[Closed] Drone Strike authorised by Cameron

Binners - isn't this a place where opinions and voices can be heard without prejudice? Did you read any of the comments i quoted? To what extend do you disagree or agree with them?

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

read the article critically it does not actually lead to the conclusion that the killing was legal just that it might have been . Have a look at the Canadian gun boat case referred to there was an obvious relatively immediate threat that could justify an attack here it is less clear particularly as Cameron seeks to justify the need for the killing as participation in plans to that had already failed to attack at events that had already passed without incident.

wrecker - Member
because it's really hard fighting people hiding among the civilian population.

It really is, always amazes me how the security services were utterly shit at stopping IRA bombs, but manage to thwart about 99% of islamic attacks! 😆

Either they've improved immeasurably, or we're dealing with extremely dimwitted jihadis(4 lions must have been a documentary! :lol:) or what we're discussing here is essentially propaganda.

The same people who said invading Iraq was legal?

No Lord Goldsmith stepped down in 2007 and there have been another 2 Attorney Generals before the present one.

Either they've improved immeasurably,

[url= http://www.headoflegal.com/2015/09/07/law-and-the-killing-of-reyaad-khan/ ]Legal analysis by former government lawyer[/url]

wobbliscott + 1
We're engaged in a war with IS, two IS fighters lost their lives.
They had British passports, although getting them to trial and a life sentence at the tax payers expense may have been preferable, military expediency chose the-diplomacy-by-other-means route.

Although I am quite liberal I am getting a bit tired of liberal hand-wringing about some poor ickle IS fighters who support a murderous regime that have no respect for any laws beyond the one's they are making up.

Problem with this is you will never know the details. And the legality is all in the details.
On the PMs desk there would have been a report detailing all the Ins and outs about these individuals, how this information was gathered, by whom and what methods where used.

I would imagine the majority of it would have been human intelligence led, use of informants, covert surveillance all coupled with effective signals intelligence. Disclosing all that information to the general public would most likely leave a great many people happy with the decision.

However, it would confirm the presence of individuals who could really do without appearing on the next IS youtube video, it would compromise those who inform on these animals and more importantly it would arm IS with the information to effectively counter the methods used to effectively target them.

I know many of you will, no matter what is said and done, refuse to believe this was legal and/or justified, who will continue to debate from the position of an armchair quarterback, mostly in part to their hatred of government and the military. I wish more information could be shared and it wasn't left down to a 'you'll have to trust us' statement. But sometimes that is what is needed to keep a great many other people safe.

I don't agree with it, but I understand and respect the need for it.

seosamh77 - Member
It really is, always amazes me how the security services were utterly shit at stopping IRA bombs, but manage to thwart about 99% of islamic attacks!

Either they've improved immeasurably, or we're dealing with extremely dimwitted jihadis(4 lions must have been a documentary! :lol:) or what we're discussing here is essentially propaganda.

Little off the mark there me old fruit. Politics hampered the rates of successful operations against the IRA. We were brutal in the early days, beaten confessions and the like, so as should happen, the elected officials pulled the reigns. Problem was they pulled too hard and that tight leash ended up making us pamper to them. Hence why so many convicted murderers of civilians walked free under the good Friday agreement. Sad, but true.

wobbliscott + 1
We're engaged in a war with IS

Except we're not though, are we? Since Iraq, you can't just go to war without the approval of parliament. For very good reason.

If Dave wants to got to war, which he clearly does, thats fine. He needs to put it before parliament, say 'we want to start bombing ISIS in Syria', debate it properly, and put it to a vote. Thats what happens in democracies. Supposedly.

But this looks like taking us to war by the back door, without recourse to the democratic process. Does anyone seriously think this is a one off? Or the first of many?

If you believe in taking on the Jihadi's, and you want the British military to launch another middle eastern adventure... fine... lets have it put before parliament, and see what everyone else thinks. See how enthusiastic everyone is for that?

FFS are me and binners agreeing?

It's all semantics binners. Technically we're at war with IS, but you cannot really be at war with an organisation. IS and their affiliates are a threat to the security of most western democracies, so as and when required the government will authorise strikes using military hardware against specific targets.

