'British' ISIL fighters killed by RAF

No point trying to educate you.

Great. Let every Brit who joins ISIL be killed, for treason.

Naydam doesn't have a clue what he's talking about, on many factual areas he's just WRONG.
I really can't be ar**ed correcting him however as he comes across as the sort who won't listen anyway.

Oh no look who just crawled on, a man so ignorant he makes Naydam seem a genius.

Great. Let every Brit who joins ISIL be killed, for treason.



and if we kill a few extra by mistake that'll be alright too ?

Alias if you bothered to read something other than the SNPs Wee Red Book you'd know that naydam was way wide of the mark on all the points he made.
BTW you lost.

You grieving his death Donny. Brothers in arms and all that stuff?

strange post akbula, i have no idea what you are getting at

Why are you bothered that 3 murderous terrorists have been killed?
Identified as a danger to the UK so why not kill them?
Would you rather wait until they bomb us.

Given that these traitors were exploded a fortnight ago, there's not much chance of Her Majesty's Government breaking the news yesterday if there was any doubt about the targets.
So puff out your bare chests, British ISIL warriors, and mark a target there. You'll be expecting a virgin coming to meet you..

loony torys linning up on tv to say cause it was legal the attourney general said so,
thats fine then why have we wasted millions and millions ,years and years, on the chilcot enquiry when blairs atourney general said he was acting legaly,and why do the same torys say blair took us to an ilegal war,you cant have it both ways

if the terrorists were caught in this country  and the americans wanted to put them on trial
then they would have to promise not to kill them before we handed them over

thats because we dont have a death penalty in this country, except it seems we
do, when it suits

i have no love for terrorists but refuse to stoop to their level

not a big fan of David Cameron, but he made the right call here and fair play.

Why any British person cares about a couple of terrorists being killed whose aim it is is to destroy the British way of life via terrorism I actually don't understand.

Anyone running of to IS or supports them instantly becomes a traitor.

But there is a mentality that makes you the winner if you can undercut your enemy.
We couldn't take IRA terrorists out like this, but there would have been far fewer IRA outrages, years long, if it were possible.

so why didnt we shoot that mother and her kids last week instead of spending a fortune to bring them home,

not sure you can blame the kids.

But the mother should have been tried for treason definitely.

High treason today consists of:
Treason Act 1351 (as amended): compassing the death of the sovereign, or of the sovereign's wife or eldest child and heir
violating the sovereign's wife, or the sovereign's eldest unmarried daughter, or the sovereign's eldest son's wife (only if the eldest son is also heir to the throne)
levying war against the sovereign in the realm
adhering to the sovereign's enemies, giving them aid and comfort, in the realm or elsewhere
killing the King's Chancellor, Treasurer (an office long in commission) or Justices

adhering to the sovereign's enemies, giving them aid and comfort, in the realm or elsewhere


surely she is banged to rights and anyone else going to Syria, anyone drumming up support for ISIS in this country etc

Interesting that the BBC has allowed for comments on one of its sympathy threads implying UK is targetting British citziens on an away day trip but the comments are staggeringly in favour of what the government has done. Will it get through to the BBC clowns ? NO.

Facts

Are you inferring I don't mean it ?

I think people are fully entitled to infer you don't mean it. A man is judged by his actions rather than his hot air and as of yet you haven't answered alun's question:

How many previous refugees from 'war torn' countries have you PERSONALLY accommodated then in your own property, along with feeding, clothing and paying all their expenses?

And how many BRITISH homeless citizens are you currently accommodating and paying for, given your 'moral' and 'humanitarian' outlook?

Talk like yours is cheap and usually disingenuous. Who'd have thought it? I'll give em all a milion pounds cos that's the kind of guy I am. Beat that. But I don't want any publicity. I don't like to talk about it.

Are we actually 'at war' with somebody?

If there was a war Naydam and Facts would be supporting the other side.

I suppose that would depend upon which side is 'the other side'. And, of course, the actual reason for the 'war'. 

wildmans........supporting.......fighting more like

Having lived in the middle east for many years it is apparent that too many people do not understand the nature of hatred that emanates from radical Islam. They see themselves at war with 'the west' and behave accordingly. Our general public do not understand this but will do so very shortly.

So, you would surely agree that, not having lived for many years in the middle east (like your good self), and having no experience of radical Islam, many people cannot be expected to behave as if they did possess this knowledge and experience.
That's how it is with life...you learn as you go along. So do the others.

I don't need to put my hand actually in the fire to know it will burn me. Close enough is good enough. Same with Islam. Until they have a reformation no thanks. We have made plenty of mistakes in the past importing supporters. No need to compound it.

