[Closed] Drone Strike authorised by Cameron

would people pleading for the rule of law, be arguing thus if these jihadists had been killed whilst trying to kill Aylan in kobani?

What if they were killed while trying to kill Donald Duck in Disneyland Paris?

Thats how democracy works. Awkward isn't it? So lets just dispense with the whole democratic process, do it anyway,

Afraid that's how parliament is setup, there is no requirement for the government (that were voted in democratically) to go to the house for approval.

I'm struggling to see why anyone is surprised by any of this, there has been plenty of stuff in the papers previously (e.g. that Guardian from July I linked to).

No they aren't. Completely different bunch. ISIS killed a lot of the original groups.

Of course they were just hanging around doing nothing making weapons from plants and sand until the opportunity arose to mercilessly kill all the heavily armed freedom fighters that our government backed. 🙄 😆

Oh good... the point of view from the red-faced, shouty tabloid reader at the bar, 5 pints in, has arrived. With all the thought and careful consideration which that generally entails

aimed at me...?

If so, just my opinion, granted probably not popular on STW. I imagine however that I'm at least as qualified as you to comment on world affairs....

We cannot just say they were baddies so it's fine . If Cameron can kill this guy and a couple of bystanders because it was expedient to do so what and who comes next ? Can we target an orphanage because there is someone who looks a bit ISIS driving past?

No but we do help the monarchy out at times of need

You're right. In your man-of-the-people role, you've clearly spent a lot of time thinking through the long term implications of the UK now endorsing the extra-judicial killing of its own citizens, without any oversight, and the implications for both parliamentary democracy, or it inflaming further the situation in Syria and the wider middle east

I do apologise. Carry on....

Oh... can you get me some crisps while you're at the bar.

Of course they were just hanging around doing nothing making weapons from plants and sand until the opportunity arose to mercilessly kill all the heavily armed freedom fighters that our government backed.

I say go for it. Now I'm hopefully past the age of conscription it's about time we stopped pissing about and had a bloody proper war. One that lasts years and requires women to wear overalls. You know, baddies over there, us over here 3,2,1 BRITISH BULLDOGS! That'd stop these young uns robbing poundland and give 'em something to think about, eh? I've always fancied an anderson shelter, what say you?

No they aren't. Completely different bunch. ISIS killed a lot of the original groups.

we (the west, whatever) have been killing brown people (with beards too, probably) using drones, for what feels like decades now. The fact that one of them was British doesn't make it worse. He is not somehow more worthy of our concern simply because he was born in Cardiff.

+1

I don't really see how the fact they had a British passport makes it any worse or better.

Maybe Dave's just got a thing about people from Cardiff?

...and took all their weapons, that we supplied

I think they got it for being Welsh and don't forget, Wales votes Labour.

binners - Member

What if they were killed while trying to kill [b]Donald Duck[/b] in Disneyland Paris?

BASTARDS!

They were in Iraq (mainly). They weren't Syrian natives they come from all over. They have all but finished Al Quaeda (remember them?) too, so they are no shrinking violets.

So this completely different group of people, who have apparently come from nowhere, have defeated both Al Quaeda and the western backed freedom fighters in Syria. As well as taking on the Assad regime and the Iraq government forces (backed by the west).

Well that is amazing, and by that I mean it is amazing that anyone could actually believe that narrative..

No more Bernard Matthews turkey drummers and Mccains mashed potato smiley faces for those lads 😀

Personally I don't have a problem with the two nasty shits who snuck across the world so they could murder, rape and steal coming to a messy end..... In an ideal world we wouldn't have to do this, but we don't live in an ideal world. I would be happier if there was an independent review board for these decisions though.

Insofar as the we should just walk away from the middle east and let it rot, doing nothing can have just as extreme consequences as bombing, so this isn't just a case of do nothing and we wil be safe, do something and bombs go off in London.

So this completely different group of people, who have apparently come from nowhere, have defeated both Al Quaeda and the western backed freedom fighters in Syria. As well as taking on the Assad regime and the Iraq government forces (backed by the west).

Maybe Dave's just got a thing about people from Cardiff?