I get your points, and no matter what I say you will have your stance on it. Which I respect because it ensures balance. I just wish more information could be made available but for many more reasons than I could type it won't.

As for a ground campaign. It won't work because mission creep and politics will take over. Of late we don't have a good track record of making a plan and auctioning it. We flick from one idea to the next, with no consistency. All that does is get people killed and piss off the people we're supposed to be helping.

If only we had applied the same standards a few years ago

Files obtained by the website Wikileaks have revealed that the US believed many of those held at Guantanamo Bay were innocent or only low-level operatives.

The files, published in US and European newspapers, are assessments of all 780 people ever held at the facility.

They show that about 220 were classed as dangerous terrorists, but 150 were innocent Afghans and ****stanis.

It's all semantics binners. Technically we're at war with IS, but you cannot really be at war with an organisation. IS and their affiliates are a threat to the security of most western democracies, so as and when required the government will authorise strikes using military hardware against specific targets.

I don't care whether its semantics or not. We as a nation, appear to be embarking on another middle eastern adventure. Without being consulted, without any parliamentary debate, without any judicial oversight, and being asked to take their word as to the evidence.

Maybe we've just got a bit complacent? What with all the previous escapades having worked out so well?

Maybe we've just got a bit complacent? What with all the previous escapades having worked out so well?

Who can argue at the size of our dicks

I agree with Binners if you look at it very black and white, they have executed and now we have.

However, it appauls me that the Western World is prepared to kill people, because its legal. The 'legal' thing is all about appeasing us Westerners in to justifying what will happen, and ultimately to try and not loose the Government/President the next election.

To me if your going to have a war, its b@llocks all about legal justification. It's whether the country is impassioned to want to do some thing about a situation.

Me personally, all the talk of taking migrants in is pointless unless something is done about the situation at home. The only way to change things in their own country is to start killing a few people.

Mike - you put it so more eloquently than I ever could, but you're bang on! 😉

Me personally, all the talk of taking migrants in is pointless unless something is done about the situation at home. The only way to change things in their own country is to start killing a few people.

I think the question we need to be asking ourselves, dispassionately, is what will our involvement actually achieve? We've not got a good track record on improving matter through military involvement, have we?

Syria is in the midst of a bloody civil war with lots of participants, all as mental as each other, and all sorts of regional powers playing out their own agendas through proxies.

How is our presence, militarily, going to improve matters?

Its hardly likely too. Its just another party getting in there and throwing bombs around. Theres probably enough of those already

**** you binners, not that eloquent 😉

but hey why don't we all just get on with it and execute who we want.

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

Would have caused a lot less complaints.

[img] [/img]

We should have a poll, choose the next destination I reckon..

Thing is we cannot just intervene in Syria. Even though IS are operating there, it would be an invasion. Assad is still the leader of that country, he has Russian and China in his corner. It would never happen, even with UN resolutions. Not one single politician in the UK would dare propose something like that.

IEven with a clear and coherent goal, many people would die. Regular forces will always be at a disadvantage against insurgents. We have rules to follow, they don't. And I am not even going down the road like some who call for those rules to be abandoned. You can never defeat an insurgency by military might alone.

Would the Russians helping Assad out really be such a problem?
We have learnt that sometimes a complete bastard is needed to maintain stability.
Was Libya worse under Daffy or Iraq under saddam?

Although I am quite liberal I am getting a bit tired of liberal hand-wringing about some poor ickle IS fighters who support a murderous regime that have no respect for any laws beyond the one's they are making up.

I don't think anyone gives a shit about the IS fighters particularly, it's more about not just making up rules as you go along because you're the 'good guys'.

And those calling for military action against IS - it was our last little military adventure over there that created them in the first place. Then we supplied them/their allies with weapons and support to fight Assad. As winners says our track record isn't really that great.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/world/middle_east/the-hidden-hand-behind-the-islamic-state-militants-saddam-husseins/2015/04/04/aa97676c-cc32-11e4-8730-4f473416e759_story.html

Grum - I get all that, but the fact is there is now a problem with Migrants spilling out of the region.

Ultimately something needs to change.

What is everyones answer?

Should we supply arms to the 'good' migrants who are coming our way and tell them to go back and fight for their own country?

Should we go in and kill a few people?

Should we stand back and do nothing?

