It boggles this needs to be pointed out but I guess there's too much turnipacy at the moment.
There was, under the Geneva Convention a state of war. Assasinations of military personal are not extra-judicial killing in those circumstances.
Engaging ISIS targets in Syria does not fulfil this requirement. There is no formal declaration of war with ISIS, ISIS have not invaded sovereign territory of the Crown, there has been no request by the Syrian government for assistance with a "police action" as framed by the convention (as opposed to Iraq where there is).
You seem to have missed that the government is arguing it was "self defence". They don't need to declare war if that is the case.
It seems to be just as spurious an argument.
I would love to see the argument that a couple of nutjobs in a landrover in Syria constitute a Clear and Present Danger to the United Kingdom. I'm sure SeanT will try and spew one out.
After 9/11 it's evidently clear how some nutjobs on the other side of the world pose a danger to Western civilians. And ISIS have far more resources at their disposal than al-Qaeda.
You've almost convinced me that you don't think through the consequences of any of your thoughts.
It was not a war crime. Thousands of civilians were killed in the Dambusters raid. Was that an atrocity, a war crime?? Huge numbers of aircrew died fighting to beat the Nazis, fighting to destroy their ability to wage war. I went to a memorial service this very weekend commemorating 851 of them from one squadron alone who died. But then you are a thick nasty piece of work. You are the one demanding due process and suggesting putting nazis on trial as an example. But since your brain has the consistency of cheese I think we can ignore the flaws in your logic. If you do not think there is a war on when terrorists are plotting huge atrocities against us then you are beyond pity.
There's a lot of debate about what was and wasn't a war crime. The carpet bombings of German cities is the most obvious example and there's plenty of support for this being a war crime during WW2.
The Dambusters Raid is a war crime TODAY as a specific addition was made to the destruction of dams. Like carpet bombing, whether it was a war crime in 1943 is still debated.
The Germans started it! They invaded Poland!
'cos the Soviets told them to...
The Soviets joined in the carve-up of Poland 16 days later - they had to wait for the Molotov-Tojo pact with Japan to be signed, in order to avoid a two-front war with Poland and Japan.
You think if we had had a chance to kill Hitler with a sniper during the war we wouldn't have taken it?
No, apparently.
'There had been some resistance to the assassination plan, particularly from the deputy head of SOE's German Directorate, Lt Col Ronald Thornley. However, his superior, Sir Gerald Templer, and British Prime Minister Winston Churchill supported the plan. The two-man team was to be parachuted in and sheltered with Heidentaler, after which they could make the approach to the killing zone disguised as German mountain troops.
The plan was submitted in November 1944, but was never carried out because controversy remained over whether it was actually a good idea to kill Hitler: he was by then considered to be such a poor strategist that it was believed whoever replaced him would probably do a better job of fighting the allies. Thornley also argued that Germany was almost defeated and, if Hitler were assassinated, he would become a martyr to some Germans, and possibly give rise to a myth that Germany might have won if Hitler had survived. Since the idea was not only to defeat Germany but to destroy Nazism in general, that would have been a highly undesirable development. However, there were strong advocates on both sides, and the plan never became operational simply because no actual decision was reached. In any case, Hitler left the Berghof for the last time on 14 July 1944, never to return, and committed suicide in Berlin on 30 April 1945, a few days before the war in Europe ended.'
Clearly it would have been a GOOD idea to assassinate Hitler, without trial, at any point before about 1944. Arguably, if you could time travel, it would have been a good idea to kill him in his cradle. Indeed you can make a decent moral case for killing his mother as a young girl.
I remember having this argument in Morality Lectures when I did my Philosophy Degree at UCL. Feelings ran quite high. IIRC the vague consensus was that assassinating him as an adult would be fine, but there was something wrong about killing him as a baby (and, besides, time travel is impossible)
Time travel FORWARDS is theoretically possible, but never BACKWARDS!
I don't think Hitler died during the war - those photographs of him as an old man in Brazil convince me. Perhaps I should not be so easily convinced, but there is just something about the slope of the shoulders, the chin, and the not very nice way he has his arm around his black girlfriend, that I think is too subtle to be fake. I think a fake would have tried to offer more clues.
