RAF drone strke in Syria on 2 UK citizens

[tobyjugg2]

You cannot believe all information that is reported. Western politicians give false information about ememies, because it will probably be believed by many people and difficult to disprove.

 

I think the only reason they are admitting this is that the news channels were reporting it and highlighting the blatant issues/discrepancies with it being laid at Assads door.

 

 

Even those gullible enough to believe Assad authorised any chemical attacks at all wouldn't believe he had anything to do with these, and the more independent (from the USA) governments would not even give blaming Assad the token 'reports indicate it possible that the Assad regime may have' rhetoric of the previous reports given the clear likelihood of it coming back to slap them in the face.

[Conniff]

I don't see why they should justify it to anyone. They were active enemies of the state and were taken out as such. If this is wrong, then so are all the killing in both world wars.

We can't cow down to them and just sit here waiting for them to come to us.

 

 

Not only are isis beheading and raping, they execute homosexual men by taking them up tall buildings and throwing them off. They get a perverted pleasure from killing in the most horrific way and hanging the bodies from bridges etc.

[tobyjugg2]

You would think differently if they decided you were an enemy of the state and drone missiled you Conniff and then 30 or 40 people here said - who cares about evidence, law and due process - he deserved it.

 

There is the simple fact that the actual state of affairs in many of these issues seem to clearly indicate the US and UK governments are lying even more than Russia is about their actions in Ukraine.

 

Now I believe it extremely likely that these two deserved everything they got and about time too, but as I said the evidence should be simple to show and thereby get almost unequivocal support from the British populace, so why don't they?

We do deserve and should expect to have that evidence shown to us by those acting in our name.

[Conniff]

If I were an enemy of the state I would be expecting them to catch up with me sooner or later. What evidence do they need, they are part of ISIS, they appeared in a video for ISIS, that is all that is needed.

As for proof, proof/evidence of what ?

[unclebulgaria67]

You would think differently if they decided you were an enemy of the state and drone missiled you Conniff and then 30 or 40 people here said - who cares about evidence, law and due process - he deserved it.

 

There is the simple fact that the actual state of affairs in many of these issues seem to clearly indicate the US and UK governments are lying even more than Russia is about their actions in Ukraine.

 

Now I believe it extremely likely that these two deserved everything they got and about time too, but as I said the evidence should be simple to show and thereby get almost unequivocal support from the British populace, so why don't they?

We do deserve and should expect to have that evidence shown to us by those acting in our name.

 

Difficult decisions have to be made, when those in authority would prefer not to. We would all want to see due process, with international laws upheld, with no exception. But then you meet with the reality of the situation.

 

A totally different matter, but a year or so ago, it was found that Margaret Thatcher and her goverment had deliberately lied to Parliament and the British public about pit closures. They said that Arthur Scargill and miners were liars, when in fact 30 years later it was proved they were being truthful and it was Politicians being untruthful. The government at that time decided that due to union militants holding the country to ransom with civil disorder, stopping deliveries to power stations, that they had to defeat them in the interests of the country. This including them telling blatant lies to carry public opinion.

 

In Syria and elsewhere the situation is very confusing with so many different factions. As i pointed out the other day, it is often not clear who fires missiles or bombs, as they are using some of the same equipment. Western politicians are probably being told information which is not certain, but they know British citizens are acting against British interests. There is a danger that they could become involved in killing British citizens. As they are in a complicated war zone, it is difficult to extract them to face justice and therefore under international law you can take action using the defence argument, if the threat is imminent. The government appear to be briefing the media to justify an imminent threat, when i suspect that there may not be much evidence of this. Would not surprise me if information was being made up and we may never find out or only in 30 years time.

[think about it]

I think there's a certain amount of 'message sending' here. If you want to wave your AK47 in our general direction then we reserve the right to reciprocate. Think back to the Falklands where we sent a Vulcan bomber literally half-way around the world to bomb our own runway, the actual act had minimal impact, one crater rendered the runway temporarily out of action. But the message was far more powerful, if we can reach Stanley then we can reach Buenos Aires. It was political and military willy-waving at it's most audacious and I've no doubt that the message sent by these two being nailed by a drone in what they felt was a safe place to be will carry a message too.

 

ISIS are what they are, I'm REALLY struggling to find an iota of sympathy for these criminals.

[unclebulgaria67]

Probably message sending, but the bombing of the runway did not prevent the war.

 

ISIS and the other groups believe in this war, that they can achieve a large caliphate, with very old strict Islamic ideals implemented. This is happening across many countries and it is difficult to defeat an ideology.

