Chit Chat
There is currently 1 person viewing this thread.
These 164 comments are related to the topic:
'British' ISIL fighters killed by RAF
'British' ISIL fighters killed by RAF
sort by:
Show
per page
Replies: 164
|
By:
Of course some will say the problem of extreme violence is not genetically based...its down to this and the cause is that, but this is merely the sea in which it swims..the curious thing is evil will always find a reason.
I remember reading about a meeting between Ian Brady and Peter Suitcliffe in one of our secure hospital prisons. Brady asked Suitcliffe why he had killed all those women ? Suitcliffe replied that God had told him to do it. Really! said Brady...did he have a Yorkshire accent? Brady, for all his faults, had a dry sense of humour. |
|
By:
Clouseau. Well, that is one of the first problems here. This is why I mentioned not knowing what IS actually. They say that they want to form a 'Caliphate'. I think this means a whole new region without frontiers or boundaries. But, as boundaries only exist by mutual consent of the parties on both sides that immediately creates a problem. IS do not recognise these boundaries as part of Iraq or part of Syria. They are, in their eyes, part of IS and, therefore, subject to IS law. Their law system appears to be based upon some very old writings many rules of which are no longer seen as appropriate by many countries who wish to adhere to their own set of values. This doesn't make one side right and one side wrong...it just makes them incompatible.
I fail to see how our PM breaking our own rules has been of any useful effect here. He has shown himself to be a 'loose cannon'. Untrustworthy. |
|
By:
Brady, for all his faults, had a dry sense of humour.
Well that's ok then.. |
|
By:
 credit where its due xmoney |
|
By:
guiness :)
|
|
By:
I fail to see how our PM breaking our own rules has been of any useful effect here.
what 'rules' did he break naydam. I'm assuming you are aware of what the 'rules' are. |
|
By:
I thought the rules were 'no military intervention in Syria'. To be honest, I am not aware of what the rules are.
But I fail to see how the clinical killing of two men will improve the chances of reaching some sort of solution over there. I find it interesting that your cut and paste post actually accepts that these were probably illegal killings, although it suggested that they were morally acceptable. To me, an illegal killing is murder. No more, no less. What offence were they guilty of? Making a video? Joining IS? Being a radical Moslem? Surely, none of those things are offences. I have no doubt that we feel they same way about this whole situation but you have to stick to the rules. If you want to be at war with somebody, then you should announce it and get on with it...otherwise we should butt out! And as for helping Assad to drop a few more bombs on his civilian population and cause even more refugee problems...this whole scenario wants a good coat of looking-at! It doesn't need politicians playing with aerial toys. |
|
By:
Where there is a threat the PM can act without informing parliament.
The target here posed a threat and was therefore killed. Being a member of Isis made him a legitimate target. Take your burqa off and see the big picture. |
|
By:
Two men with an AK-47 apiece posed a threat?? Things really are getting desperate, don't you think?
I don't wear a burka, as I am sure you would be aware. No need for petty insults. Does being a member of IS make somebody a legitimate target? (Genuine question) |
|
By:
Isis threw men to their deaths off tall buildings and you accept this without a qualm yet are all appalled at the UK daring to kill two of these savages.
Away and give yourself a shake ffs. |
|
By:
I think you are deliberately missing the point. If you want to call people savages, then you must ensure that you have the moral high ground...and in this case we haven't.
I am led to believe that, in a strong (or 'radical') Moslem state, homosexuality is illegal. I assume that there was some sort of evidence to prove that these men had broken that law and were, therefore, guilty and liable to be punished. This punishment would naturally be in accordance with THEIR rules. Not ours. We have no jurisdiction in that area...and nor should we have. Is any way of administering death 'nicer' than any other? Is there any real difference between burning at the stake or hanging? Is decapitation any more pleasant than electrocution? Is hurling from a high building any worse than many other methods that have been, and still are, used all over the world? As I asked before: is it against our laws to be a member of IS? I really don't know. Did these two men commit any crime? I don't know. Do we have the right to assassinate people in foreign lands? I doubt it. Did these two men pose a threat to Britain? Hopefully that will all be made clear when the evidence and 'intelligence' becomes available in 30 years or more. That should be enough time to tweak things. |
|
By:
Run along to your mosque.
|
|
By:
Do I take it that you can't help me with my questions? (Regarding being illegal to join IS and have these men committed any crime).
I'll bet it's because you don't know! You don't, do you? You don't know any more than I do.  |
|
By:
I've already answered your question.
It's a proscribed organisation and as such you are committing a crime by being a member of it. |
|
By:
My humble apologies...I missed that. I will try to keep up with the news in future.
 Thanks for the reply, anyway. |
|
By:
The likes of naydam are the reason why terrorism is allowed to spread like wildfire.
Excusing abhorrent acts of violence because of a belief system that carries no legal mandate is staggering. So if somebody took over your house whilst you were shopping because they don't recognize property law I presume you would be ok with that? |
|
By:
I assume that there was some sort of evidence to prove that these men had broken that law and were, therefore, guilty and liable to prosecution.
