British jihadis
Ethics & Morality

Cameron declares war on British Jihadists

 

“Today, I can inform the House that in an act of self-defence and after meticulous planning, Reyaad Khan was killed in a precision airstrike carried out on 21 August by an RAF remotely piloted aircraft while he was travelling in a vehicle in the area of Raqqa in Syria,” the Prime Minister announced to a stunned House of Commons yesterday. “In addition to Reyaad Khan, who was the target of the strike, two ISIL associates were also killed, one of whom, Ruhul Amin, has been identified as a UK national. They were ISIL fighters, and I can confirm that there were no civilian casualties,” he added.

And he justified this act because, he said, “there was no alternative”:

In this area, there is no Government we can work with; we have no military on the ground to detain those preparing plots; and there was nothing to suggest that Reyaad Khan would ever leave Syria or desist from his desire to murder us at home, so we had no way of preventing his planned attacks on our country without taking direct action.

We may not read the read the legal advice because the Prime Minister invokes national security. All that we know is that the action was “entirely lawful” because of a “direct threat”, and the Attorney General told him that “there would be a clear legal basis for action in international law”. Since there was “clear evidence” that Reyaad Khan and Ruhul Amin were not only engaged in jihadist pursuits in Syria but were also “planning and directing armed attacks against the UK”, the Prime Minister insisted that by ordering their killing, he was “exercising the UK’s inherent right to self-defence”: taking them out was “the only feasible means of effectively disrupting the attacks that had been planned and directed”. He concluded:

My first duty as Prime Minister is to keep the British people safe. That is what I will always do. There was a terrorist directing murder on our streets and no other means to stop him. The Government do not for one minute take these decisions lightly, but I am not prepared to stand here in the aftermath of a terrorist attack on our streets and have to explain to the House why I did not take the chance to prevent it when I could have done. That is why I believe our approach is right. I commend this statement to the House.

Cue outrage: “Draconian,” said former Attorney General Dominic Grieve. “This is extra-judicial killing,” said Kate Hudson of the Campaign for Nuclear Disarmament. “A British prime minister now claims the right to kill British citizens when they travel abroad.”

Well, with respect to Ms Hudson, a Briton who declares war on his own nation and directs the murder of his fellow Britons has both ceased to be British and defaulted on his citizenship. If he is not subject to British law, he is not one of us.

The Prime Minister said that this was “the first time in modern times that a British asset has been used to conduct a strike in a country where we’re not involved in a war”.

But we are at war. Not, of course, against Syria: Parliament determined last year that there would be no military intervention against Assad. But we are at war against Jihadism, for the Jihadists not only hate us; they long ago declared war against all that we hold dear – our freedom, justice, democracy, rule of law: our whole culture of liberty based on Judæo-Christian precepts is anathema to the Islamist. Their response is to kill, degrade and destroy: it is to use our liberties against us; to appeal to our generous tolerance to tolerate their intolerance; to invoke our freedom of speech to speak freely against our freedoms.

If British citizens abscond to Syria to direct by Twitter a plot to assassinate Her Majesty the Queen, why must Her Majesty’s Government be expected to pause for due legal process? What may reasonably be swiftly established in an English court of law if the suspects may not be captured to stand trial before executing their target?

Downing Street officials indicated further similar strikes could take place on a “case by case” basis. Well, there are some 700 British Jihadists known to the security services, about half of whom are plotting from their homes next door. If it were justifiable to assassinate British citizens in Syria on the basis of “clear evidence”, it must be justifiable (at least) to round up the rest of these British Jihadists and incarcerate them – pending trial, of course.

The suspension of trial by jury, Habeas Corpus and the presumption of innocence is never acceptable in peacetime. But we are at war, and British Jihadists seek to maim, kill and destroy their British compatriots, because their Mohammedology doesn’t entertain fraternal bonds for anyone but the Ummah, or feelings of loyalty to anything but the Islamic State; the Caliphate. By ordering a military assassination with a justificatory appeal to self-defence, David Cameron has declared war on Jihadism; the nexus of the War on Terror.

Astonishingly, there are those who object to this targeted assassination because it amounts to military force in Syria without parliamentary authorisation. Former head of the British Army, General Lord Dannatt told Sky News that “by the letter of what Parliament has authorised, that may well not be right”.

Whatever happened to the Royal Prerogative? Does General Lord Dannatt really believe that Parliament must debate and vote before the Prime Minister may take urgent, necessary and proportionate action to protect the life of the Queen? Since it’s all televised and broadcast around the world, wouldn’t Reyaad Khan and Ruhul Amin be ever so slightly appreciative of the advanced warning of a plan to blow them to smithereens? Honestly, how can anyone reasonably demand that every military action abroad must be preceded by a majority vote in the House of Commons?

By all accounts, Reyaad Khan and Ruhul Amin were barbarous, brutal and evil. They laughed at decapitations and revelled in bloodthirsty ‘executions’, which were nothing but cold-blooded murder.

The Prime Minister announced that six terror attacks on Britain have been foiled this year. Had they been successful, we would be a nation in shock, mourning and perpetual fear.

Dominic Grieve is persuaded that the families of the two Jihadists will now sue the Government for £millions, and be able to present a powerful case in a court of law. Perhaps the Campaign for Nuclear Disarmament might fund it on behalf of the grieving parents, whom we must not forget are devastated and distraught at the loss of their sons.

But the most potent testimony they could give to their faith; and the greatest witness they could convey of their staunch opposition to Islamism, radicalisation and religious extremism, would be to tour the TV studios and mosques to publicly proclaim that the Prime Minister was fully justified in ordering their sons’ killing; and that they condemn absolutely the Islamist creed of nihilism and hate which manipulates minds and corrodes hearts – even of young children. For Allah’s sake, Reyaad Khan was actively recruiting other British Muslims and luring them to Syria and Iraq. Ruhul Amin sat in front of ISIS’s black flag and asked: “Are you willing to sacrifice the fat job you’ve got, the big car you’ve got, the family you have? Are you willing to sacrifice this, for the sake of Allah?” These weren’t British citizens: they were traitors.

We have a choice. Either we drone-bomb British Jihadists with 500lb laser-guided Hellfire missiles on the streets of  Raqqa, or we wait for one to blow up the Queen or blitz the London Marathon, and then listen as they pathetically plead a defence of jihadi-induced depression.