Fair point, but surely it would be cheaper just to drone strike Cardiff directly?

There is no nice comfortable one-size-fits-all narrative to fit cosily into our infantilised western good guy/bad guy worldview

Nobody really knows what on earth is going on in Syria. You've got a brutal dictator massacring people on an industrial scale. Other than that, there are all manner of groups, from all over the place, all with different agendas, all armed up to the teeth, all taking advantage of the total absence of security in the region. The total absence of security that was Tony and George's gift to them

I suggest you do some reading.

I suggest you do some thinking.

Factions rise and fall, warlords swap sides to suit their personal ambitions, but the majority of the people fighting are the same ones as armed by the west. That's the way it has always been in that region, and the failure to realise and deal with it is why western policy keeps creating even bigger **** ups with newer shinier weapons.

Fair point, but surely it would be cheaper just to drone strike Cardiff directly?

Ultimately, i suspect thats where we're heading. He's just testing the waters. Or maybe its a diversion tactic to distract the main intended target.....

Swansea

I suggest you do some thinking.

The government is playing into the hands of Isil. They want more Western military intervention in muslim countries because it helps radicalise more muslims into joining them.

We call them 2 dead terrorists, for other people they are 2 dead martyrs.

This wouldn't have been a gung-ho operation. Imagine the media reaction if they missed up and bombed the wrong house, or caused civilian causalities (which they didn't). Too much was a stake here.

They would have likely been monitored for months, with tapped phonelines, monitoring of internet activity to determine they were indeed part of IS, and were planning attacks against the UK. The house would have also been watched for days either by drones or SF on the ground to rule out civilian casualties prior to the strike.

I'm amazed so many people are against the strikes. Remember who we're fighting here, the extremist sect who have brutally murdered several british civilians, hundreds of syrian/iraqi PoW's, attempted genocide against the yazidi's and implemented Sharia Law in their captured territory. Anyone who is confirmed to have joined that group is a fair target imo.

I wouldn't be against sending ground troops in this case given the atrocities they're up to, they could be exterminated in a week with a modern army. Granted the other groups in the region aren't much better, which is the problem with that idea.

The thing that irritates me about this is the theatricality of it. I don't disapprove especially on legal or moral grounds, although obviously it could easily get out of hand.

The chosen justification (of course) is that they were a threat to the UK, from Syria. And I've no doubt there's a solid enough legal basis for it all, which obviously we won't see, because it's all super-secret. And of course, it would be hopeless to expect anyone to arrest some dickbag who is hanging out in Syria (although if he was really a threat to the UK in a direct sense he'd presumably need to maybe go there, which would make it easier). And of course we're bombing other brown people in the region anyway, which is OK if they're Iraqis, or Syrians or whatever other flavour of bastard is floating around being all ISIS-y. And there isn't the same legal problem with British forces killing citizens as there seems to be in the US. So none of it is all that much of a big deal, really. And indeed, British forces haven't really had much truck with super-secret flying robot-assassination as a tactic thus far.

But despite it being a somewhat irrelevant and legally non-interesting gimmick, it was a massive Prime Ministerial news-splash.

DrJ - why do you have an issue you with hairy car mechanics? Did you get a bad car service or something?

I wouldn't be against sending ground troops in this case given the atrocities they're up to, they could be exterminated in a week with a modern army. Granted the other groups in the region aren't much better, which is the problem with that idea.

Now there's a man who's watched ALL the right movies.

I wouldn't be against sending ground troops in this case given the atrocities they're up to, they could be exterminated in a week with a modern army. Granted the other groups in the region aren't much better, which is the problem with that idea.

I don't think it would be as one sided a battle as the press would like to make out, hence the reluctance to send troops in. IS fighters might at one point been an easy win, but they have a lot of battle hardened fighters now with a lot to lose, using modern equipment and understand how it works.

I wouldn't be against sending ground troops in this case given the atrocities they're up to, they could be exterminated in a week with a modern army.

[img] http://pics.livejournal.com/kensmind/pic/0013q57w [/img]

I wouldn't be against sending ground troops in this case given the atrocities they're up to, they could be exterminated in a week with a modern army. Granted the other groups in the region aren't much better, which is the problem with that idea.