What sort of CRB checks will Don Oxford and Chit Chat's very own Mary Whitehouse be carrying out to ensure that the umpteen Syrian refugees they will be taking in aren't Jihadists or Rapists? 

I'm guessing they will have had previous experience of carrying out these subtle safety checks from the days that they took in refugees from other war-torn countries.

Or will they be turning a blind eye, as has become fashionable in Rochdale and Rotherham?

I would expect that Mary would be very stringent in her checks. She's never struck me as the sort to take any messing around.
When she said 'sit' or 'walkies' she meant it!

treetop"s thread said all there needs to be said,
A VERY CLEAR WARNING TO US ALL!

Hmmm. This ill-feeling might be based upon the reason for the 'spending of time' in the area. Would one really expect to be made truly welcome in a society that sees very little good in the West?
It might help to first decide the nature of his holiday in that area. Maybe it wasn't a holiday. He may have been a Christian preacher...that wouldn't help.
It may be because he was based there for an unpopular company or perhaps he was deployed on active duty.
I can well imagine that those same circumstances would create much friction if they were reversed...and indeed they do!

Then why are they coming here again?

Refugees tend to seek refuge wherever they can. I suppose it's a tricky time to be making plans.

By Dan Hodges, Telegraph
2:05PM BST, 09 Sep 2015

I’m not sure if Reyaad Khan or Ruhul Amin – the two ISIS fighters killed by an RAF drone strike – were personally responsible for throwing two gay men off a roof in Homs two months ago. Perhaps they were part of the mob that waited below to throw rocks at their broken bodies.

Maybe it was them who doused Jordanian pilot Moaz al-Kasasbeh in petrol, locked him in a cage and burnt him alive. Or they were behind some of the rapes Angelina Jolie talked about in the House of Commons yesterday, rapes of girls as young as seven that she said were being used by ISIS as the “centrepoint of their terror”.

Anyway, we’ll never know now, because they’re dead. And I’m glad they’re dead. I wish all the Isil butchers were dead. Drones. Smart bombs. The tip of a bayonet. It doesn’t really bother me how. The more of them we can kill, the better.

At least, that was my initial reaction when I heard about their deaths. “Good”, I said to myself, “they got what was coming to them.”

That wasn’t the reaction of quite a few other people. Over at the Stop The War Coalition, they took a short break from masterminding Jeremy Corbyn’s election campaign to post up an angry statement declaiming “UK government rides to war killing its own citizens and on the backs of refugees”. In the Guardian, Gary Younge wrote “Britain can now add extrajudicial killings to torture, rendition and occupation as tools in defence of “Enlightenment values”. The human rights group Reprieve took to the air waves to complain “the fact that David Cameron has bypassed parliament to commit these covert strikes is deeply worrying – as is his refusal to share what legal advice he was given.”

Each to their own I suppose. Well, kind of.

Over the past month people on the centre-Right of politics – actually those on the centre-Right of the Left of politics – have been asking themselves “what’s gone wrong?” Corbynmania. The flight from reason. The rout of the moderates.

The list of answers would currently fill a small phone directory. But I think one of the most significant has been revealed in the reaction to the Reyaad Khan and Ruhul Amin “assassination”.

The Left have immediately scrambled to the top of the moral high ground. The rule of law has been traduced. The state cannot act as judge and executioner. We are destroying the very values we are supposedly defending.

And the moderate center-Right have happily ushered them up there. OK, this may be a legally grey area. But the practicalities of defending the realm some times supersede the principles. The end justifies the means.

It happens time and time and time again. The Left wraps itself in the warm, heavy cloak of morality. And those on the centre-Right opt for the ugly and superficial undergarments of pragmatism.

It has to stop. The killing of Reyaad Khan and Ruhul Amin was – probably – legally correct. As ever, there are differing viewpoints. But the balance of independent legal opinion I have read supports the government’s stance.

But even if it wasn’t legally correct, it was morally correct. These men were Isil fighters. We know this because they told us they were. They posed for photos. The issued statements. They posted videos.

Reyaad Khan and Ruhul Amin were modern day Nazis. They were willing members of the one of the most evil, barbaric, sadistic organizations ever to exist on our planet. Stopping them from continuing their campaign of barbarism was our moral duty.

Yes, Gary. Our enlightenment values do mean that when confronted by people who adopt mass rape, torture and murder as their hobbies, we stop them. If we can arrest them, great. But if we can’t, we’re going to have to just kill them. And when we do kill them, that is not evidence we are “just as bad as them”. It’s evidence that we are better than them.

• Steven Woolfe MEP: My plan for Syria: keep Assad in power, deploy ground troops and send back the refugees

I can take the hard-Left’s ideological purity. But I’m sick to the back teeth of their presumption of moral superiority. If you genuinely think we would be living in a better world today if Reyaad Khan and Ruhul Amin were happily driving along to the scene of their next mass rape then it’s you, not the so-called liberal interventionists, who should be taking a look at your personal value system.