I haven't the words. Hitler was a gibbering Parkinson's wreck in the 1940s - how would he have survivied for that long in Brazil?
Al Megrahi had 3 months to live when he was released by the SNP.
You think if we had had a chance to kill Hitler with a sniper during the war we wouldn't have taken it?
No, apparently.
'There had been some resistance to the assassination plan, particularly from the deputy head of SOE's German Directorate, Lt Col Ronald Thornley. However, his superior, Sir Gerald Templer, and British Prime Minister Winston Churchill supported the plan. The two-man team was to be parachuted in and sheltered with Heidentaler, after which they could make the approach to the killing zone disguised as German mountain troops.
The plan was submitted in November 1944, but was never carried out because controversy remained over whether it was actually a good idea to kill Hitler: he was by then considered to be such a poor strategist that it was believed whoever replaced him would probably do a better job of fighting the allies. Thornley also argued that Germany was almost defeated and, if Hitler were assassinated, he would become a martyr to some Germans, and possibly give rise to a myth that Germany might have won if Hitler had survived. Since the idea was not only to defeat Germany but to destroy Nazism in general, that would have been a highly undesirable development. However, there were strong advocates on both sides, and the plan never became operational simply because no actual decision was reached. In any case, Hitler left the Berghof for the last time on 14 July 1944, never to return, and committed suicide in Berlin on 30 April 1945, a few days before the war in Europe ended.'
Clearly it would have been a GOOD idea to assassinate Hitler, without trial, at any point before about 1944. Arguably, if you could time travel, it would have been a good idea to kill him in his cradle. Indeed you can make a decent moral case for killing his mother as a young girl.
I remember having this argument in Morality Lectures when I did my Philosophy Degree at UCL. Feelings ran quite high. IIRC the vague consensus was that assassinating him as an adult would be fine, but there was something wrong about killing him as a baby (and, besides, time travel is impossible)
Time travel FORWARDS is theoretically possible, but never BACKWARDS!
Time travel forwards is not merely theoretically possible - it is reality.
I don't think Hitler died during the war - those photographs of him as an old man in Brazil convince me. Perhaps I should not be so easily convinced, but there is just something about the slope of the shoulders, the chin, and the not very nice way he has his arm around his black girlfriend, that I think is too subtle to be fake. I think a fake would have tried to offer more clues.
I haven't the words. Hitler was a gibbering Parkinson's wreck in the 1940s - how would he have survivied for that long in Brazil?
I distinctly recall Hitler winning the booby prize at one of my Grandma's beetle drives.
I know it was him because he said how soothing the bath salts would be.
And he was a psychpath. He left the saucer of milk on the counter for 5 mniutes before he gave it to the cat.
Anyone - ANYONE - who joins ISIS is a legitimate target for drone attacks. If we can't arrest them, we should kill them.
If you need convincing, check this recent ISIS vid (be warned: it is horrifying even by their standards). Sometimes we DO need to see these things to realize what we are confronting. ISIS are intent on genocide, and they glory in it.
Whether we like it or not, there is only one way to deal with them.
The bit in the film where they make piles of living bodies, in preparation for mass execution, proves to me that ISIS are not just like the Nazis, they are surely and directly INSPIRED by the Nazis, right down to the creepy use of black flags and uniforms.
And people wish to give them due process. FFS.
The Nazis were given due process.
The entire justification for which was to demonstrate that we were the good guys.
Your attitude to the entire debate just demonstrates how completely and totally ISIS have been victorious over you.
Must have forgotten the bit where the City of Hamburg was put on trial, found guilty, and then given a jail sentence in Wormwood Scrubs, rather than bombed into flinders.
But, a big but, a state of war existed between UK and Germany. At which point its Geneva convention rules, but otherwise away we go.
I'm not necessarily totally up-to-speed with the situation, but as far as I'm aware we have not declared war on ISIL or whatever.
Do you think that IS would abide by the Geneva Convention? Or any international law, come to that?
That's the entire point you miss.
Following the rules is what makes you the "good guys".