They would have likely been monitored for months, with tapped phonelines, monitoring of internet activity to determine they were indeed part of IS, and were planning attacks against the UK. The house would have also been watched for days either by drones or SF on the ground to rule out civilian casualties prior to the strike.

You've been watching too many episodes of Homeland.

In reality, it's 'There's one, he's got a beard!' and bang - he's dead.

I'm sure you'd all be keen as mustard to be in charge of this decision making process, but I'm bloody glad I'm not.

In reality, it's 'There's one, he's got a beard!' and bang - he's dead.

That's almost as deluded a statement as IS could be defeated in a week. Well done.

"would people pleading for the rule of law, be arguing thus if these jihadists had been killed whilst trying to kill Aylan in kobani? "
The crucial words are "whilst trying to kill" that makes all the difference in both national and international law . To kill another where necessary to save life is self defence/defence of another and not a crime. To kill a man and others around him remotely on foreign ground absent declaration of war against that country when there is no evidence he posed a direct and immediate threat to any one in this country, that is a bigger and more complex question.
I don't pretend to offer an answer to the question but I am very uneasy about the politicians "trust me he was a baddy and the bystanders were asking for it too" response.

"The russians perhaps, they work by their own rules."
Which did not work in Afghanistan and cost them their empire, and have not been a big success in Chechnya which cost them their domestic security .

You've been watching too many episodes of Homeland.

In reality, it's 'There's one, he's got a beard!' and bang - he's dead.

Hardly, way too much was at stake if they got this wrong. The media would be having a field day if they bombed the wrong house. And all the people killed were confirmed militants who have featured in propaganda videos, so there's no arguing they were't members of IS.

Hardly, way too much was at stake if they got this wrong. The media would be having a field day if they bombed the wrong house.

Phew... its a good job thats never happened before then, eh? And if it had, we'd know about it... how?

And all the people killed were confirmed militants who have featured in propaganda videos, so there's no arguing they were't members of IS.

Well... that's what they're telling us, anyway. Not giving any evidence. Just telling us, and asking us to take their word for it.

Fair enough. I'm happy with that. Who's next then?

one of them was wearing a Cardiff city shirt what more proof do you need!

when there is no evidence he posed a direct and immediate threat to any one in this country,

The trouble is that the very nature of these decisions is such that you and i may never know what the justification was beyond what's been said. Ultimately it comes down to whether you trust the intel, and whether you trust* the people with the intel to make the decision based on it. It happens that I do, others clearly don't, and it'll be very difficult and probably futile to try to get us to change our positions.

* but if they subsequently are shown to have lied they should then be held to account appropriately. Chilcott, etc.

I'm sure you'd all be keen as mustard to be in charge of this decision making process, but I'm bloody glad I'm not.

+ 1,000,001

I find it hard enough to decide where to put my X on a ballot paper to decide who gets to make these decisions, let alone making them myself.

The russians perhaps,

Doubt it they have an even worse record.

I do wonder if people would have been less up in arms about it if it had been a Paveway dropped from a Tornado or even a missile from a Vulcan.

but if they subsequently are shown to have lied they should then be held to account appropriately. Chilcott, etc.

What a perfect example of judicial oversight. All hail the beacon of accountability to international law that is the Chilcott Report. Expected date of publication 2035 - possibly never.

"The russians perhaps, they work by their own rules."

Largely unsuccessful ones, their overseas campaigns weren't a great success...

Oooooooooo can we use more specific names for weaponry, and military shorthand. I'm feeling a bit... you know... tingly

Hardly, way too much was at stake if they got this wrong. The media would be having a field day if they bombed the wrong house.

WTF? Drone strikes endlessly hit the wrong targets / kill civilians. It's just called collateral damage and as they've all got dark skin and beards, no one really cares back in the West. It's only Western soldiers getting maimed by IEDs which makes headline news.

I wouldn't be against sending ground troops in this case given the atrocities they're up to, they could be exterminated in a week with a modern army.