We are at war. The protagonists are perpetrating crimes against humanity and would slaughter us all, given half a chance. They went out from us and dwell among us. This is not a time to quibble over deontological ethical absolutes: the death of a British citizen at the hands of the British Military by command of the British Prime Minister is disquieting, but if we do not eradicate the units of oppression, they will eventually unite against the British State to contend against Western civilisation. You may call it state terrorism: the unjust law is not law. But when it is directed against British Jihadists, there is no obligation to care.

  • CliveM

    Outside the Muslim community and the lefty suburb of Kensington, will anyone care? The BBC may be attempting to whip up some false outrage (see this mornings report from Cardiff), but as far as the rest of us are concerned, good. Life is a little safer.

    However expect court cases, lawyers feeding at the trough and European Judges deciding in favour of the ‘poor grieving’ families.

    • bmudmai

      I would also suggest that Labour are trying to pounce on this as an opportunity to level the playing field over Iraq and WMDs. That’s what has destroyed labour and if they could get this then it brings them back on. Fortunately, it doesn’t appear to have worked and the majority agree with the government’s action!

  • Dreadnaught

    Piddling around the finer points of law and arguing for or against traitorous enemy combatants should be laughed out of the public arena. The news agencies are already giving platforms to these bastards’ supporters who crawl from under the stones of politically correct, multicultural safety and focus not on the traitors, but the entire British state’s response to national security.

  • No doubt there will be those who will want a public enquiry and Cameron to be put on trial. Another Chilcot enquiry, spending millions on lawyers which could be better spent on better equipping our forces.
    One of the few things that Cameron has done that I fully agree with.

  • IanCad

    I don’t like this one bit.

    Were these nasties not UK subjects, then fine and dandy.
    This is sentence without trial. Something entirely alien to our principles and constitution.

    “Trust me, I’m from the government.” We all know about that.

    This is a slippery slope.

    What’s to be done? I’m thinking – I’m thinking, but I must confess that I have no idea as yet.

    • Inspector General

      War casualties…

      • IanCad

        The worse casualty is the voiding of the rule of law.

        • Inspector General

          There is no law in war. For it to be so is utterly perverse…

          • IanCad

            Not saying there should be – if we declare war.

          • Hugh Jeego

            Does one need to declare war if war has already been declared against one?

          • IanCad

            No.

          • Has ISIS now been granted nationhood with the ability to declare and wage war? They are a bunch of marauding bandits who should be dealt with by the states in which they operate. Surely, they should be held accountable too.

          • Never heard of the Geneva Convention or the Hague Conventions?

          • James Bolivar DiGriz

            They only apply to citizens of countries that have accepted (ratified?) them.

            If you are saying that ISIS is not a country then it is not possible for them to accept those conventions.

            Also, one of the articles in the appropriate Geneva Convention makes it clear that the rights only apply to combatants in uniform. Combatants not in uniform have no protection and can be shot out of hand.

            Hence all of the hand-wring that people taken to Gitmo should have their rights under the Geneva Conventions was actually calling for them to be shot without any sort of trial whatsoever.

            BTW uniform is defined pretty elastically. It might be a bright yellow ribbon tied to the left arm. But it must be obvious so that another combatant can clearly tell who is a combatant and who is not from a distance.

          • Jack was replying to the Inspector’s assertion and pointing out that there are limits to behaviour in war and that it is not a free for all.

          • James Bolivar DiGriz

            But absent agreements between the combatant governments to create them there are no limits and it is a free for all.

            If that was not the case then the Saint Petersburg Declaration, the Hague Conventions, the Geneva Conventions, etc would not have had to be drawn up.

            When none of these apply, and that is the current situation, then there are no limits and it is a free for all.

          • There are legal constraints on the British government conducting targeted killings in a sovereign nation, Syria, without permission from them and without the authority of Parliament.

          • James Bolivar DiGriz

            The only legal constraints are ones that we choose to put upon ourselves.

            As you seem to have accepted, your references to the international conventions are irrelevant. When any combat operation starts, a set of RoE are drawn up and, inter alia, a summary card is issued to every serviceman. Those RoE are different in every situation, because every situation is different.

            So the RoE for this operation are what we choose them to be. In practise they will be heavily constrained but only because that is what we choose.

            The US operates a similar system (published RoE, summary cards, etc) and is a signatory to the same treaties that the UK is. However Peace prize winner Obama has been killing people left, right and centre. More in a single year than Bush did in eight years, IIRC.
            Why is some legal constraint on the US not visible? Because there is no external legal constraint.

          • Inspector General

            There are in place ‘limits to behaviour in war’ as there were once agreements on European colonisation. In the case of the former, the Japanese ignored Geneva, and celebrated this by the hospital atrocities at Singapore and Hong Kong. No doubt from where Goebbels got his idea of ‘total war’ from…

          • And that is what? A justification to do whatever it takes, by whatever means necessary?

          • Inspector General

            Saints be praised! You are beginning to understand what this war business is all about…

          • Ivan M

            From Trotsky? From Lenin? From Tukhachevsky? From Lunachevsky? From Stalin?

          • Ivan M

            They should either have shot them outright as irregular combatants, or released them after a while. It is the neither fish nor fowl rules that the Americans make up that caused all the problems. Since effectively they had conducted an illegal war against Iraq, they had no recourse to a settled body of laws.

          • James Bolivar DiGriz

            “It is the neither fish nor fowl rules that the Americans make up that caused all the problems.”

            Totally agree. Of course many of the people complaining about Gitmo did not seem to understand this and thought that any detention was wrong and/or they have been treated as PoWs.

            “Since effectively they had conducted an illegal war against Iraq”

            I’m afraid I must disagree. It may well have been a stupid idea and clearly had a lot of bad consequences but it was not ‘illegal’.

            There is no international body of law imposed on countries nor an international police force & court system. Countries sign up to international treaties and they can honour or break them. In the latter case they will only get into trouble if other countries cause trouble for them.

    • magnolia

      Yes, just suppose it was based on wrong intelligence information…. One might hope that never happens…..one might hope….but we can all think of recent occasions when it has.

      Hence the need for a court of law. Suppose we have one day a Government that decides Christians are a threat, and need reining in.

      Oh wait……

      And then they decide Christians are an even worse threat….

      And then you go abroad…

    • Jack shares your disquiet – and not just because they were British citizens for all their traitorous activities.

      Why did Cameron make this unexpected announcement yesterday?