We’re seeing this on an almost daily basis now. When it became clear a combination of Yvette Coper’s intervention and the photo of Aylan Kurdi were beginning to transform the debate on refugees, social media began to fill up with frothing fury. Much of it came from the usual “we’re full, we don’t want ‘em here” brigade on the hard-right. But there was an equally rabid response from elements of the hard-Left. Those expressing concern were all hypocrites. They’d been silent till the photo of the little boy had appeared. Cooper was a hypocrite. She’d taken a hard line on economic migration. What about Palestine? Anyone who said they cared about this, but didn’t care about the Palestinians was a hypocrite.

Again, these are the sort of people we’re supposed to be taking moral lectures from? People whose response to a spontaneous, compassionate reflex is to scream “hypocrites, the lot of you!!!” at the top of their lungs?

Actually, it’s not just the hard-Left’s righteous arrogance and own moral hypocrisy that is so staggering. It’s the fundamental lack of humanity.

We saw this most graphically illustrated during the row over Jeremy Corbyn’s comments on how the death of Bin Laden was a “tragedy”. The hard-Left tied itself in knots tying to rationalize and legitimize this statement. He’d been talking about the cycle of violence it had perpetrated. He’d been specifically referring to the fact that Bin Laden had not been brought to trial.

Perhaps he was. But he didn’t merely say Bin Laden’s killing was “counterproductive”. Or “misguided”. Or “a missed opportunity to bring him to justice”. When asked to respond to the death of one of history’s worst mass murderers he instinctively reached for the word “tragedy”.

And we are – I’m told – all supposed to look up to this man, and the movement he leads, for moral guidance. He is, I read repeatedly, a man of inviolate principle and unshakable belief and unscripted word.

Well, if inviolate principle means saying to the likes of Reyaad Khan and Ruhul Amin “where you off to today lads? Throwing another couple of gays off a roof? Ooooooh, bit harsh. But OK, on your way” then you can keep it. Morality is not an abstraction. Nor is it codified under the rule of law. If a doctor helps a patient in agony to end their life they may have committed an illegal act. But they haven’t necessarily committed an immoral one.

So by all means, lecture us about politics. Lecture us about foreign affairs. Lecture us about international law. But please, if you really think the killing of Reyaad Khan and Ruhul Amin was wrong, keep your moral lectures to yourself.

Well said Dan Hodges.

I'm not at all sure what all that was supposed to say. Is there any chance that you could use your own words and ideas? I don't know any of the people named.

Although I have very limited knowledge of Islamic law, I believe that homosexuality is illegal and punishable by death. I also seem to have read that the traditional method is something akin to hurling into a pit. If so, then hurling from a high building would be a close assimilation.

Are you suggesting that we should assist Mr Assad by dropping a few barrel-bombs for him?

what I know naydam is that you are someone who deliberately goes out of his way to excuse violent extremist behaviour

you are a very silly man

thank goodness we didn't have your sort around in 1940

oh excuse me  - we did didn't we

not that it excuses your behaviour

naydam

So im not allowed to post an article because you dont agree or understand it

i thought it was a brilliant article.......naydam is just  a picnic short of a sandwich

or a sandwich short of a picnic

Best to ignore him (or her) Reminds me very much of Banks - Banned-_Banks off de horsey forum.

Pleaded the books cause but swore black was white that he had no allegiance to them. Until of course it was discovered thaT he worked for the GC. So wouldn't surprise me if he (or she) wasn't Abu Bakr al-Baghdadi's long lost son (or daughter)

Disgraceful post from naydam
He seems to have no qualms with a so called state imposing the death penalty of a most gruesome kind for the perceived "crime" of being homosexual. Perhaps he finds his morality at the bottom of the pit described in his post.

He is one of those 'ARE YOU SURE THEY ARE SHOOTING AT US ' sort of guys!!
But they are missing (at the moment) and naydam will prevent you from shooting back or defending yourself   ha ha!!!

I don't get naydam, he seems to think hurling gay people of buildings isn't that bad as its in "THEIR" Islamic law.

also he wants us to let even more of them into the country.

Truly bizzare.

Correct maluek but hes not on his own

When have you seen an interviewer bring up what their disgusting cult teaches  them when they have a Muslim apologist  in front o them. They allow them to ou blame everyone else  and never challenge those beliefs and that they are the problem for most  of the people in this country (except the media and  the left  it seems.)

Ibrahima. I would not suggest for one moment that you should not be allowed to post something simply because I struggled to understand it. It became difficult when the MEP was mentioned in the middle section. Thereafter, I had no idea whose comments or opinions I was reading. Better to form your own posts and then any unclear points can be debated and misunderstandings avoided.