Are you on crack? Billions of £, millions of lives lost in Iraq and Afghanistan stand testament to the utter inadequacy of our modern army

In reality, it's 'There's one, he's got a beard!' and bang - he's dead.
That's almost as deluded a statement as IS could be defeated in a week. Well done.

I wasn't saying it would be the best way forward and I would be against doing anything like that right this moment. Like I said the other factions who would fill the void aren't much better.

I was more pondering the fact that the coalition toppled the much better armed/equipped Iraqi government in 3 weeks. (not that I agree with the invasion of Iraq then) A ground strike would quickly reduce IS to an underground movement, rather than in control of large swathes of the middle east, and able to commit atrocities on the people in that area/ and plan attacks further afield with impunity.

/0\

A ground strike would quickly reduce IS to an underground movement, rather than in control of large swathes of the middle east, and able to commit atrocities on the people in that area/ and plan attacks further afield with impunity.

[img] [/img]

one of them was wearing a Cardiff city shirt

A ground strike would quickly....

Largely unsuccessful ones, their overseas campaigns weren't a great success...

So those who support these murders (let's call them by their correct name under international law) - would you be happy for foreign powers to start taking people out in the UK using drones?

I was more pondering the fact that the coalition toppled the much better armed/equipped Iraqi government in 3 weeks.

Isn't what actually happened that they realised they were never going to win in a conventional fight so they gave up immediately and abandoned their posts/uniforms - IIRC quite a few of them went on to become a fairly effective guerrilla force.... called ISIS or something like that.

http://www.reuters.com/article/2015/06/16/us-mideast-crisis-baghdadi-insight-idUSKBN0OW1VN20150616

What a perfect example of judicial oversight. All hail the beacon of accountability to international law that is the Chilcott Report. Expected date of publication 2035 - possibly never.

I wasn't using it as an example of how it should be!!

I wasn't using it as an example of how it should be!!

Maybe not, but thats how it is. That's the reality of 'accountability' as far as our glorious leaders are concerned. Do you think it'll ever see the light of day? Seriously?

Which explains, probably more than anything else already mentioned on this thread, why we can't just accept it when they tell us to just trust them in areas like this. They have demonstrated repeatedly that they are the least trustworthy people on the planet! And they're busy pursuing their own agendas, where legitimate democratic oversight would be... inconvenient... shall we say

would you be happy for foreign powers to start taking people out in the UK using drones?

No but we have a government in control of the country and hence laws. Syria is in the midst of a civil war with no effective government control in many areas and a complete lack of law. So they aren't the same situation at all.

Drone strikes endlessly hit the wrong targets / kill civilians.

Really got any evidence for that?

No but we have a government in control of the country and hence laws.

Laws which in this case, our govenment chose to completely ignore. You know... the ones about assassinating people without any legal process? Pretty basic, fundamental stuff like that?

Will we see it released, in the full unedited form. I'm not holding my breath.

But to me, that's the situation that needs changing. Not the decision to take out someone with intent and capability and a near future plan to commit atrocities against our citizens, I think that's a legitimate target, sorry if others don't see it as so.

No but we have a government in control of the country and hence laws. Syria is in the midst of a civil war with no effective government control in many areas and a complete lack of law. So they aren't the same situation at all.

Ah so one rule for them, another rule for us. What a surprise.

Really got any evidence for that?

Finally, on 15 October 2010, Hellfire missiles fired from a Predator or Reaper drone killed Hussain, the ****stani Taliban later confirmed. For the death of a man whom practically no American can name, the US killed 128 people, 13 of them children, none of whom it meant to harm.

A new analysis of the data available to the public about drone strikes, conducted by the human-rights group Reprieve, indicates that even when operators target specific individuals – the most focused effort of what Barack Obama calls “targeted killing” – they kill vastly more people than their targets, often needing to strike multiple times. Attempts to kill 41 men resulted in the deaths of an estimated 1,147 people, as of 24 November.

Among those killed that day were 22 children. The youngest, Khadje Ali Mokbel Louqye, was just one year old. A dozen women also died, five of them reportedly pregnant.

Yet these numbers mask the many individual families annihilated in the attack. Mohammed Nasser Awad Jaljala, 60, his 30-year-old wife Nousa, their son Nasser, 6, and daughters Arwa, 4, and Fatima, aged 2, were all killed.