  • bluedog

    Not so long ago, this communicant pointed out that the French Army was allegedly to be deployed in order to reclaim parts of France where the civil power had lost the capacity to govern. There is no suggestion that British ex-pats are the problem.

    Whacking British jihadis in Syria is a very good idea, it’s not happening in the UK. But as the numbers of Muslims grow with each cave-in and blow-out on the immigration front, how long before the French situation evolves in Britain? What would be the response to a major insurgency and seizure of territory? A drone strike?

  • Inspector General

    There is historical precedent for what now is. That of being declared an outlaw. In other words, no longer under the protection of the law of the land due to actions made by the wretch that rendered him no longer fit to enjoy protection the law would give him. The state of outlawness is not to be bestowed after a fair trial. It is an executive decision.

    One suggests the government explores this avenue and use plenty of legislative concrete to re-establish the principle in law. The number of necessary occurrences may well run into the thousands.

    Of course, we will have to cede from European Courts of (Terrorists) Human Rights, but as we are leaving the EU anyway, that will be no problem…

    • bluedog

      Remember, Inspector, that the European Court of HR is not an EU agency. So leaving the EU has no effect on the UK relationship with the court. Happy?

      • Inspector General

        One realises that, mans best friend, but just consider withdrawal from all these ghastly doings a job lot.

        • bluedog

          Can’t disagree, Inspector. May Cameron’s defeat in the Commons be the shape of things to come where his position on the EU is concerned.

      • James Bolivar DiGriz

        Before commenting it is worth being sure of what you are talking about.

        The ECHR and the EU top court (the ECJ IIRC) are inter-related. They regard each other as setting guidance if not precedence.

        They also regard themselves as being totally above the law that founded them, but that is another matter.

        • bluedog

          ‘Before commenting it is worth being sure of what you are talking about.’
          Well who would have thought that.
          My statement that the ECHR is not an EU agency is correct. ‘Inter-related’ does not mean established by or within the jurisdiction of.

          • James Bolivar DiGriz

            “My statement that the ECHR is not an EU agency is correct”
            De jure but not de facto. As an ECHR ruling can affect an ICJ ruling then the ECHR is an EU body, even if it was not established by the EU.

          • bluedog

            You’re struggling. What’s the ICJ got to do with this, other than to provide you with an opportunity to move the goal-posts and cover your retreat?

          • James Bolivar DiGriz

            I have not moved anything, I made a simple simple typo (slip of the brain not of the finger) and put an ‘I’ where I meant an ‘E’.

            The ECHR was not established by the EU but because of the linkage between the courts has more impact on EU countries than on non-EU countries.

            Hence “So leaving the EU has no effect on the UK relationship with the [ECHR]” is not correct.

          • bluedog

            So, we are reduced to believing your opinion with regard to the outcome of Brexit, it’s a future possibility, not a fact.

            Does offering your opinion justify the gratuitous pomposity of ‘Before commenting it is worth being sure of what you are talking about.’?

          • James Bolivar DiGriz

            It is not my opinion about what might happen in the future, but current fact that the courts are interrelated and the ECHR has more impact on EU countries than on non-EU countries.

            If anyone was pompous it was you declaring that Brexit would no change at all to the impact that the ECHR has on UK.

    • IanCad

      Come off it Inspector. Bills of Attainder were abolished years ago.
      Sure – you will probably agitate for their re-instatement, but you should remember the injustices wrought by their zealous advocates.

  • Busy Mum

    “Are you willing to sacrifice the fat job you’ve got, the big car you’ve got, the family you have? Are you willing to sacrifice this, for the sake of Christ?”

    Are people like Kahn and Amin the real traitors?…or was British Christianity destroyed by materialism first?

    • sarky

      No, People just awoke from their slumber and saw it for what it is.

      • Busy Mum

        What it is….or what it was?

        • sarky

          Both, although what it is now is a toothless feeble echo of what it was.

          • Inspector General

            “Toothless and feeble”?

            You need Dignity in Dying…

          • sarky

            So does christianity.

          • bluedog

            You must be overjoyed that the youth of today prefer radical Islam to your own radical secularism. Or have I got that wrong?

          • sarky

            I think it’s pretty obvious you have got that wrong. A few youths don’t talk for the youth of today, who on the whole are secularists.

          • Busy Mum

            It’s hardly an echo – an echo would at least bear some resemblance to the original!

  • bmudmai

    Is it any surprise Jeremy Corbyn is opposing the governments action? I suppose he doesn’t want to see his friends attacked.

  • Inspector General

    Our law is now like an overflowing toilet. Thanks Europe!

    Let the families sue, let them be awarded 50 million a piece. May the queen be directed to provide them all with a grace and favour home in Kensington, and let the immediate family members all be made life peers. Perhaps Welby could conduct a service of thanksgiving and remembrance for their blessed lives at St Pauls, and their rocket propelled grenade launchers be assigned to the walls of Westminster Abbey. May their images be cast in bronze and erected in town centres all over the land. May stamps be commissioned that bear their likeness and a new bank holiday declared in their honour.

    • Politically__Incorrect

      Inspector, I think you’ve overlooked their right to whine and moan on the BBC and Channel 4 News, facilitated by the media’s carefully-crafted leading questions to their carefully-selected guests

  • Jon Sorensen

    “liberty based on Judæo-Christian precepts”. Really? I thought UK has freedom of religion.

    • Busy Mum

      Unlike all other religions, Judaeo-Christian precepts give you the freedom to disbelieve. That is why the UK has – or rather, had – freedom of religion and true liberty.

      • Jon Sorensen

        You are clearly wrong. Many pagan and Eastern religions advocate freedom of religion.

        And if you had read the Bible you would know that your God does not tolerate competition nor advocate freedom of religion. You will not find freedom of religion in the Bible.

        “I am the Lord thy God, Thou shalt have no other gods before me”

        “They entered into a covenant to seek the Lord, the God of their fathers, with all their heart and soul; and everyone who would not seek the Lord, the God of Israel, was to be put to death, whether small or great, whether man or woman”

        • That was with one people who, at Mount Sinai, accepted the terms of the Covenant.

          • Jon Sorensen

            Wasn’t that your God giving moral guidelines? Can we assume God’s moral guidelines don’t change?