[tobyjugg2]

If I were an enemy of the state I would be expecting them to catch up with me sooner or later. What evidence do they need, they are part of ISIS, they appeared in a video for ISIS, that is all that is needed.

As for proof, proof/evidence of what ?

 

I'm certain it would be very easy to compile a list of some of YOUR quotes here which taken simply on their literal word could easily condemn you as an enemy of the state inciting this that and the other against elected members of the British government.

 

Imagine that, some of your quotes from here, quoted verbatim and taken literally, compiled by some nameless person into an A4 sheet headed

 

MI5 report on right wing citizens promoting xxxxxxx on public forums

 

.. and hope that droning noise you hear is just bees collecting honey for the winter.

 

But all that is incidental (unless it happens), but UK law and due process is and should be a requirement, not a matter of convenience which can be ignored by a few should it suit them.

[Conniff]

I'm certain it would be very easy to compile a list of some of YOUR quotes here which taken simply on their literal word could easily condemn you as an enemy of the state inciting this that and the other against elected members of the British government.

 

Imagine that, some of your quotes from here, quoted verbatim and taken literally, compiled by some nameless person into an A4 sheet headed

 

MI5 report on right wing citizens promoting xxxxxxx on public forums

 

.. and hope that droning noise you hear is just bees collecting honey for the winter.

 

But all that is incidental (unless it happens), but UK law and due process is and should be a requirement, not a matter of convenience which can be ignored by a few should it suit them.

 

Sorry, but I don't see what that has to do with anything let alone the price of fish.

 

I say again - "What evidence do they need, they are part of ISIS, they appeared in a video for ISIS, that is all that is needed.

As for proof, proof/evidence of what ?"

[unclebulgaria67]

I'm certain it would be very easy to compile a list of some of YOUR quotes here which taken simply on their literal word could easily condemn you as an enemy of the state inciting this that and the other against elected members of the British government.

 

Imagine that, some of your quotes from here, quoted verbatim and taken literally, compiled by some nameless person into an A4 sheet headed

 

MI5 report on right wing citizens promoting xxxxxxx on public forums

 

.. and hope that droning noise you hear is just bees collecting honey for the winter.

 

But all that is incidental (unless it happens), but UK law and due process is and should be a requirement, not a matter of convenience which can be ignored by a few should it suit them.

 

I think ISIS actions are so horrific that governments are looking beyond the normal conventions of international law.

 

If you or i were the PM, faced with all the information received about what is going on in Syria and elsewhere, some of which is not in the public domain, then we might just have to authorise a drone strike, against our normal sense of what is right. We cannot know what information Cameron had and our instincts about this being an opportune assassination because it was easier than normal course of law, might not be accurate. But we might never know.

 

I don't like the use of drones, as i think it becomes an easier way to wage war, without having to deal with the consequences on the ground. We know that drone strikes in Pakistan by the US have caused civilian casualties and have led to more Pakistanis being anti US. If it leads to a worse security situation in the long run, you question whether the pressing of a button to fire a drone missile was just too simple. It leads to instant decisions, without any strategic judgement being applied.

 

I am on the fence about it. I can see why drones are used, but question whether their use is too instant, without a pause to consider how effective it is in the long run. Their use will frighten enemies, but also civilians.

[tobyjugg2]

I think the simple point that is being missed here is that proving these 2 were terrorists planning attacks and that due process was followed should be easy.

If they don't do it with these, they will do it for no-one.

[unclebulgaria67]

I think the simple point that is being missed here is that proving these 2 were terrorists planning attacks and that due process was followed should be easy.

If they don't do it with these, they will do it for no-one.

 

Under UN article 51, i believe it is only lawful, if it is a defensive action against an imminent atrack. The evidence has been subject to unofficial briefings and general comments, which makes me think either of two things. They have evidence which they will not disclose, as this is an ongoing situation, with continuing security threats. Or they never had any evidence of an imminent threat to British interests, apart from the videos and general chatter coming out of Syria.

 

I am not losing any sleep over the deaths of these two people or because government may have breached international law. But i do worry where we are going with dealing with terrorist threats. War by remote control won't work.

[tobyjugg2]

Let me ask what seems a straightforward question here.

Extra judicial assassination of people in a separate sovereign states aside,

 

 

You see the reports on all the news channels of ISIS parades of tanks and armored vehicles and Kurds standing, pointing and firing weapons on CNN saying ISIS tanks there, yet the west in all its technology and might can't take those out?