So in the same way We can assume that there was evidence that the British IS members were guilty of a plot to murder people and were therefore liable to prosecution ? |
|
By:
I find it bizarre that a terrorist needs to commit murder before being labelled as a criminal.
These fookwits that say, well he didnt blow up the queen so he is not guilty of that offence, maybe, just maybe, the security services stopped it happening. |
|
By:
A valid point, Charwell. Anybody who breaks into your house whilst you are out shopping is committing a crime. Whether they agree with this country's property laws or not, is irrelevant. The law is the law.
Similarly, your recognition of other people's laws is not relevant. It is their land...their law. |
|
By:
Mad mad moon. Yes, hopefully so.
|
|
By:
Ibrahimo. I agree. And the security services will then present their evidence to the relevant departments as proof.
|
|
By:
Similarly, your recognition of other people's laws is not relevant. It is their land...their law.
naydam, there are quite a few displaced Syrian refugees, and many who can, tragically, no longer comment, who might question this statement. |
|
By:
Hmmm. I was referring to the lawmakers rather than the general population. Sadly, moral law seems to carry very little weight in that region.
|
|
By:
so you are suggesting that the land belongs to the lawmakers?
How does one become a "lawmaker"? Do you need consent, either active or passive, to become one? As mentioned above, does that make it possible to break into someone's house (contrary to prevailing law of the land), hold the rightful occupants at gunpoint, subject them to repugnant abuse, and claim, and be given, moral equivalence to the generally held rule of law because you are, de facto, now the "Daddy" in that house? |
|
By:
In places like the UK, lawmakers become knowledgeable in matters of law over a period of time, applying wisdom, knowledge and experience. They then debate the pros and cons of various possible scenarios eventually ending up with a law that just. At least, that's how I think it works. (my opinion)
However, in places like Syria, and many other regions of the world, the law of the land seems to work on a 'might is right' basis. So I guess that, in those areas, it all depends upon who breaks in, how many there are and do you have the ability to resist. You may need to resort to some extremely war-like measures to ensure that YOU have the might. And the moral right. |
|
By:
im not that fussed about other peoples laws, right or wrong, and there are plenty that have wrong laws
but our laws suggest that we do not have a death penalty, but now, it seems that we do, i see that we are going down the route of weapons of mass destruction being made by isis, havnt we heard this before ? |
|
By:
naydam
11 Sep 15 22:31 Joined: 31 Jul 04 | Topic/replies: 8,956 | Blogger: naydam's blog Two men with an AK-47 apiece posed a threat?? Things really are getting desperate, don't you think? I don't wear a burka, as I am sure you would be aware. No need for petty insults. Does being a member of IS make somebody a legitimate target? (Genuine question) Unquestionably, yes. |
|
By:
Petrus Romanus. Thanks for your reply. Akabula has already informed me that IS is a proscribed organisation and, as such, being a member is an offence. I think that's what it means although I might have got it slightly wrong.
|
|
By:
You can get into trouble for just having videos of people getting their heads hacked off, never mind joining these scum and DOING it. Is naydam really this soft in the head or is he trolling?
|
|
By:
Naydam its just my opinion that these people serve no useful purpose...they openly make things worse for everyone and appear to revel in being as sick as possible while doing it. We should be making more effort to eliminate them not crying when a couple of our own treasonous citizens get slotted. I'd be a drone pilot for free and do 24hr shifts if I could.
|
|
By:
My query was only whether or not our military had clearance to carry out the sortie. I have little concern about attacking IS or Assad or The USA or Russia...provided that we follow the correct protocol. Otherwise your moral high ground is lower than theirs.
|
|
By:
Stand your ground naydam. For once you are right. We lecture the world that our values are unimpeachable. The rule of law is paramount and nothing is more important in our democracy than Parliament. Parliament is sovereign and parliament has spoken on the issue. If the government wish to revisit that vote that is another matter but until then people should be very wary about taking the word of the Prime Minister that his residual power could legitimately be invoked. We have previous on that score.
|
|
By:
naydam no matter how low we steeped we could never get to their level. As I said previously give yerself a shake.
|
|
By:
Sorry to disagree Eeter but that's nonsense given the current situation with Isis.
Cameron has every right to act or at least give the okay to act against anyone who is deemed to be an immediate danger to the UK. |
|
By:
Why be so concerned over the legality of the act? There's too many laws and rules as it is.
|
|
By:
I seem to recall a certain Neville Chamberlain had some probs with 'Protocol' in the 30s...
|
|
By:
Parliament refused to okay a bombing campaign. This act hardly falls within that description.
|
|
By:
anyone remember tunisia - seems to have faded from the memory !!!
|
|
By:
Neville Chamberlain followed the correct procedure. He was attempting to prevent mass slaughter. His 'piece of paper' actually guaranteed peace in Europe and possibly worldwide. However, it turned out that he was dealing with a liar. He was not to know that.
Even the Japanese declared war on USA although the paperwork was held up in translation and (I believe) the Yanks could find a high-ranking officer to give the Declaration to. That brought shame and dishonour upon the Japanese diplomats. Strangely, Adolf Hitler only declared war on one Nation...The USA. |
|
By:
could = couldn't. ffs!
|