          • That Covenant entailed detailed Mosaic Laws in addition to the unchanging Moral Laws. This served a specific and contingent purpose – the transformation of a group of nomadic tribes into a nation to be fit for the arrival of their Promised Messiah.
            The Covenant was fulfilled in Jesus the Christ – the Mosaic Law (not the Moral Law) and the New Covenant was extended to all the peoples of the earth.

          • Jon Sorensen

            I thought Till heaven and earth pass away not one jot and tittle of the Mosaic Laws was to be changed. Are you now saying it is now changed?

            Changed or not changed?

          • The Mosaic Covenant was accomplished and fulfilled in Christ. And the correct quote is:

            For truly I tell you, until heaven and earth disappear, not the smallest letter, not the least stroke of a pen, will by any means disappear from the Law until everything is accomplished.”

          • Jon Sorensen

            So what’s your point?

            “until everything is accomplished”
            So has Jesus accomplished everything and He is not coming back to do more?

          • The victory over Satan and has been won by Christ on the Cross. He will return in His own good time to eliminate evil once and for all.

          • Jon Sorensen

            According to you Jesus will return and accomplished more. And according to the Jesus until everything is accomplished the Mosaic Laws stands.

            Somehow you think the Mosaic Laws have changed. You seem to hold contradictory views. Use reason and logic, and have a think about it.

          • Jesus conquered and defeated evil on the Cross. What more has He to accomplish? The Mosaic promise was fulfilled. Next comes Judgement.

          • Jon Sorensen

            If He defeated evil is Satan now dead or is Satan still working?

            According to you Jesus “defeated evil” 2000 years ago, but He will come “to eliminate evil” again. Clearly He has not accomplished everything if He still has to come back to “eliminate evil”.

            Your story is so contradictory. Try to clear this in your head first using reason and logic. If you belief system has contradictions maybe it is worth rethinking what you believe in.

          • Satan is an immortal spirit engaged in his last campaign to drag souls to Hell. If your read scripture you’ll see Christ will return when His Gospel has been taught to the world and when His Father’s first chosen people return to Him. One doesn’t dictate time scales to God.

          • Jon Sorensen

            I’m not arguing if “Christ will return when His Gospel has been taught to the world” or if “One doesn’t dictate time scales to God”.

            I just showed that you believe in contradictory views at the same time. And you need to think it over.

          • You haven’t demonstrated the views are contradictory at all merely that they require careful study and prayerful reflection.

          • Jon Sorensen

            I haven’t demonstrated the views are contradictory. You did it.

            You told that Jesus will come “to eliminate evil” again, but you also believe He has already accomplished everything.

          • He has fulfilled and accomplished everything. All of us now have the opportunity to know and love God and to spend eternity with Him. So far as Satan is concerned, let’s call this age a mopping-up exercise. For man, we have to be open to God’s grace and not actively resist it.

        • Busy Mum

          I know very well that God is a ‘jealous god’ and will not tolerate competition. It is precisely because of this that Judaeo-Christian precepts leave it to God to prove it in His own way and time…..’Vengeance is Mine, saith the Lord’…. whilst all others think they are sent to fight their gods’ battles. The God of the Bible fights His own.

          And don’t forget that it was because of unbelief that the Covenant people were doomed to wander for 40 years, and then die, in the wilderness.

          • Jon Sorensen

            You haven’t read history at all have you. There is and has been plenty of God’s people on earth to do his work = vengeance.

            And there is no evidence of 40 year exodus….

          • Ivan M

            Forty years of conning the Israelites, who were promised a land overflowing with milk and honey, from the word go. And because they held Jehovah to his promise, they all had to die at the edge of the Promised Land.

            Yahweh, the used car salesman from hell.

          • Jon Sorensen

            It’s an origin myth and “40” is of course a symbolic number…

          • Ivan M

            Which explains the schizophrenia, in the older parts of the Bible.

          • Busy Mum

            Well, exactly – the Muslims are subconsiously doing God’s work on earth now – wreaking vengeance on a wicked and ungrateful decadent West. Maybe the ‘times of the Gentiles’ are reaching fulfillment….

          • Jon Sorensen

            Sure. It’s always end times. No wonder why the world is such a mess when Christians, Muslims, Jews, Mormons, JWs etc constantly announce, believe and long for the end times. And of course… it’s someone else’s fault. Especially “West” who provided medicine, food, wealth and shelter for the world.

          • Busy Mum

            End times for the West just like it was end times for the Mayans, the Incas etc etc. And it was the Christian West that provided medicine, food, wealth and shelter – nothing inherently good or superior about Westerners, as we shall see in the (near?) future….

          • Jon Sorensen

            The people who believe end is near prepare for end times and don’t focus on developing medicine. West has progress by people who don’t focus on end times, which kind of ruins your point. sorry.

            And look at Near East. It is full of end-timers like you.

          • CliveM

            An assertion underpinned with no evidence.

          • Jon Sorensen

            An assertion underpinned with nonsense.

          • CliveM

            Well yes but that’s typical of your posts.

      • dannybhoy

        Not sure about that one Busy Mum. Only in very recent times have we been relatively tolerant. Indeed most of the wars in our history have been around religion. Our civil war springs to mind, the troubles in Northern Ireland…?

        • James60498 .

          NI.

          British (often Scottish, hence the kilt) v. Irish. With religion used as an excuse.

          • Jon Sorensen

            You sound like a Christian salesman. Trying to minimise the religious problems. Isn’t Belfast divided to Catholic and Protestant areas…

          • James60498 .

            Yes. In theory.

            But that is because the vast majority of Catholics are Irish and have been forever, whilst most of the Protestants are the descendants of the British, often Scottish, settlers who moved into the North.

            Yes there are occasional Vatican flags in “Catholic” (Nationalist/ Republican) areas, but they are nearly all Irish tricolours. And what you would call Protestant areas, which I would rather call Unionist (or the more extreme, loyalist) are full of Union Flags.

            Sinn Fein are one of the most unCatholic parties anywhere in Europe, but they retain much of the Irish (as well as socialist) vote and therefore appear to be Catholic, although a number of more thinking Catholics voted DUP at the last election.

            Yes. There is certainly some religious element. Yes, of course there are differences, otherwise there wouldn’t be Catholic and Protestant, and, this being NI, the differences are exaggerated. But for most, that is an excuse rather than reality.

            Many of The Irish are still fighting

        • magnolia

          The causes of the English civil war were actually quite complex and there were a number of societal and economic factors, as well as religious and particularly political principles all enmeshed.