The US forces should hire a CNN/France24 news crew and get rid of all those billion dollar spy satellites and spy planes it would seem.

 

So How can the west find 2 specific people in Syria well enough and for long enough to blow them up with a remote controlled drone strike,

when they seem utterly unable to find ISIS tanks and soldiers in large enough numbers to battle Iraqi and Syrian army units and hundreds of Kurds in standing battles?

[unclebulgaria67]

Explanation may be that Western military want ISIS to defeat Assad, therefore they leave their military equipment alone, while going after targets that are a security risk outside of Syria. The British ISIS recruits with contacts in the UK may be seen as a direct threat because of links to the UK.

 

Once ISIS has taken over Syria, it is then easier for Western military to defeat them. They can then help rebuild the country with Syrians and allow Syrians to choose their own government.

 

At the moment it is such a complicated battlefield, that Western boots on the ground would be very difficult. You also have the added complication of Russia protecting their interests in Syria. If ISIS gets rid of Assad, they may also get rid of Russian interests there.

 

Is this a plausible strategy that is being followed ? Dangerous game to play ?

[obiter dictum]

How might i ask are the western governments going to help rebuild Syria? They have not exactly got a decent track record. Afganistan and Iraq in a never ending state of Civil war. Look at Egypt and Libya. The western governments compound the problems and make matters worse. They then act as a recruiting poster for these extreme organisations every time they drop a bomb

[unclebulgaria67]

How might i ask are the western governments going to help rebuild Syria? They have not exactly got a decent track record. Afganistan and Iraq in a never ending state of Civil war. Look at Egypt and Libya. The western governments compound the problems and make matters worse. They then act as a recruiting poster for these extreme organisations every time they drop a bomb

 

They should have learnt by now what is likely to work. Trouble is that governments in the region need to help each other, but this is very unlikely. The whole region needs a period of peace and secuity. Sunni v Shia plus all the other rivalries.

[Conniff]

The migrants should all take courses in groundworking and bricklaying as there is going to be a lot of jobs going in their countries when this is all over.

[tobyjugg2]

They should have learnt by now what is likely to work.

 

My whole point is that they (the Saudis/US/uk) know exactly what they are doing, and what 'works'.

 

Good job Donald Fart isn't president yet:

 

[obiter dictum]

The United States and European Union have placed crippling economic sanctions on Syria based entirely on that nation’s military opposition to the ISIS and the other radical religious factions.

 

It is not just the war that has an impact on the civilian population exodus.

 

Democracy is the god that failed in the middle east. Not all cultures are suitable for democracy. And yet you people just keep doubling down on your ideology and keep destroying country after country, making them jihadi wonderlands. Whenever decisions and policies are based on ideology instead of reality, its disaster.

[tobyjugg2]

The United States and European Union have placed crippling economic sanctions on Syria based entirely on that nation’s military opposition to the ISIS and the other radical religious factions.

 

That seems to me to be a completely ridiculous statement.

The issue with Assad is that he is allied with Russia and Iran (pretty much through necessity) and doesn't do what the US wants him to.

 

As dictators go, I think hes better than many so called democracy leaders

 

Gassing his own citizens - err no thats ISIS gassing anyone who might get Assad bombed by the west (already linked above)

 

Bombing his own citizens - err no thats NATO's Turkey and the Kurds. Assad is fighting ISIS and Syrian/Iraqi/Libyan terrorists (already linked above)

 

Funding ISIS - err no thats factions of the Saudis

http://www.nbcnews.com/storyline/isis-terror/whos-funding-isis-wealthy-gulf-angel-investors-officials-say-n208006

http://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/b05s4ytp

 

The Saudis/US seem to fear Assad more than they fear ISIS - at least at the moment.

It can't last as its likely Iran and Russia will soon be fighting ISIS with the Syrian Army, and its very likely Israel has no major issues with that.

[obiter dictum]

I think you will find it was the rebels that probably gassed civilians from a UN report, not Assad

 

May 2004, the US President signed E.O. 13338 implementing the Syria Accountability and Lebanese Sovereignty Restoration Act (SAA) which imposes a series of sanctions against Syria for its support for terrorism, involvement in Lebanon, weapons of mass destruction programs, and the destabilizing role it is playing in Iraq

 

The Syria Accountability Act (SAA) of 2004, prohibits the export of most goods containing more than 10% U.S.-manufactured component parts to Syria. Another sanction, resulting from the USA Patriot Act, was levied specifically against the Commercial Bank of Syria in 2006. The third type of sanction contains many Executive Orders from the President that specifically deny certain Syrian citizens and entities access to the U.S. financial system due to their participation in proliferation of weapons of mass destruction, association with Al Qaida, the Taliban or Osama bin Laden; or destabilizing activities in Iraq and Lebanon.