And as for Heydrich, Reginald Paget KC, MP rather let the cat out of the bag when he wrote:-
"Partisans often deliberately provoke reprisals in order that hatred of the occupier may be intensified and more people may be induced to resist. This was our general idea when we flew in a party to murder Heydrich in Czechoslovakia. The main Czech resistance movement was the direct result of the consequent SS reprisals."
Interesting he used the word 'murder'.
No it is not. You are as bonkers as ''Luckyguy 'Hitler's alive in Brazil' 1983''. All hail Corbyn for exposing the loony left.
I don't think Hitler died during the war - those photographs of him as an old man in Brazil convince me. Perhaps I should not be so easily convinced, but there is just something about the slope of the shoulders, the chin, and the not very nice way he has his arm around his black girlfriend, that I think is too subtle to be fake. I think a fake would have tried to offer more clues.
Oh stop it Lucky. And the Apollo moonshots were faked too? You are seriously saying that his "not very nice" way of putting his arm round someone is evidence?? Oh dear!
I don't think Hitler died during the war - those photographs of him as an old man in Brazil convince me. Perhaps I should not be so easily convinced, but there is just something about the slope of the shoulders, the chin, and the not very nice way he has his arm around his black girlfriend, that I think is too subtle to be fake. I think a fake would have tried to offer more clues.
I haven't the words. Hitler was a gibbering Parkinson's wreck in the 1940s - how would he have survivied for that long in Brazil?
Al Megrahi had 3 months to live when he was released by the SNP.
I don't think Hitler died during the war - those photographs of him as an old man in Brazil convince me. Perhaps I should not be so easily convinced, but there is just something about the slope of the shoulders, the chin, and the not very nice way he has his arm around his black girlfriend, that I think is too subtle to be fake. I think a fake would have tried to offer more clues.
Oh stop it Lucky. And the Apollo moonshots were faked too? You are seriously saying that his "not very nice" way of putting his arm round someone is evidence?? Oh dear!
And as for Heydrich, Reginald Paget KC, MP rather let the cat out of the bag when he wrote:-
"Partisans often deliberately provoke reprisals in order that hatred of the occupier may be intensified and more people may be induced to resist. This was our general idea when we flew in a party to murder Heydrich in Czechoslovakia. The main Czech resistance movement was the direct result of the consequent SS reprisals."
Interesting he used the word 'murder'.
No it is not. You are as bonkers as ''Luckyguy 'Hitler's alive in Brazil' 1983''. All hail Corbyn for exposing the loony left.
Call me loony all you want, but please don't call me left wing.
Mr. Dair, in Saudi Arabia, it's possible to arrest people. That option doesn't exist in ISIS-controlled territory.
Where possible to arrest people, that's my preference. If it's impossible and the choice is do nothing or remove a threat to the UK, I whole-heartedly support removing the threat.
Then you need a declaration of War against Islamic State to justify the killings you demand. Without that, it is an illegal action.
The last time the UK declared war on anyone was 1942 as parts of WW2, so it's lucky the Falklands, Korea, Yugoslavia, etc never happened! Really you do pull the most ridiculous tosh out of your a*se sometimes
... They've utterly failed to do this and muttering about being pro-aspiration is not even a start.
They might start by asking themselves "What is the point of a left of a centre party?" "What is it for?" "What does it / what should it stand for?" And "What does that mean for the sort of policies we might want to present to the British people?"
Until they do that, no amount of telegenic candidates with good back stories is going to help them, IMO.
I voted Corbyn because he offers a concept of change that I don't necessarily agree with in every detail but which seems to me attractive and coherent enough to be a challenging alternative to the Government, presented in an engagingly mild way.
What an utter and complete mindless fool you are. Its hard to believe you have a mind. No wonder every time the nation votes in a Labour govt it leaves the country in a mess.
And since when did the country last vote in labour govts? Atlee Wilson Blair Note that? What do they have in common? They were all on the centre right of their party, all in effect denying every aspect of what Corbyn stands for. All committed to fighting left wing nutjob lunacy.