        • Busy Mum

          But only in very very recent times has the word tolerant been overused and misused to such an extent….!

    • dannybhoy

      Sikhs are peaceful, Hindus are peaceful, most Muslims are peaceful, Chinese and other Asiatics are peaceful. When adherents of a religion take a hardline /fundamentalist interpretation of their faith which threatens your nation you don’t tolerate it.

      • Jon Sorensen

        Unfortunately all religions create hardliners.

        • dannybhoy

          But not all religious hardliners want to kill/torture/decapitate/impose their values on other people do they?

          • Jon Sorensen

            Too many of them seem to. CoE Bishops seem to want to impose their values on everyone else and a lot of moderate Christians support them.

          • dannybhoy

            Now let me see…
            the last time I saw an Archbishop of Canterbury waving a sword or organising a Crusade was………

          • Jon Sorensen

            Strawman…I never said that. And you missed my point

          • dannybhoy

            You said..
            “CoE Bishops seem to want to impose their values on everyone else and a lot of moderate Christians support them.”
            We were a country which owned Christian values so for a while the Church and the Government reinforced and supported each other on various issues.
            Now we are not, and no Christian wants to ‘impose’ their values..

          • Jon Sorensen

            Yes. I never mentioned “waving a sword” or “organising a Crusade”.. so strawman

          • dannybhoy

            A touch of |British humour on my part. You can’t equate the two examples. of ‘imposing a la Christien’ and Hardline Islamic..

          • Jon Sorensen

            Have Christian or Islamic hardliners killed more over the years? Why can’t you compare?

          • magnolia

            They have all been dwarfed by the bloodshed caused by atheistic systems. Your lot have loads and loads of bloodshed, torture and mayhem to answer for.

          • Jon Sorensen

            This is of course a lie repeated by people who do not do fact checking or math. Even in last century “atheistic systems[?]” caused less bloodshed that religious “systems”.

            And secondly people tend to act on based on what they believe in (religion, ideology…) not based on what they don’t believe in. Clearly non-fairy believing “systems” have most to answer for according to your logic.

          • magnolia

            Would you also end atheistic violence, which was responsible for the vast majority of 20th Century deaths, millions upon millions, in Soviet Russia and in early communist China, and in many Iron curtain countries. Ever studied Russia under Stalin?

          • Jon Sorensen

            It is a lie that “atheistic violence that was responsible for the vast majority of 20th Century death”. But Christians keep on repeating this…

            You can actually study and do the math you know. There were about 190M war/violence death in 20th Century. Do your homework.

            Also you are confusing Communism and atheism. Non-fairy believers must be responsible too.

            And yes I have studied Russia under Stalin. It has a very personal connection to my family.

          • magnolia

            “Do the math..” Clearly you are not from the UK where we say “maths” which is a much more logical shortening of “mathematics”.

            Ho…hum…Communism is an atheistic system. Maybe you don’t like that brand of atheism, but then maybe Christians don’t like every brand of Christianity.

            Your arguments are thus more emotive than logical, as logically you cannot have it both ways, as you are attempting.

            The fairy comment just sinks stupidly below the level of reputable debate and won’t find any takers here.

          • Jon Sorensen

            I accept that Communism is an atheistic system. Even accepting all those killings as “atheistic violence” I call you out:

            It is a lie that “atheistic violence that was responsible for the vast majority of 20th Century death”. But Christians keep on repeating this..

            So retract the statement or produce the numbers how you got to that conclusion. There were about 190M war/violence death in 20th Century (mid estimate values). You can count in Stalin’s, Mao’s ect “atheistic violence” killings. Just show how you got to “the vast majority”.

            Please stop spreading lies.

          • magnolia

            I am not here to entertain you.

            Communist killings (minus those which were largely racial vastly outnumber those due to religious difference.

            You cannot claim WW1 or 2 as due to religious difference after all.

            I could also make an exceptionally good case for the “law of the jungle” versions of Social Darwinism having inspired notions of violently inclined genetic arrogance amongst atheists that still adhere to this day, and which no small number of American atheists evidence.

            Violent attitudes and arguments, as often shown towards Christians by such folk, are possible precursors to greater violence.

            It is violence which allows and causes war. Always……whatever the person is violent about. Duels have been fought over orchids. Whatever a violently inclined person feels strongly over they will potentially fight over. Could be a chicken sandwich. Atheists tend to be more aggressive rather than less in how they behave, to my observation. So all the bloodshed isn’t that surprising.

            No Amish wars are there? The Salvation Army and the Quakers? No wars there either……Because they do not believe in violence! Simple!

          • Jon Sorensen

            Now you are dishonestly changing the goal post. You original claim was:
            “atheistic violence that was responsible for the vast majority of 20th Century death”
            Stop spreading this lie and retract it. Or show the evidence (= numbers of war/violence deaths in 20th century)

            And BTW nobody claims that “WW1 or 2 as due to religious difference”

            Here is an other nonsense you claim:
            “Atheists tend to be more aggressive rather than less in how they behave”
            In reality religious nations are more like to go to war. See evidence in study “Statistical look at reasons of involvement in wars” arXiv:1508.06228
            Or atheists don’t seem to be overrepresented in prison populations. It’s all in your own bias.

            However just provide the evidence to you claim:
            “atheistic violence that was responsible for the vast majority of 20th Century death”
            or retract it. It is the honest thing to do.

          • magnolia

            Sorry I was not more specific as I had thought it was clear from the context. Untimely death in war or persecution, as opposed to those which can be fairly laid at the door of religion. It was after all in that context the conversation began, so the assumption really really wasn’t unreasonable.

            Many Christians have been and are being slaughtered for their faith. In that context too I do think you might be less belligerent and more awestruck by the horror of that, instead of what appears to be happy to be contentious. Not many atheists have recently been slaughtered for their (lack of) faith. Seems you have a less risky profile than we do, which might have made you a little less gungho in recognition of that, or is that expecting too much?

          • Jon Sorensen

            If you are now saying atheist have nothing to do with “untimely death in war or persecution” then please retract the statement:
            “atheistic violence that was responsible for the vast majority of 20th Century death”
            Once you retract it we can look how many people were killed last century by believers, armies lead by believers, any anyone fighting for their religion.