There is no easy answer is there....

I think the answer to migrants fleeing a war is to drop more bombs !!!!

Absolutely Dunc, bit f everything? But at this moment if we go in and kill people if goes bad if we do nothing it goes bad. Perhaps there is a chance that the people in the region can work this one out, perhaps they are allowed to hate us, perhaps if we stop ****ing with them it might help...

Funny how no one batted an eye lid previously when we were bombing ISIS in Iraq, putting in the SAS to get on the ground intelligence and also flying recon missions over both Iraq and Syria. Killing a couple of bad guys in Syria is hardly mission creep, we aren't planning to invade anytime soon.

IMO if you've messed up in the past all the more reason to help, not just run away and let ISIS crack on with genocide.

IMO if you've messed up in the past all the more reason to help, not just run away and let ISIS crack on with genocide.

And those calling for military action against IS - it was our last little military adventure over there that created them in the first place.

Ah, OK, so we'll just rewind the clock and pretend that never happened then, and everything will be alright?

"Well, I wouldn't start from here" doesn't help anyone

FFS there's some wilful naivety on here

appear to be embarking on another middle eastern adventure.

We now have a further interest as many people, some refugees & others migrants from across the Arab world, would prefer to live in Europe.

Much like the Arab world itself we're not sure whether we should.

However, should Dave be able to assassinate people willy nilly? That probably does need discussing in parliament. I guess in the past special forces would've just made them have an accident - so I wonder why Dave had to come clean?

Do I care about those two so called British Citizens? Errm that'll be a no. It's just that we stopped the death penalty for traitors back in the 90's (I think). Otherwise it would clearly be legal.

There is no easy answer is there....

No.

IMO if you've messed up in the past all the more reason to help, not just run away and let ISIS crack on with genocide.

What do you suggest we do?

Kimbers, ironically (tragically) it is. If we do nothing IS will grow in the region thereby causing more to flee. I really don't see what the problem is with that logic? Do you not agree that if IS captures more territory then more people will flee?

Binners, in response to your last comment on my comment (can't seem to suss out how to quote) we are at war with IS. How else do you define war. They're trying to kill us, and we are trying to kill them....except in Syria. We are, are we not, bombing at will IS positions in Iraq and other areas in that region? If these two guys were the other side of the boarder this wouldn't have even hit the headlines. If fact we wouldn't have even had to justify it on the basis of evidence.

I really don't see why the argument over the technicalities - it's just political point scoring ahead of the Labour Leadership contest and the worry of the contenders coming out disagreeing with Corbyn. OK, if it turns out the evidence is shakey, then there is an issue about integrity of how we're using inteligence. That is a seperate issue and would need to be tackled. But really, on what basis should we not be looking to kill these people? You can call it what you will, assasination, murder, war. A rose by any other name, one mans freedom fighter is another mans liberator and all that, but at the end of the day these people are trying to kill us. How else do you propose we tackle them....I guess we could, somehow, round them all up and put them in a compound, lets see, maybe somewhere nice like Cuba, and process them there... oh hang on, that wasn't acceptable either.

Maybe i'm missing something but I just don't think that trying to reason with these people is going to work. When has it ever worked in the past? We've sacrificed whole nations to vicious regimes in the past in the name of peace, and a World War and Genocide on an unprecidented scale was the result. So if we want to learn from the past, lets learn from the right past, and not the misguided mistakes of an egotistical and somewhoat mentally challenged US President.

Ooh, I haven't been on Handwringingtrackworld for a while and look what I missed!

Personally I applaud the PM having the bollocks to authorise this strike. If nothing else, it may may others in the UK think twice before following that path. As for the bigger picture, that is only important if we start venturing into other areas, but a surgical strike on a vehicle with no collateral damage sounds pretty good to me.

Rockape63 - Member

If nothing else, it may may others in the UK think twice before following that path.

Or, it may radicalise others, and provide ISIS with some convenient british martyrs for their recruiting. Especially when it's hung on a shoogly peg- "The british government kills our brothers without even a trial, they say they're democratic and just but politicians and soldiers kill us without their people and judges having a say!" PR gold.

moose - Member
Little off the mark there me old fruit. Politics hampered the rates of successful operations against the IRA. We were brutal in the early days, beaten confessions and the like, so as should happen, the elected officials pulled the reigns. Problem was they pulled too hard and that tight leash ended up making us pamper to them. Hence why so many convicted murderers of civilians walked free under the good Friday agreement. Sad, but true.