Then there was 35-year old Ali Mohammed Nasser Jaljala, his wife Qubla (25), and their four daughters Afrah (9), Zayda (7), Hoda (5) and Sheikha (4) who all died.

The youngest killed, Khadje Ali Mokbel Louqye, was just one year old
Ahmed Mohammed Nasser Jaljala, 30, was killed alongside his 21-year old wife Qubla and 50-year old mother Mouhsena. Their daughter Fatima, aged 13, was the only survivor of the family, badly injured and needing extensive medical treatment abroad.

The Anbour clan suffered similarly catastrophic losses. Abdullah Mokbel Salem Louqye died with his wife, son and three daughters. His brother Ali Mokbel Salem Louqye’s seven-strong family were also wiped out.

So what would you have done o great binners? You don't seem to acknowledge the difficulty of the situation at all in your enthusiasm to castigate those in charge. It's so easy isn't it?

No but we have a government in control of the country and hence laws.

And our government in control of the country and hence laws didn't seem too bothered about those laws when we invaded Iraq illegally and killed far more people than Al-Qaeda ever have.

It's only Western soldiers getting maimed by IEDs which makes headline news.

Hardly. 6600 US soldiers dead in Iraq and Afghanistan, over 600 British dead soldiers. Wounded; over 50,000 US and over 10,000 British. If you put in other countries and civilian contractors the numbers are pretty shocking.

I doubt if even a tenth of those wounded have been near a headline, even in their local papers.

I've gone into detail about my solution to the whole middle eastern problem many times Molls....

[img] [/img]

Binners you may disagree but the main consensus seems to be that it was within the law.

Grum I think you'll find the present government weren't the ones in power when we invaded Iraq. And I struggle to see how invading a country is the same as a clearly defined strike on a single car with known combatants in it. This is closer to the SAS killing of three IRA members on Gibraltar in '88.

Personally I don't have any sympathy for the two nut jobs that were targeted with drones. As far as I can see it:

1. IS/ ISIS is a terrorist group. If you say you're going to join them / make videos saying you're going to / travel with the intent of doing so then you should lose your British citizenship (thus rendering them stateless) and should be actively targeted as an enemy combatant (with the exception of children taken by their parents).

2. At the point a person travels to Iraq / Syria to join ISIS they should be treated as a traitor with their entire assets to be taken by the state and disbursed to those who are fleeing the chaos caused by ISIS.

3. Public support for the goals of ISIS is not compatible with a life in Britain and should be dealt with as such - including the immediate loss of all benefits and social housing. Children should be removed from households where parents have extremist views with a view to getting them fostered / adopted by other families.

4. Anyone who believes that the Caliphate is a great place should be given free travel and the option of permanently leaving the UK with loss of citizenship part of the process. The houses freed up should be given to refugees / those who have values compatible with life in a democracy / secular state.

Binners you may disagree but the main consensus seems to be that it was within the law.

Depends who's law. And who's consensus. Have I missed something? Assassinating people is now legal according to our present laws is it? Without anything so inconvenient as a trial, or people supplying evidence? I must have missed the news piece when they said they'd legalised that.

As with Iraq. If its against our law, or international law, we'll just use somebody elses. See also extraordinary rendition etc. We can't torture people? Lets go to somewhere where we can then.

Grum I think you'll find the present government weren't the ones in power when we invaded Iraq.

Have a look at the present Tory front bench and see if you can find one of them who voted against it. Another reason Chilcott will never see the light of day. The Tory's are as up to their necks in it as Blair. They were all unquestioningly tagging along with George

Binners you may disagree but the main consensus seems to be that it was within the law

That isn't the consensus I am reading on this thread.

[quote=binners said]
Have a look at the present Tory front bench and see if you can find one of them who voted against it.

How many of them had a hand in creating [url= https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iraq_Dossier ]this[/url] ?

Public support for the goals of ISIS is not compatible with a life in Britain and should be dealt with as such - including the immediate loss of all benefits and social housing. Children should be removed from households where parents have extremist views with a view to getting them fostered / adopted by other families.