            You are misguided in your view of Christian and atheist risk profile. Just being an atheist can legally get you executed in 7 countries and imprisoned in further 5 countries. Just being a Christian does not get you killed anywhere. Not even North Korea being a Christian gets you killed. If you are unclear about risk profile go to diffrent countries that don’t have religious freedom and wear a T-shirt “I’m a Christian” and “I’m an atheist” in that order and see what happens. It’s a lot easier to be a Christian compared to be an atheist or a Jew.

            So please retract:
            “atheistic violence that was responsible for the vast majority of 20th Century death”
            It is the honest thing to do

          • Jon Sorensen

            Funny how when I ask Christian to retract their lies they refuse and when I ask them to provide evidence they run away. Then they they keep on telling the same lie again. And all in the name of their religion.

          • magnolia

            Calm down! It’s only a blog! At the moment you are illustrating the fact that atheists can be disproportionately angry and can march onto a Christian blog in an aggressively invasive attack on Christian cyberspace, not recognising the need for a tiny modicum of politeness and it is not a great leap of imagination from there to the terrible slaughters of Christians in the 20th Century. You do your cause much harm.

            Incidentally where are the millions of atheists martyred for their beliefs in the last Century? Now if they existed you might have some cause for anger, but they do not, whereas our co-believers have been slaughtered in appalling numbers, which you feel is the fit subject for this aggressive outpouring. Some might be a bit reticent in the circumstances and not like a bull on testosterone in a china shop. You might see fit to be a bit more peaceful yourself., as at the moment you are a way out of the ballpark aggressive supposed champion of non-violence

          • Politically__Incorrect

            As an atheist and a libertarian, can we take it therefore you would never impose your views on somebody else?

          • Jon Sorensen

            “we”?
            At least we don’t impose conflicting supernatural doctrines on others. Democratic process and laws for examples impose…

          • Politically__Incorrect

            “At least we…” That sounds like you would impose some of your views. So which ones would you impose?

          • Jon Sorensen

            I would impose ending of religious violence.

          • Busy Mum

            How?
            By peaceful means?

          • Politically__Incorrect

            Through the use of non-religious violence presumably?

          • Jon Sorensen

            This is getting off topic. But current law enforcement system in western countries is a good starting point to make sure laws are followed

          • dannybhoy

            To start with….. :0)

          • Jon Sorensen

            No. It was just and example as requested.

  • Johnny Rottenborough

    Two Muslims are dead. Far more than that number are born as British citizens, and potential ‘traitors’, every day of the week. In time, Muslims will form the majority of Britain’s population, whereupon the rest of us will become the potential traitors. If we are at war, it can only be won peacefully by making clear to all Muslims that they are no longer welcome in this country.

    • bluedog

      Now that the Kanzellorin has hung out her shingle welcoming Muslims, there must be a possibility that British Muslims will be drawn to seek lebensraum in the Fatherland.

      • Johnny Rottenborough

        @ bluedog—Compulsory German lessons for all British Muslims, as a matter of supreme national importance.

        Germans have finally rid themselves of the taint of Nazism and their country has been readmitted to polite society. Too bad they had to destroy their civilization in the process. I mentioned the book title, Deutschland schafft sich ab—Germany abolishes itself—to a German friend and he wrote back that ‘the notion of Deutschland schafft sich ab is already propagated as something very positive—almost in the sense of a patriotic duty—in a commentary from the rather conservative newspaper Frankfurter Allgemeine Zeitung’. As you’ll see, ‘Deutschland schafft sich ab’ is the headline. Germany’s tragedy is that the spectre of Nazism is still so potent, and the social cost of being branded a Nazi still so great, that ordinary Germans like my friend, deeply concerned for their country, dare not speak out.

        • bluedog

          Yes, the Germans do seem to be rather over-compensating. It won’t end well.

          • Ivan M

            Blame the religion of Holocaustianity.

        • Ivan M

          And the moment any Jew gets attacked by one of these refugees, you and I can be sure that the Holocaust conditioned press will speak darkly of a rise in antisemitism, ignoring the provenance of the attacker. Playing on such a tilted table, the Germans are bound to lose. The worship of the Holocaust, beyond all reason has led to this. Jettison that, and the Germans and the other Europeans stand a chance, as the Hungarians have shown.

          • Johnny Rottenborough

            @ Ivan M—Another Hungarian, the Nobel laureate Imre Kertész, wrote last year:

            ‘I should recall how the Muslims are flooding Europe to later conquer, or, in other terms, destroy it; about how Europe manages all this, on suicidal liberalism and brainless democracy; democracy and suffrage for chimpanzees. This is always what it concludes to: the civilisation arrives at an overbred condition in which it is not only unable but also unwilling to protect itself; when, seemingly mindlessly, it worships its own enemies.’

          • Ivan M

            Thanks buddy. It is plain common sense.

  • dannybhoy

    How can we describe them as British Jihadists?
    They were born here yes, but are they British, or were they citizens of the Islamic Ummah living in Britain?

    They weren’t a part of our armed forces acting on orders from the British government. The government says one was plotting a terrorist attack on VJ day. Aimed at our Queen no less.

    This I think is where multiculturalism falls apart. In effect our country becomes not just a collection of communities living on the same piece of land, it also becomes a base from which various communities launch terror attacks either here or overseas..

  • Politically__Incorrect

    I think the nationality of these people is irrelevant. They posed an immediate and serious danger to this country. For that reason they were dealt with in the same way we would deal with say a gunmen roaming the streets. The Police and the army both have the right to use lethal force when it is necessary, and without the approval of parliament or CND,

    Those crowing about this guys rights seem to have no regard for the rights of British citizens to go safely about their lives. They would probably rather see brits hacked to death on the streets than give up their pious and misguided ideals. I have no time for them, and I suspect that an awful lot of British people are quietly whispering “good riddance”.

    • dannybhoy

      It is relevant because if you come to live in this country (in preference to another country which shares the same religious values as the country you left behind), then you should be loyal to this country. You take on citizenship and the privileges that come with it, then your commitment should be to this country. It’s not an optional extra; otherwise how could we have enough trust in each other to build e.g. armed forces committed to defending our freedoms?

      • Politically__Incorrect

        I take your point. What I meant was that, given they are traitors, their nationality should not be of concern when it comes to how we deal with them

        • dannybhoy

          Ah, gotcha!
          Thanks.

    • Yes, but both the police and military have “rules of engagement” establishing proper conduct for the use of lethal force.