Not really wanting to get into the specifics of the IRA, as that's a murky conversation that will derail this thread.

My point was that if there was a true guerilla war we were facing we'd see far more successful attacks. I can't think of any guerilla war where the success ratio is so high(particularly in a country as open and as easy to attack as our own). So, imo, ulimatley what were read and hear about is largely political posturing and not alot more. (I'm talking with regards to interal attacks, not terrorism in the likes of Iraq and Syria).

The wee guy from Aberdeen is a case in point, how the hell is someone with a face that well known going to be able to come here and carry out attacks? It's utter nonsense and pure PR.

[i]Or, it may radicalise others, and provide ISIS with some convenient british martyrs for their recruiting. Especially when it's hung on a shoogly peg- "The british government kills our brothers without even a trial, they say they're democratic and just but politicians and soldiers kill us without their people and judges having a say!" PR gold.[/i]

Who gives flying **** what ISIS think....they are beneath contempt for what they are doing to people. If others follow that path then fine, it puts them in a place we can safely attack them. Eradicate them like the vermin they are, is the only option.

We don't want them here preaching death and destruction and carrying out various attacks.

Rockape63 - Member

Who gives flying **** what ISIS think...

Absolutely everyone who's affected by what they think, I reckon.

Eradicate them like the vermin they are, is the only option.

And if they see death as the culmination with the ultimate reward to come just after?

Will it not just draw more?

Can we expect to see their families sueing us?

wobbliscott - Member
Kimbers, ironically (tragically) it is. If we do nothing IS will grow in the region thereby causing more to flee. I really don't see what the problem is with that logic? Do you not agree that if IS captures more territory then more people will flee?

but assad has killed more civillians than IS

it would be great to irradicate the vermin but a decade of war in Afgahnistan and Iraq has failed to irradicate the vermin there, infact its helped create IS

the problem is that its a not a nice binary war there is
assad, backed by russia,
the USA/ 'Saudi and all the brutal but western friendly dictatorships we arm in the middle east' coalition,
the Kurds
Turkey
Iran
Israel (even fueling yemeni fighter now apparently!)

all opposed to IS but also hate each other with varying levels of paranoia and potential for conflict

who knew that toppling saddam would lead to the formation of AQ in Iraq, the end of Libya and Syria would mean the rise of Al-Nusra and the IS

IS recruits willing volunteers raised in the crucible of death we helped create in the middle east, the ripple sof the conflict so powerful that our own citizens are drawn to fight with them

Not really wanting to get into the specifics of the IRA, as that's a murky conversation that will derail this thread.

My point was that if there was a true guerilla war we were facing we'd see far more successful attacks. I can't think of any guerilla war where the success ratio is so high(particularly in a country as open and as easy to attack as our own). So, imo, ulimatley what were read and hear about is largely political posturing and not alot more. (I'm talking with regards to interal attacks, not terrorism in the likes of Iraq and Syria).

Well from Guardian 'Father of British Isis fighters fears they are on government hitlist' 😯

TBF they are also probably considered legitimate targets by Syria (government forces), Russia, Iran, US, Jordanian, Australian, French and possibly even Israel, if fighting for ISIS.

OP,

Good.

dragon - Member

Well from Guardian 'Father of British Isis fighters fears they are on government hitlist'

Good. oh ya they can claim asylum here ...

Or, it may radicalise others, and provide ISIS with some convenient british martyrs for their recruiting. Especially when it's hung on a shoogly peg- "The british government kills our brothers without even a trial, they say they're democratic and just but politicians and soldiers kill us without their people and judges having a say!" PR gold.

But this is the narrative anyway and precisely why wahabi / salafist beliefs have been propagating unchecked.

When you do a bit of digging the way that so many people have been convinced their "brothers" are oppressed is because they spend so much time listening to fundamentalists.

In many cases those who believe their community is somehow under attack have chosen or been encouraged to isolate themselves from the wider community, and in the case of women have been forced into isolation by virtue of the requirements to cover themselves and thus avoid face to face contact.