You guys seem to have no concept of trying to understand that British Law and beliefs are not universal. They are not set in stone and are often affected, to the point of change, by insignificant events.
I have no way of knowing if homosexuality should be seen as immoral, normal or legal. What I don't understand is why so many of you are intolerant of the fact that many other factions in the world don't agree with you.
It is only a few years ago that it was illegal over here ffs! If you were found guilty you were sentenced according to the law of the land.

I make no excuse for violent extremist behaviour or the atrocities being carried out this group of people who call themselves ISIS. I don't even know what to call them...are they a religious group? Are they a military group? Do they represent Islam or themselves?

It's all very easy to pick on naydam because he has the temerity to question our prime minister taking un-sanctioned action in a area that he was told by his own government NOT to enter. And what has he actually achieved? He has killed two fellas who made an anti-British video and everybody is 'high-fiving'

Personally, I have no love for Moslems but I have no real hate for them, either. I have never had any problems them and we seem to rely upon them in the NHS.
I have no particular wish to invite more of tbem, especially when it seems to be based upon the impact of one particular photograph.

I've got bored.

But we're back now! It strikes me that the majority of you put your own translation upon things that I post.
Instead of gossiping and tut-tutting between yourselves, why not just ask for clarification on points that are unclear. I am well aware that fully describing one's feelings or opinions on  matters can be very difficult. Ambiguity often occurs. Especially for someone like me whose life has never encapsulated the written word.


I think I pointed out a long time ago exactly WHY that captured pilot received the treatment that he did, although I'm not convinced that the film footage was genuine. Too much flashing images and CGI.
And regardless of how many times I asked the question NOBODY told me why our aircrew were prisoners of the Luftwaffe.


What punishment would YOU have inflicted upon these Sodomites? And how would you have applied it? In THAT location in accordance with the law.

naydam.... are you suggesting that throwing gays off high buildings is done in accordance with the law of the land?

If so, which legally constituted land is this?.... Syria or Iraq?

It is in the end a problem of genetics. In cases of extreme violent murder there is usually a problem in the society of too close blood relationships. Doctors know this is a major problem in certain parts of the world but are reluctant to comment on it.

Britain is, like most other Countries always at war with all forms of terrorism, I'm not sure if we will ever stop it and it seems things are due to get much worse. We have many extremists living amongst us who will try to cause as much devastation as possible.

What I find hard to come to terms with is why we allow the hate mongerers to wander free in our Country. During the 2nd world war if anyone had been openly trying to recruit for the SS they would have been dealt with

The genetic problems can manifest 2 or 3 steps down the line. This is what is meant by the Biblical line " The sins of the father are visited unto the third and forth generation"

meanwhile sky interiews a muslim woman refugee with ........  wait for it .............. SIX CHILDREN -
sign of what's to come!!!

naydam.........you are saying being gay was illegal over here some time ago but i dont remember them being chucked  them off tall buildings

chucked off tall buildings*

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.

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.

Brady, for all his faults, had a dry sense of humour.

Well that's ok then..

credit where its due xmoney

guiness :)

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.

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.

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.

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)

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.

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.

Run along to your mosque.

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. 

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.

My humble apologies...I missed that. I will try to keep up with the news in future.   Thanks for the reply, anyway.

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?

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 ?

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.

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.

Mad mad moon. Yes, hopefully so.

Ibrahimo. I agree. And the security services will then present their evidence to the relevant departments as proof.

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.

Hmmm. I was referring to the lawmakers rather than the general population. Sadly, moral law seems to carry very little weight in that region.

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?

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.

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 ?

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.

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.

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?

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.

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.

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.

naydam no matter how low we steeped we could never get to their level. As I said previously give yerself a shake.

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.

Why be so concerned over the legality of the act? There's too many laws and rules as it is.

I seem to recall a certain Neville Chamberlain had some probs with 'Protocol' in the 30s...

Parliament refused to okay a bombing campaign. This act hardly falls within that description.

anyone remember tunisia - seems to have faded from the memory !!!

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.

could = couldn't.  ffs!

chamberlain knew war was coming - the delay helped our defence

chamberlain was also a bit of a hero in his backing of rearmament of the RAF which he was solidly behind

he knew the paper was worth zilch.

Hossbach will be turning in his grave...

think he called hitler a common little swine........he knew.........the piece of paper bought us time

i cant see corbyn agreeing to these executions !

If we can jail Sgt Alexander Blackman to life for killing a member of the taliban we can sure prosecute the drone operator under Corbyn's rule.Our noble politicians celebrating at present will disapper just as quick if Jezza begins a prosecution.