Wilson and Attlee were most certainly not on the centre right of the party; Wilson was on the soft left and in fact was the left-wing challenger to Gaitskell in 1960. He wasn't a man of the radical left by any means but he was left-wing enough to prevent any left-wing challenge to his leadership even after the 1970 defeat and pragmatic enough to prevent any from the right. Attlee wasn't particularly a part of any faction but acted as an inoffensive unifying figure (something which the likes of the left-wing firebrand Bevan or a right-wing bruiser like Bevin could not have done), though he did once state that he wished to govern from the 'centre-left', though whether he meant the centre-left of the party or of the country is a matter of dispute. Blair was to the right of the Labour centre-right - that phrase is probably more suitable for Brown and his allies (who turned out to be, ironically, a considerably bigger problem for Blair than the hard left).
Come off it. Wilson might have posed as the more left wing between him and George Brown but he was clearly posing as a modern world pragmatic technology based technocrat when leader of the opposition. Was he, Wilson, cheering on the striking seamen and dockers that hen they were busy ruining Britain? All 3 had open goals of one sort or another, but all three won from progressively less left wing positions. All 3 supported NATO and Wilson went so far as to modernise Polaris without telling his cabinet.
Mr. Dair, in Saudi Arabia, it's possible to arrest people. That option doesn't exist in ISIS-controlled territory.
Where possible to arrest people, that's my preference. If it's impossible and the choice is do nothing or remove a threat to the UK, I whole-heartedly support removing the threat.
Then you need a declaration of War against Islamic State to justify the killings you demand. Without that, it is an illegal action.
The last time the UK declared war on anyone was 1942 as parts of WW2, so it's lucky the Falklands, Korea, Yugoslavia, etc never happened! Really you do pull the most ridiculous tosh out of your a*se sometimes
As stated before, under the Geneva Convention no declaration of war was required for those conflicts - Korea and former Yugoslavia were "police actions" and Falklands did not require a formal declaration as it followed invasion of sovereign territory.
I don't think Hitler died during the war - those photographs of him as an old man in Brazil convince me. Perhaps I should not be so easily convinced, but there is just something about the slope of the shoulders, the chin, and the not very nice way he has his arm around his black girlfriend, that I think is too subtle to be fake. I think a fake would have tried to offer more clues.
Oh stop it Lucky. And the Apollo moonshots were faked too? You are seriously saying that his "not very nice" way of putting his arm round someone is evidence?? Oh dear!
I don't think Hitler died during the war - those photographs of him as an old man in Brazil convince me. Perhaps I should not be so easily convinced, but there is just something about the slope of the shoulders, the chin, and the not very nice way he has his arm around his black girlfriend, that I think is too subtle to be fake. I think a fake would have tried to offer more clues.
Oh stop it Lucky. And the Apollo moonshots were faked too? You are seriously saying that his "not very nice" way of putting his arm round someone is evidence?? Oh dear!
I don't think Hitler died during the war - those photographs of him as an old man in Brazil convince me. Perhaps I should not be so easily convinced, but there is just something about the slope of the shoulders, the chin, and the not very nice way he has his arm around his black girlfriend, that I think is too subtle to be fake. I think a fake would have tried to offer more clues.
Oh stop it Lucky. And the Apollo moonshots were faked too? You are seriously saying that his "not very nice" way of putting his arm round someone is evidence?? Oh dear!
Time travel FORWARDS is theoretically possible, but never BACKWARDS!
I am sorry but I just have to ask. Why is it theoretically possible to travel forward in time but not backwards?
Belike, else.
Is this connected to the fact that as you speed up your own clocks (including body cell clocks) slow in comparison to those who have not accelerated. If you get very very close to the speed of light therefore your own body and your apparent time would age and pass much more slowly if you were on a spaceship (say) against those who remained on Earth, meaning that you could maybe spend a short time (to you) of say a few months (allowing for accelerating and decelerating to 186,000 miles per second) while centuries might've passed on Earth and hey presto you've "travelled" to the future. - I think (!)
And as for Heydrich, Reginald Paget KC, MP rather let the cat out of the bag when he wrote:-
"Partisans often deliberately provoke reprisals in order that hatred of the occupier may be intensified and more people may be induced to resist. This was our general idea when we flew in a party to murder Heydrich in Czechoslovakia. The main Czech resistance movement was the direct result of the consequent SS reprisals."