These communities often get most / all of their view of the world from local imams and "religious scholars" who were born outside of the UK and therefore have almost no understanding of how the UK works. These communities also typically get no news or information from uk based impartial sources - as evidenced by the many subscriptions to arabic TV channels and OFCOMs repeated attempts to stop access to channels that openly advocate violence against non believers / jewish / gay people etc. etc.

The whole belief system that underpins this movement is predicated on a "victim" mindset - the lack of participation with wider society enables it and in some cases it's ably abetted by well-meaning organisations (like universities) who happily give islamists credibility and a platform on which to spread their warped view of the world.

From what I'm led to believe from someone who works at the sharp end of anti-terrorism at home and abroad, you might be surprised. I certainly was.

You have a secret informer, how convenient 😆 Lets hope he is better read on the subject than you are.

wrecker - Member
From what I'm led to believe from someone who works at the sharp end of anti-terrorism at home and abroad, you might be surprised. I certainly was.

I'm always busy at work too! 😆

You have a secret informer, how convenient Lets hope he is better read on the subject than you are.

just5minutes - Member

When you do a bit of digging the way that so many people have been convinced their "brothers" are oppressed is because they spend so much time listening to fundamentalists.

And now we've 1) given them more ammunition and 2) undermined our counterargument further. A story based on a seed of truth's always stronger and when they're able to hold up a copy of the Sun going "gotcha", you can't tell me that doesn't help their cause.

He's certainly better than you!
Mind you, so is my dog.

Has your dog seen Rambo 3? That would certainly make him more informed than you about Russian involvement in the area.

But at least we now know where you get all your information from, your dog and a secret connected friend.

I'd say Iraq and Libya are the main reasons we didn't intervene in Syria, IS is different though, it's nothing to do with fighting a sovereign nation.

Nothing like IS has existed before in the modern world, it's not just a loose terrorist group. However I think the desire to form a Caliphate and have a base will probably turn out be their main weakness - that plays into conventional warfare tactics

But at least we now know where you get all your information from, your dog and a secret connected friend.

However I think the desire to form a Caliphate and have a base will probably turn out be their main weakness - that plays into conventional warfare tactics

Once they take Cardiff we can have a clean war and just bomb the hell out of the welsh.

There was an article linked to by someone on here the author tried to understand ISIS in their own context he argued they are a deliberate planned Death cult. Their horrific actions beheadings, burning alive, drowning throwing off tall buildings deliberately reference incidents in the historical account of the Koran. If so then they actually want to engage in a boots on the ground conventional war and the difficult bit is they expect and want to lose in a massive bloody and costly way as a necessary prerequisite for a resurgence of a "pure" Islam . The argument is that all their actions are provocations to bring about this Armageddon Prophesy .
If true not sure where that leaves our military might. Personally I would explore containing isolating and starving them of funding then let their state collapse economically and socially. To do that in an ethical way would necessitate us accepting and accommodating those who fled the region though.

crankboy - Member
Their horrific actions

This bugs the hell out of me tbh, don't get me wrong, I'm against everything ISIS stand for, but the idea that they are somehow more barbaric than any other war is ridicilous. Soon as someone is declared an enemy combatant in any war all sorts of nasty shit happens from all sides in every war.

It's pretty much the reason why i'm against every war and have been for a long time! War is the domain of ****s.

Hard to think of another group who burn people alive or drown them in cages as a propaganda exercise. Last mass beheadings were the Japanese in China . War is very horrible and lots of truly appalling shit happens but this institutionalised torture porn propaganda is out of the ordinary I can think of some other examples e.g. isolated incidents in Serbia and Vietnam but to suggest it is a norm of war is wrong.

crankboy - Member
There was an article linked to by someone on here the author tried to understand ISIS in their own context he argued they are a deliberate planned Death cult. Their horrific actions beheadings, burning alive, drowning throwing off tall buildings deliberately reference incidents in the historical account of the Koran. If so then they actually want to engage in a boots on the ground conventional war and the difficult bit is they expect and want to lose in a massive bloody and costly way as a necessary prerequisite for a resurgence of a "pure" Islam . The argument is that all their actions are provocations to bring about this Armageddon Prophesy .

