'thin end of the wedge'.
It was a closely targeted strike against two known individuals that (we are told) were planning a terrorist act in the UK - and it was successful. After that there will be a pause as people digest what was done and make their own decisions about the rights and wrongs (just as we're doing).
The Govt will take a close look at the reaction (at the moment it mainly seems in favour of the action) and will decide on their next move. This is likely to come in the shape of more targeted attacks - but increasingly against bigger targets and with far more collateral damage.
When this damage gets too severe (civilians getting killed, etc.) there will be leaks about sending in troops - as they will be able to better differentiate between a terrorist and a civilian. Again, the Govt will wait for public opinion to speak on the matter. At this point they will bring it to Parliament and ask for approval - and they will probably get it if that's what the public is asking for. Whether or not Parliament gets told in advance and is asked to approve earlier than this will depend on how strong the Govt thinks its case is for continuing.

 

[The Antikythera Mechanism]

Diplomacy and Democracy are two concepts unknown to the nut-job jihadists, who view them as fundamental weaknesses of the Western system,they only deal in death, destruction and oppression. Their way of life is built around violence and instilling fear in others and the only way to deal with them is to kill them, starting with the "leaders". When the head is cut off, the body will die. A concept they understand only too well.

 

[KZNSeagull]

Loopholes and semantics I guess, they'll always leave some wiggle-room, but it does leave the door open to carte-blanche policy. When it comes down to it, it seems they can justify pretty much anything they want once its done.

True. What intrigues me is why announce it and then say he will not make the evidence available? He is just opening himself up for a wall of poo, whether the attack was justified or not.

 

[Simster]

Well put. I agree, it doesn't seem part of a wider strategy, it IS just policy on the hoof. The justification will always be that "this action directly thwarted an imminent terrorist atrocity on British soil" - and who can ever argue against that ?

Thing is, I just find it so, so hard to believe them.

I too have a difficult time believing politicians. But the fact remains, in situations where British citizens leave the country to fight with religious despots, I have an even more difficult time giving a toss that they're dead.

"The community would like to have more information on what he wanted to do for him to be killed." Meh. Yes, and I would like to have a helicopter and a Ferrari, but we can't always have what we want can we?

Ultimately they chose to become enemies of our country, fck 'em.

 

[Tricky Dicky]

In the grand scheme of things, these two individuals were not worth the price of the missile if they were not a threat to the UK.

Did I not hear Cameron say they were a direct threat to the UK, even from afar. Without seeing the evidence, of course, we'll never know, but I could believe it's true. Wasn't one of these guys the IT bloke who was recruiting UK muslims to perform acts here.

Whatever the complexities of the 'net, I still find it difficult to believe we can't stymie Daish from delivering their brand of evil, surely we have better techs than they do.

 

[Easy 10]

I too have a difficult time believing politicians. But the fact remains, in situations where British citizens leave the country to fight with religious despots, I have an even more difficult time giving a toss that they're dead.

"The community would like to have more information on what he wanted to do for him to be killed." Meh. Yes, and I would like to have a helicopter and a Ferrari, but we can't always have what we want can we?

Ultimately they chose to become enemies of our country, fck 'em.

On a personal level, I couldn't give a toss about the deaths of those two either, or anyone else who signs up to join with ISIS on their mentalist crusade. And on a certain level it DOES satisfy the feelings of "serves those *******s right, they deserved it".

But its where it all leads that concerns me. The consequences further on. The long-term collateral damage. The feeling that we're not controlling this situation, or containing it, but still going along fuelling it. There is no resolution in sight, and even if it is with the best intentions, all we ever end up doing is escalating and excaberating it. We passed the point of no return long ago, and as [MENTION=617]Jim D[/MENTION] put in his post, that slippery slope is once again right in front of us now.

 

[symyjym]

Diplomacy and Democracy are two concepts unknown to the nut-job jihadists, who view them as fundamental weaknesses of the Western system, they only deal in death, destruction and oppression. Their way of life is built around violence and instilling fear in others and the only way to deal with them is to kill them, starting with the "leaders". When the head is cut off, the body will die. A concept they understand only too well.

Although that could also apply to nut-jobs Bush & Blair. If our leaders don't give a 5hit about it, it teaches others to not give a 5hit. Monkey see monkey do.

The rest of what you say is exactly what the jihadists say against us now.

 

[OGH's Libido]

View attachment 68344

A poignant image, but this country doesn't chain itself to past military misjudgments - Gallipoli, Dunkirk, whatever.

It's like the 'trolley' moral dilemma - do you kill one to save five? Only this time, we get to flip the switch and the trolley changes course and kills the Jihadi who joined ISIS. ISIS! For goodness sake! I joined sports teams at his age - he made his choice.

Lives are in danger and Cameron has a decision to make. Kill them there or kill/capture/imprison them here.

 

[Uncle Spielberg]

The wider issue is Cameron bypassing Parliament to authorise taking military action, based on intelligence that HE saw that warned of "an imminent threat to the UK".

That sounds somehow familiar...

I am really struggling to give a Toss on this, these vile specimens of Humanity were a virus