Interesting he used the word 'murder'.
No it is not. You are as bonkers as ''Luckyguy 'Hitler's alive in Brazil' 1983''. All hail Corbyn for exposing the loony left.
Call me loony all you want, but please don't call me left wing.
You are as fruit loop as any on the left and as we see with every anti govt utterance on whatever it does the effects of Corbynite are spreading.
On topic every sane person should resign from Corbyn's New Socialist Labour Party the minute he is elected. Can anyone sane stay in a party that has UNITE with its hands on the levers of power?
I supported Blair on the same sort of conditional basis. If the centre-left is to revive, it needs to offer ideals, coherence and a plausible road map of how to get from where we are. Otherwise, the centre-left will opt for the further left, as we're probably doing this week.
Why do you think, then, that this hasn't been done by the centre left? Loss of nerve? Loss of faith? Or just not the right people around?
I think it's intellectually difficult. It's evident that Soviet-style state control of everything doesn't work and has unpleasant side-effects. It's evident that globalised free markets lead to consequences that most people aren't too happy with. How to fashion an alternative that works in one country without mass capital flight is genuinely challenging, and I'm not sure that social democrats have successfully done it anywhere, though Scandinavia has a reasonable pragmatic attempt.
Blair and Brown had a shot at it - essentially accepting free markets while focusing on a liberalised equal-opportunity society and help for low-income workers through tax credits. For my taste they were too addicted to low taxation and minimal regulation, but as a concept it's better than nothing. I approve of Corbyn's rejection of the current squeeze on low incomes and anti-migrant hysteria, and think he's broadly right to reject budget-balancing zealotry of the kind espoused - though not always practiced - by Osborne. And I'd like to live in the more equal and mutually supportive society that he envisages, even if I have doubts about achievability. In the absence of a clear alternative, I'll go for that, without buyer's remorse: at least it provides a counterweight.
And however much Flightpath (who bafflingly seems literally incapable of saying anything without personal abuse - "What the weather forecast for tomorrow?" "It's partly sunny, you moron") may foam, that's a fairly normal left-of-centre position.
Incidentally, there's an analysis by Luke Akehurst, a Cooper supporter, of the race here:
O/T Does anyone have a fair idea of the current hourly rate of a competent, small-town, family solicitor?
Depends whether you need a Partner or Associate and also what the issue is, but a good benchmark for a small town Partner might be £200- 250 per hour. Would tend to be higher in London and the SE and some other more expensive areas. Hope this helps.
In all of ythe debates re the immigrants I have not heard one word about the plight of Brits who will be severely disadvantaged by bringing massive numbers.. Yvette in the HOC right now has just completely ignored them
Anyone - ANYONE - who joins ISIS is a legitimate target for drone attacks. If we can't arrest them, we should kill them.
If you need convincing, check this recent ISIS vid (be warned: it is horrifying even by their standards). Sometimes we DO need to see these things to realize what we are confronting. ISIS are intent on genocide, and they glory in it.
Whether we like it or not, there is only one way to deal with them.
The bit in the film where they make piles of living bodies, in preparation for mass execution, proves to me that ISIS are not just like the Nazis, they are surely and directly INSPIRED by the Nazis, right down to the creepy use of black flags and uniforms.
And people wish to give them due process. FFS.
The Nazis were given due process.
The entire justification for which was to demonstrate that we were the good guys.
Your attitude to the entire debate just demonstrates how completely and totally ISIS have been victorious over you.
Must have forgotten the bit where the City of Hamburg was put on trial, found guilty, and then given a jail sentence in Wormwood Scrubs, rather than bombed into flinders.
But, a big but, a state of war existed between UK and Germany. At which point its Geneva convention rules, but otherwise away we go.
I'm not necessarily totally up-to-speed with the situation, but as far as I'm aware we have not declared war on ISIL or whatever.
Do you think that IS would abide by the Geneva Convention? Or any international law, come to that?
That's the entire point you miss.
Following the rules is what makes you the "good guys".