Yeap. Spot on. They want glorious death in order to drag more into the "holy" war.

If true not sure where that leaves our military might. Personally I would explore containing isolating and starving them of funding then let their state collapse economically and socially. To do that in an ethical way would necessitate us accepting and accommodating those who fled the region though.

Well, if you have the will there is a way. The problem is lacking political will ...

Isolating and starving are the very tactic that should be deployed long ago. It was very successful in the far east when fighting the communist insurgents. Move the population to a region then erect some sort of buffer zone between the fanatic on one side and normal population on the other ... Nobody gets in or out.

The communists were starving and eating grass (just saying like) to survive ...

Ya, starve them and let's see if they good farmers and able to feed themselves in their own paradise.

crankboy - Member
Last mass beheadings were the Japanese in China

What they are doing now is child play compare to what the Japanese did to Chinese in WWII.

IS seems to revel in its brutality, but the jihadists dont have to look far inspiration or to come up with propoganda to recruit more and justify their actions....

the images of naked POWs piled on top of each other, on dog leads, smeared in shit for a joke at Abhu Graib, go on google images it

or the death of Baha Mousa....

A final 1,400-page report said a "large number" of soldiers assaulted Mousa and that many others, including officers, must have known about the abuse. The report called his death an "appalling episode of serious gratuitous violence".[2] The inquiry condemned the Ministry of Defence for "corporate failure" and the regiment for a "lack of moral courage to report abuse

The inquiry heard that Mousa was hooded for almost 24 hours during his 36 hours of custody by the 1st Battalion of the Queen's Lancashire Regiment and that he suffered at least 93 injuries prior to his death. The report later details that Mousa was subject to several practices banned under both domestic law and the Geneva Conventions. Seven British soldiers were charged in connection with the case. Six were found not guilty

who is the most barbaric?

Did they not want to die for their cause? Mission accomplished then.

kimbers - Member
IS seems to revel in its brutality, the jihadists dont have to look far to come up with propoganda to recruit more and justify their actions....

At some point in the future they will have to behead their own jihadists if they are isolated. You know not enough heads to be chopped for propaganda etc ...

kimbers - Member
who is the most barbaric?

At some point in the future they will have to behead their own jihadists.

Watch [url= http://www.dailymotion.com/video/x20su5f_the-power-of-nightmares-1-the-rise-of-the-politics-of-fear-bbc-2004_news ]The Power of Nightmares[/url] by Adam Curtis. It explains that whenever the jihadists get a hold somewhere, they're so factional, (think Peoples Front of Judea/Judeans Peoples Front) it inevitably ends up dissolving into a bloody game of 'I'm more Islamic than You' with similar effects to the crack Welsh Suicide Squad, who may well have been from Cardiff

binners - Member
... (think Peoples Front of Judea/Judeans Peoples Front)

😆 Yep.

who is the most barbaric?

This isn't some rationale to send troops in, I'm against military action. It's just a reminder of how savage these "people" are, and why everyone is running like buggery to get away from them.

who is the most barbaric?

are you for real Kimbers.

burning the pilot alive in a cage?
beheadings
throwing people off buildings
strapping people in to a car before shooting it with an RPG
drowning in cages
mass beheadings,
child executioners
people digging their own graves
explosives detonated around mens necks

i suggest you get a grip, and find out what is happening in reality.

lets not forget the murder of Khalid al-assad
beheaded and tied to the pillars of a palmyra column his head placed at his feet.

some people need a dose of reality

wrecker - Member
Reports of ISIS using babies for demolitions training, routinely crucifying, drowning, burning and shooting people for little or no reason, killing children for not fasting during ramadan and committing what is tantamount to genocide.

They are doing just that - genocide, but they are also very good at turning the argument on the West etc by accusing the west of indirect genocide ...

This isn't some rationale to send troops in, I'm against military action. It's just a reminder of how savage these "people" are, and why everyone is running like buggery to get away from them.