      • Politically__Incorrect

        You are right that they have rules of engagement, but those rules are there partly because in the course of an incident there is not time to consult higher authority i.e. Parliament. They have to be given leave to act on their own judgement at times, and in secret. If there had been a public debate whether to kill this jihadist then he would certainly have gone into hiding.

        • Let’s be clear, whether you support this action or not, it amounted to a summary execution of terrorists on a “hit list”, without due process, because a government determined it would be disadvantageous to follow that process.

          • It’s called punishment for high treason! I’m flabbergasted that our spineless government had the guts to carry it out. Since when have they been so concerned? What’s in it for them I wonder? I guess you are worried they get a feel for it

          • Orwell Ian

            I reckon something frightened them into this dramatic response. Probably a very near miss where returnee terrorists under direction from Syria almost got “lucky”.

          • It sets a dangerous precedent.

          • CliveM

            Actually if you think about it, it’s hardly a precedent.

          • Orwell Ian

            What due process has the government determined it would be disadvantageous to follow? British passport holders who are also ISIS command and control combatants in Syria seem to be beyond reach of the tentacles of due process.

          • Obviously, attempting to capture these individuals and present them before a court of law was beyond the capacity of the government. They are not soldiers fighting for their country; they are British citizens acting murderously in a foreign land.
            Being able to evade capture, in itself, doesn’t justify a summary execution by order of the government. The ‘war on terror’ and the fight against bodies such as ISIS requires us as a democracy and a nation committed to the rule of law to establish a set of responses, approved by Parliament, that governments and their agents can be held accountable to.

          • In Perfect Ignorance

            You’re right. That’s what it was. Summary execution. No more and no less. Our government can now kill us when we’re abroad without trial or debate if they deem it “necessary”.

            Let’s hope nobody here is thinking of taking a foreign holiday soon. If you are, better make sure you’ve paid your tax bill and don’t have any outstanding parking tickets. You might be next.

          • dannybhoy

            They regard themselves as soldiers for Jihad Jack.

          • So?

          • dannybhoy

            When a young man or woman is willing to fight for such a cause as ISIL or to plot against the country which offered their family refuge and opportunities, then they are renouncing their British citizenship.

          • Are they – or are we removing it from them? ISIS are murderous criminals and not soldiers fighting for another country.

          • dannybhoy

            If you acknowledge that Jack, how can you excuse it or say that what they have been involved in is any better than what happened under the Nazis when they were in control.
            Here we are seventy years later, and people of their own free will are participating in the same kind of things, even worse.

          • When has Jack ever suggested there is an excuse for their evil behaviour? Whilst it does not compare with the Holocaust – a unique atrocity in human history – it comes from the same tree. The nature of man doesn’t progress; you should know that. Every generation has to face evil in one form or another. Our generation faced man asserting independence from God and placing his selfish material and physical desires over our Creator’s will for us. We lost that battle – the war continues.
            Nevertheless, one thing that stands between order and anarchy in our affairs is the rule of law. This applies to governments too. Jack is troubled by the leader of a democratic nation state seeking out and assassinating individuals in another nation, on the basis of secret information about an undisclosed threat and without scrutiny of the evidence and accountability for the legality of the decision.

          • dannybhoy

            You would be hamstrung then Jack.
            You do realise that as much as our intelligence gatherers are listening in to and monitoring perceived enemy ‘chatter’, there are any number of enemies of this country living here listening to every deliberation, every counter measure our government and security forces seek to put in place to uncover and foil plots. In other generations it was known as a fifth column.
            Personally when it comes to war or terrorism I have little faith that lawyers or judges are in the best place to judge how best to handle a threat to our security or how to deal with declared enemies of the nation.
            I have been critical for years of what I perceive as government’s fear of offending our Muslim communities by not dealing more forcefully with known extremists . That the government saw fit to take these drastic measures must mean they knew something we didn’t.

          • Or, just as likely, there is some wider political reason for the timing of this disclosure.

          • dannybhoy

            An increase in migrations?
            The stated aim of ISIL to infiltrate more Jihadi fighters into Europe?

          • More likely something is brewing in relation to Syria.

          • dannybhoy

            You’re gettin’ hysterical Jack….
            ;0)
            As I have argued we have to get safe havens established outside of Europe, nearer their homelands. There will have to be boots on the ground, and it may be that Russia will be the prime mover in Syria, not the US.

          • Doubtful Russia will become involved directly. Putin is more sensible. Let’s wait and see.

          • dannybhoy
          • Politically__Incorrect

            I think “execution” is the wrong word Jack. That applies to people held in custody and is a form of punishment. Those killed were free men. They were not in custody and had voluntarily taken it upon themselves to arrange the murder of the British Head of State, along with many others. The details of this intelligence would have been available to only a limited number of government officials, and rightly so. Make that intelligence public and it immediately becomes worthless

          • Okay, assignation then.

          • dannybhoy

            Maybe there’s a new realism creeping in Ja- er Li – er whoever you are..
            Our security services will know a great deal more about what’s going on, and I ‘m prepared to trust them. I think a more robust approach needs to be drawn up, and I would be quite happy if the Government and Opposition were appraised in private session, hopefully with the result being a new and tougher policy.
            We can’t have government by mainstream media or even government by unelected unaccountable judges.

          • CliveM

            Or unable. They were on another countries territory, planning terrorist atrocities in the UK.

  • Orwell Ian

    If the Government had stripped Jihadists of British Citizenship following their defection to the Caliphate they would not have had this problem. The elimination of these terrorists by a proportionate surgical strike is entirely justified. It should be rapidly followed by internment and trial of all plotters known to be in the UK.

    I am appalled but not surprised by the reaction of the political Left. Supporting the cause of malcontents who perpetrate unspeakable barbarity is unbelievable. They cannot stoop any lower than this. They would sell their souls to retain the Muslim vote.

    • dannybhoy

      “If the Government had stripped Jihadists of British Citizenship
      following their defection to the Caliphate they would not have had this
      problem.”
      Good point. The laws on treason should be re-established because that is what it is.

  • David

    Indeed we are at war.
    Death to The Queen’s enemies I say !
    Strip all “British” citizens of their citizenship once they go abroad to fight as Islamists.
    Reintroduce death by hanging for terrorists operating within the UK. Jailing them merely radicalises other inmates.

    • Phil R

      You missed the point David

  • Sybaseguru

    500 lbs bombs? Hellfires, like the Brimstone are only c.50kg (100lbs) with less than 20kg of explosive (less than a small bag of cement) to minimise ‘collateral’ damage!