I understand that point perfectly well. But how to fight a war against an enemy which will not abide by any of the laws of war? That's the question I'm asking.
While we argue about legal niceties, IS are smuggling into Europe any number of operatives who will have no hesitation in carrying out the most bestial and brutal of attacks, unless we stop them. I want my government to focus on that. I suspect I'm not alone.
Whether we like it or not, there is only one way to deal with them.
The bit in the film where they make piles of living bodies, in preparation for mass execution, proves to me that ISIS are not just like the Nazis, they are surely and directly INSPIRED by the Nazis, right down to the creepy use of black flags and uniforms.
And people wish to give them due process. FFS.
The Nazis were given due process.
The entire justification for which was to demonstrate that we were the good guys.
Your attitude to the entire debate just demonstrates how completely and totally ISIS have been victorious over you.
Must have forgotten the bit where the City of Hamburg was put on trial, found guilty, and then given a jail sentence in Wormwood Scrubs, rather than bombed into flinders.
But, a big but, a state of war existed between UK and Germany. At which point its Geneva convention rules, but otherwise away we go.
I'm not necessarily totally up-to-speed with the situation, but as far as I'm aware we have not declared war on ISIL or whatever.
Do you think that IS would abide by the Geneva Convention? Or any international law, come to that?
That's the entire point you miss.
Following the rules is what makes you the "good guys".
I understand that point perfectly well. But how to fight a war against an enemy which will not abide by any of the laws of war? That's the question I'm asking.
While we argue about legal niceties, IS are smuggling into Europe any number of operatives who will have no hesitation in carrying out the most bestial and brutal of attacks, unless we stop them. I want my government to focus on that. I suspect I'm not alone.
Correct. As a matter of policy - policy - we (we the allies including GB and USA) delivered great swaths of death and destruction across Japan, Italy and Germany as part of bludgeoning them into unconditional surrender and of course weakening their abilities to kill our soldiers in the field.
@Charles It's not the PM I'm worried about, its the MoD. Fallon has been sounding a bit over-excited as well.
@Plato I have some sympathy with you over not wanting the discussion to continue. Hard to get the tone right I suppose at the bottom of my angst is a fear that we will stop being careful and proportionate and end up being less like the good guys I hope we are. It may well be necessary to kill terrorists. But I don't want us to enjoy it.
MrsB, you're calling the UK/armed forces/those who support Cameron's decision 'fundamentalists'?
Interesting choice of word, given the context.
This isn't a political dispute. It's the Khmer Rouge, or the Nazis.
In Northern Ireland, both sides had clear political goals. The goal of ISIS is to kill every Yazidi, institutionalise rape of non-Muslims, burn to death or decapitate prisoners, conquer the entire coast of the Mediterranean, and tax and kill those who do not convert.
How are we to negotiate or take a moderate stance on that? Accept crucifixion of children but ask for beheadings to only happen on Tuesdays?
ISIS do have a political aim. The restoration of a Caliphate and it's expansion to cover at least Europe on top of its historical extent and the imposition of a legal system founded on Sharia instead of Roman and/or Common Law.
Now you don't have to like their aims, I certainly do not, but you can't claim they do not exist - as they clearly do. You also can't base a rote opposition to this based on atrocities - the British do not have a very good record on this throughout history.
The whole debate on this thread (and in the media) seems to be based purely on revenge and threat. This is NOT ENOUGH to call yourself the good guys.
Being the good guys is SUPPOSED to be harder. It means following a distinct rule of law and recognising certain tenets of human rights regardless of how inconvenient that becomes.
There is no declaration of war on Islamic State, or on Syria or on Iraq. Any combat involvement by the United Kingdom in those territories is extra-judicial killing and fundamentally undermines the claim that in this the United Kingdom are the good guys.
Is ISIS doing anything which Saudi Arabia isn't ? ISIS is even financed by Saudi Arabians / Kuwaitis / Emiratis.
What do you suggest we do about Saudi Arabia?
First become less dependent on oil. Sadly, the current government seems to have decided to go in the opposite direction.
As I understand it, it is possible to travel through a little more slowly than everyone else, a bit like the English ODI team after the first 20 overs, and it is also possible to move forward faster than others so you end up ahead of them but as Sunil says it is not possible to go backwards in time.