1984

How many of them had a hand in creating this ?

Its the job of an opposition to raise questions about exactly this type of thing. Blair was proposing invading a country, and going to war FFS! All over the world, people, including the UN weapons inspectors, were saying there were no WMD's. The basis on which we went into that war. Millions of people took to the streets to protest against it. Remember? You'd think maybe some of the opposition front bench might want to articulate some of these perfectly reasonable questions about the legitimacy of invading Iraq.

Did they?

Did they ****!

And now they're demonstrating, just as much as Blair did, their contempt for international law

1984

Not so much 1984 more 2005 when home grown islamists with a rabid hatred of the west / western life blew up 52 of their fellow british citizens on London tube trains.

The failure to recognise salafism / wahabi ideology and vigorously confront it is precisely why British citizens are now blowing themselves and others up all over the world, and why our security services are actively monitoring around 5-6,000 individuals the share the same intent.

How many of them had a hand in creating this ?

Well I thought it was utter bollocks at the time, so unless they are all monumentally thick they must have had their doubts. Let's face it, if anything the Tories would have been even more gung-ho than Labour if they'd have been in power.

The failure to recognise salafism / wahabi ideology and vigorously confront it is precisely why British citizens are now blowing themselves and others up all over the world, and why our security services are actively monitoring around 5-6,000 individuals the share the same intent.

So why have we never attacked the root and main funder/promoter of wahhabism/salafism I wonder, and in fact continue to supply it with billions of dollars worth of weapons, and fly our flags at half mast when it's ruler dies? That country would be one of the worst human rights abusers in the world - who's citizens carried out the 9/11 attacks (so we invaded another country that had bugger all to do with it).

I sometimes read the BBC comments section when i feel inclined for a giggle. However on this occasion I agree with the ones I have read (sorted by popularity. A selection of the few are:

No explanations needed.

The traitor got everything he deserved.

Enemy of the UK ,should to be treated the same way as the rest of the murderous I.S. scum.

He’s one of the reasons that hundreds of thousands
of people are fleeing for their lives in fear.

Well done government.

Stop giving these idiots the title of being British. They are traitors and gave up their right to be British when they left to join the Islamic State. Same goes for any other imbecile who decides to join them.

I'm sure these to fellows would have no hesitation in killing myself or my family or any other infidel or apostate, It's a relief we got to them first.

Nothing less than the total extermination of IS is acceptable - we need to rid the World of this sickness.

Based on the article linked to below and the governments own advice then yes it was legal.

[url= http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2015/sep/07/lawful-uk-forces-british-isis-fighters-syria ]Lawful killing of British ISIS fighters[/url]

But I have said this before - IS is a legitimate target - we can, and do bomb them at will - just not in Syria. The only technicality here is that we bombed them in Syria. If they were 1cm over the boarder in Iraq nobody would have batted an eyelid. It's just a technicality. Our ban on military action in Syria was about targetting Assad and helping bring about a change of regime - well things have changed somewhat, these two were in Syria, but not engaged in the civil war with Assad, they were engaged in other activities that threatened our security.

Why target two specific people in Syria out of all the IS people in Syria we could have bombed? Clearly we must have been pretty convinced we had something on them. The fact they were British has nothing to do with anything.

I sometimes read the BBC comments section when i feel inclined for a giggle. However on this occasion I agree with the ones I have read

Great! Well thats that sorted then. Maybe we should let people who write comments under news articles, probably while pissed, having failed to take their medication, set all government policy from now on?

Are you going to the bar? Will you get us a Stella? And some pork scratchings? I'll tell you what... these bloody immigrants.....

Based on the article linked to below and the governments own advice then yes it was legal.

The same people who said invading Iraq was legal? Well... thats beyond dispute then, isn't it? The Chilcott enquiry just exonerated them all, didn't it?

Oh wait.... hang on a minute.....

toppled the much better armed/equipped Iraqi government in 3 weeks.

not sure they were as committed/focused though - it probably doesn't count as martyrdom if you die fighting for the governments army unless it a holy war.

toppled the much better armed/equipped Iraqi government in 3 weeks.