At some point the peace will have to come from the barrel of the gun.
If they bleed then they can die. You have no choice. Short term pain or long term misery ... you need to fight them or be slaughtered. Sitting and running away is not a solution.

my point is that the killing of baha mousa (was not an isolated incident according to our own report)

and the torture of prisoners at abu graib etc, (also doccumented by the troops that carried it out)

a [u]million[/u] dead Iraqi civillians, daily drone strikes for the last 10 + years, these IS Jihadists grew up in this
we helped create their mentality

What the QLR's did was reprehensible

where do you get the million dead from?

and the uk forces were not committing barbaric acts as the norm as you suggest.

Iraq body count varies wildly, 1millions defintely the upper estimate!
all reports put the majority of dead as civillians

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ORB_survey_of_Iraq_War_casualties

add up Afgahnistan and ****stan etc however

http://www.theguardian.com/world/2015/sep/08/german-intelligence-confirms-isis-used-mustard-gas-in-iraq-says-news-report

Sigh.

really reprehensible? thats the best you can up with, it was murder for fun as far as I can tell, IS are surely guilty of far worse crimes

reprehensible
?r?pr??h?ns?b(?)l/
adjective
adjective: reprehensible

deserving censure or condemnation.
"his complacency and reprehensible laxity"
synonyms: deplorable, disgraceful, discreditable, disreputable, despicable, blameworthy, culpable, wrong, bad, shameful, dishonourable, ignoble, erring, errant, objectionable, odious, opprobrious, repugnant, inexcusable, unpardonable, unforgivable, insufferable, indefensible, unjustifiable, regrettable, unacceptable, unworthy, remiss; More

and I would love to see them punished for them but
I dont believe that invading and bombing the shit out of the region again will do anything other than create more monsters

I was looking at that wikipedia and the fugre varies massively

one is too many, but hard to get accurate numbers.

Two more cretins from IS are not something I will lose sleep over

I can't disagree. But I also haven't yet heard a remotely viable proposal from anyone about what to do about it.

Absolutely, I wish I did have a solution

but based on the last decade of western intervention in the middle east bombing IS to protect the people they are brutalising will only end up killing more civilians than IS soldiers

I'm usually pretty live and let live..

I understand that our persecution and attempted westernisation over centuries and backed up with extreme military action has led to the current situation.. That probably it wouldn't be very unlikely if ISIS believed that the [i]west[/i] had waged holy war on [i]them[/i]

But unless we are prepared to martyr ourselves to their cause out of a sense of guilt (I'm not prepared to do that) then they have to be stopped..
That is the present reality

And all's fair in love and jihad

Telegraph Poll. 96% support action as self defence.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/islamic-state/11849429/Con-Coughlin-Good-riddance-to-British-terrorists.html

It's all well and good when we're deploying drones to take out terrorists. What will be interesting is when Putin uses them to takes out someone in Latvia, China in Tibet, North Korea,....

We won't have much of a moral high ground will we!

After that he'll be poisoning dissidents in London with Polonium 210.

Cameron's 'authorisation' has little to no bearing on said drone strikes ..

crankboy - Member
Hard to think of another group who burn people alive or drown them in cages as a propaganda exercise. Last mass beheadings were the Japanese in China . War is very horrible and lots of truly appalling shit happens but this institutionalised torture porn propaganda is out of the ordinary I can think of some other examples e.g. isolated incidents in Serbia and Vietnam but to suggest it is a norm of war is wrong.

My point is that innocent lives are taken in war by all sides with great disregard, I struggle to see isis beheading someone and bombs being drop form 30,000ft as something vastly different.

Murder is murder to me.

And that's before we get into ISIS being a direct result of UK/US foriegn policy. So the blame for them comes right back to our door step. So it's all nice to be morally outraged, but lets remember why they are doing what they do.

you really cannot see that you can wage war and wage war in a much worse way? 😯

The term war crime must be really confusing for you
thanks aracer and toys it works great

Junkyard - lazarus
you really cannot see that you can wage war and wage war in a much worse way?

The term war crime must be really confusing for you

It's not confusing to me in the slightest.

Slight hijack.

😆 => Channel 4 Jon Snow (just now about female refugee brutality in neighboring countries) = talking about the brutality of war to a female Egyptian journalist, the Egyptian journalist was very surprised when Jon snow made a big deal about all the brutality. The female journalist responded by saying nothing new about ISIS chopping off hands/heads etc [b]coz in S. Arabia everyday is ISIS[/b] ... That shut Jon Snow up ... 😆