 

 

 

Why is their no mention of the Saudis at war with Yemen either ?

 

Why no mention that it is the British arms industry supply drones and parts to Saudi arabia

 

So before labeling me as making rediculous statements, please check your facts

[mikeymack2002]

What staggers me is the constant barrage about this conflict is not one poster has even considered something much more important than the constant bickering about two possible members of one crew or another. Not one post relating to the INNOCENT victims of this conflict not one...

 

 

All I can say it shame on all of you, please spare a thought for the many people that do not want this conflict, they just want a peaceful life and carry on in their own ways.

 

 

Not all Muslims are enemies of the State.

[tobyjugg2]

I think you will find it was the rebels that probably gassed civilians from a UN report, not Assad

 

May 2004, the US President signed E.O. 13338 implementing the Syria Accountability and Lebanese Sovereignty Restoration Act (SAA) which imposes a series of sanctions against Syria for its support for terrorism, involvement in Lebanon, weapons of mass destruction programs, and the destabilizing role it is playing in Iraq

 

The Syria Accountability Act (SAA) of 2004, prohibits the export of most goods containing more than 10% U.S.-manufactured component parts to Syria. Another sanction, resulting from the USA Patriot Act, was levied specifically against the Commercial Bank of Syria in 2006. The third type of sanction contains many Executive Orders from the President that specifically deny certain Syrian citizens and entities access to the U.S. financial system due to their participation in proliferation of weapons of mass destruction, association with Al Qaida, the Taliban or Osama bin Laden; or destabilizing activities in Iraq and Lebanon.

 

 

 

Why is their no mention of the Saudis at war with Yemen either ?

 

Why no mention that it is the British arms industry supply drones and parts to Saudi arabia

 

So before labeling me as making rediculous statements, please check your facts

 

All true, and my statement may have been overly harsh and I can see where events in the region and the US coalitions utter failure to effectively strike at ISIS over a year despite complete air superiority it would seem that the US coalition is protecting rather than fighting ISIS, particularly given ISIS's funding from the US Saudi allies.

 

I still think that its removal of Assad whatever the cost rather than protection of ISIS whatever the cost which is the driver. ISIS is just (I sincerely hope) the temporary beneficiary of the Saudi/US goals.

I accept I could be wrong on that, but your conclusion fills me with far greater dread.

 

Apologies for my harsh response.

[think about it]

What staggers me is the constant barrage about this conflict is not one poster has even considered something much more important than the constant bickering about two possible members of one crew or another. Not one post relating to the INNOCENT victims of this conflict not one...

 

 

All I can say it shame on all of you, please spare a thought for the many people that do not want this conflict, they just want a peaceful life and carry on in their own ways.

 

 

Not all Muslims are enemies of the State.

 

No one has, from what I've read on this thread, even insinuated that 'all Muslims are enemies of the state' as you put it.

 

There's no doubt that ISIS are about as far from being true Muslims as I am from being vegan. The very purpose of this thread is to discuss the strike on the two former British citizens in Syria.

 

There's also no doubt that most, if not all, of us realise the true horror of what's happening there but that's a whole different conversation from the specific case we're discussing.

[Conniff]

No one has, from what I've read on this thread, even insinuated that 'all Muslims are enemies of the state' as you put it.

 

There's no doubt that ISIS are about as far from being true Muslims as I am from being vegan. The very purpose of this thread is to discuss the strike on the two former British citizens in Syria.

 

There's also no doubt that most, if not all, of us realise the true horror of what's happening there but that's a whole different conversation from the specific case we're discussing.

 

What staggers me is the constant barrage about this conflict is not one poster has even considered something much more important than the constant bickering about two possible members of one crew or another. Not one post relating to the INNOCENT victims of this conflict not one...

 

All I can say it shame on all of you, please spare a thought for the many people that do not want this conflict, they just want a peaceful life and carry on in their own ways.

 

Not all Muslims are enemies of the State.

 

I have to second 'think about it' also the heading is "RAF drone strke in Syria on 2 UK citizens" so I can't see where it comes in.

 

If you want to start a thread on that subject, then please do.