Doesn't mean England can't lose matches making the same mistakes again and again though.
As I understand it, it is possible to travel through a little more slowly than everyone else, a bit like the English ODI team after the first 20 overs, and it is also possible to move forward faster than others so you end up ahead of them but as Sunil says it is not possible to go backwards in time.
Doesn't mean England can't lose matches making the same mistakes again and again though.
Not possible to go back in time? But I've seen the documentaries - with Dr Who....?
MrsB, you're calling the UK/armed forces/those who support Cameron's decision 'fundamentalists'?
Interesting choice of word, given the context.
This isn't a political dispute. It's the Khmer Rouge, or the Nazis.
In Northern Ireland, both sides had clear political goals. The goal of ISIS is to kill every Yazidi, institutionalise rape of non-Muslims, burn to death or decapitate prisoners, conquer the entire coast of the Mediterranean, and tax and kill those who do not convert.
How are we to negotiate or take a moderate stance on that? Accept crucifixion of children but ask for beheadings to only happen on Tuesdays?
ISIS do have a political aim. The restoration of a Caliphate and it's expansion to cover at least Europe on top of its historical extent and the imposition of a legal system founded on Sharia instead of Roman and/or Common Law.
Now you don't have to like their aims, I certainly do not, but you can't claim they do not exist - as they clearly do. You also can't base a rote opposition to this based on atrocities - the British do not have a very good record on this throughout history.
The whole debate on this thread (and in the media) seems to be based purely on revenge and threat. This is NOT ENOUGH to call yourself the good guys.
Being the good guys is SUPPOSED to be harder. It means following a distinct rule of law and recognising certain tenets of human rights regardless of how inconvenient that becomes.
There is no declaration of war on Islamic State, or on Syria or on Iraq. Any combat involvement by the United Kingdom in those territories is extra-judicial killing and fundamentally undermines the claim that in this the United Kingdom are the good guys.
Is ISIS doing anything which Saudi Arabia isn't ? ISIS is even financed by Saudi Arabians / Kuwaitis / Emiratis.
What do you suggest we do about Saudi Arabia?
First become less dependent on oil. Sadly, the current government seems to have decided to go in the opposite direction.
Fracking for natural gas gets you less dependent upon Saudi oil. I'm sure you will be welcoming this technology then....?
In all of ythe debates re the immigrants I have not heard one word about the plight of Brits who will be severely disadvantaged by bringing massive numbers.. Yvette in the HOC right now has just completely ignored them
Comments
Belike, else.
I know it was him because he said how soothing the bath salts would be.
And he was a psychpath. He left the saucer of milk on the counter for 5 mniutes before he gave it to the cat.
Following the rules is what makes you the "good guys".
Brazil? No, no, it was Argentina! Honest, guv!
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Conspiracy_theories_about_Adolf_Hitler's_death
http://www.express.co.uk/news/weird/455810/The-INCREDIBLE-picture-that-proves-Adolf-Hitler-lived-to-95-with-his-Brazilian-lover
All 3 had open goals of one sort or another, but all three won from progressively less left wing positions. All 3 supported NATO and Wilson went so far as to modernise Polaris without telling his cabinet.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Conspiracy_theories_about_Adolf_Hitler's_death
On topic every sane person should resign from Corbyn's New Socialist Labour Party the minute he is elected. Can anyone sane stay in a party that has UNITE with its hands on the levers of power?
New Thread New Thread
several years, will the German people though except that ?
Whens the next big elections in Germany ?
While we argue about legal niceties, IS are smuggling into Europe any number of operatives who will have no hesitation in carrying out the most bestial and brutal of attacks, unless we stop them. I want my government to focus on that. I suspect I'm not alone.
@Plato I have some sympathy with you over not wanting the discussion to continue. Hard to get the tone right I suppose at the bottom of my angst is a fear that we will stop being careful and proportionate and end up being less like the good guys I hope we are. It may well be necessary to kill terrorists. But I don't want us to enjoy it.
Doesn't mean England can't lose matches making the same mistakes again and again though.