  • Government initiated assassinations always cause Jack pause for thought. He understands the arguments in the article … even so.

    • dannybhoy

      Remember Guy Fawkes!

      • IanCad

        For Goodness Sake Danny!! Do you want this thread to never end?!

        • dannybhoy

          :0)
          I miss Guy Fawkes Night I really do. A wonderful childhood memory of kicking leaves down a frosty lane, watching a dramatisation of the events ont’telly, then going out to find someone suitable for our Guy….
          ;0)

          • Hi Danny

            We have Lag B’Omer instead….

          • dannybhoy

            It’s not quite as exciting as sticking a Guy on the bonfire though, accompanied with roman candles and little boyscouts strapped to crackerjacks..
            Such fun! They wouldn’t allow it now….

      • That was a “set-up” too.

  • carl jacobs

    There are legal complexities that should be addressed. The case of a British ex-Patriot who leaves the country and joins a group of irregular non-Combatants is fairly straight-forward. If he gets killed by a drone strike, people are naturally going to equate it to a Brit who joins the Luftwaffe and gets killed in his Heinkel bomber. Too bad. So sad. But there is a precedent set that doesn’t really depend upon geography. You are basically trusting the Gov’t with the power to kill a citizen as an enemy combatant on nothing more than its own assertion of “Trust us.”

    The drone after all is just a weapon. There is nothing magical about it. In fact it is fully equivalent to a sniper on a high vantage point. Both the drone pilot and the sniper kill under the same color of authority. They just use different weapons. So let’s remove the two men from Syria and place them in Leeds. Let’s replace the drone pilot with a Sniper. Otherwise specify the same outcome. If the Prime Minister ordered the death of these two men on British soil, and then said “Trust me. I had to do it” would you be reacting differently? The rights of a UK citizen do not depend upon geography. You can’t consistently argue for the power to kill extra-judicially in Syria but not in the UK.

    And let’s go one step further. Let’s change the nationality of the men. What if they were white? If it wasn’t Reyaad Khan but rather Bob Jones, would that make a difference? Would you be reacting differently? If the Gov’t can kill a specific citizen on its own say so, then the gov’t can kill any citizen on its own say so. You may think this is a constrained case but it could easily become unconstrained. Gov’ts naturally expand the power they possess.

    I’m not arguing that this drone strike shouldn’t have occurred, or that the gov’t was wrong to execute this mission. But the line between killing a UK citizen in Syria and killing that same UK citizen in Leeds is perilously narrow. There needs to be some kind of review and legal restraint on these activities. Otherwise, you will end up with consequences you never intended. And eventually someone will get killed and you will say “The gov’t shouldn’t have done that.” But it will be too late.

    • You leave the unpleasant whiff of a charge of racism and of prejudicial religious intolerance which is both unnecessary and unseemly. Indeed, it makes one wonder what you’ve been imbibing and erroneously inferring for the past decade (or however long you’ve communed).

      “What if they were white?” It wouldn’t matter: Jihadists are not all brown-skinned, and may, indeed, be named “Bob Jones” (though more likely changed to Mohammed Abdul by deed poll) . And then: “..let’s remove the two men from Syria and place them in Leeds.” That is patently different, for they may then be more easily captured, isolated, interrogated and brought to trial. Syria is a war zone, with no state government and no extradition mechanism. These Jihadists absconded, joined the enemy, declared war, and sought imminently to assassinate the Head of State. A preemptive strike is proportionate, necessary and just, exactly as it would be if it were a sniper in Leeds targeting Bob Jones.

      • carl jacobs

        Archbishop Cranmer

        I’m not accusing anyone of racism, least of all you. I’m asking a question that must be asked. It’s the same question I would ask of my own gov’t. The actual question is about distance – the distance that the average UK citizen can put between himself and the dead body lying in the street. If it was Bob Jones lying dead in Leeds from a sniper bullet, and the PM said “He was an enemy combatant. We had to kill him. But I can’t tell you why because of national security.” I guarantee the reaction would be different. You know this. I know this. Everyone reading this blog knows this. The morality of the act would be identical, but the reaction would be a firestorm. Why is that? That question has to be answered.

        That is patently different, for they may then be more easily captured, isolated, interrogated and brought to trial.

        That’s not relevant. You have already given the gov’t the power to remove the judicial process at its own discretion. It’s too late to say “We could arrest him here.” You have already surrendered that option.

        I have said many times on this blog that men will sacrifice their liberty for security and in the process lose both. This is an excellent example of what I am talking about. If you are going to do this (and I fully agree it needs to be done), you need to place restraints on the power of the gov’t to kill its own citizens without due process. You have to specify the conditions under which it is allowable, and you need some kind of legal review. Something besides the PM saying “Trust me.” Because eventually you will get a PM who isn’t trustworthy. And then you will regret what you have done.

        • sarky

          We used to do it to the IRA.

          • sarky

            Just like to clarify that all this leaves me feeling a bit uneasy. Look what happened to Jean Charles de Menezes.

          • Powerdaddy

            Like the religious right has ever cared about collateral damage. ……..

          • sarky

            Unless of course they are the collateral damage.

          • carl jacobs

            So what am I then? The religious Left?

          • Powerdaddy

            Well, compared to a lot of commentators here……..

            Is the command “thou shalt not kill” left wing? Again, comparing this command to the majorities response here………

          • carl jacobs

            The establishment of an enemy class – and that’s what many people on this weblog have advocated whether they realize it or not – is far more associated with the Left than the Right.

          • Powerdaddy

            Judging by this thread/website, it shouldn’t be.

          • IanCad

            True, and if I remember correctly, the leader of the operation – Cressida Dick – was promoted.

          • dannybhoy

            Yes that’s true, but the fact is this country is not the safe country it once was. Bad things and tragic mistakes always happen when people start feeling unsafe.

          • sarky

            Bit of perspective dannybhoy, over 1500 people died on our roads last year, not one in a terrorist attack. Although there are those that would attack is, the odds of being killed are just over zero.
            Dont get sucked into all the hysteria and approach the subject objectively. This country is safe.

          • dannybhoy

            That’s not because the plots and threats aren’t there though. It’s just that none have been successful since the 52 innocents killed in 2005…
            There are plenty of other successful attacks in other places.
            Charley Hebdo, the Jewish school in Toulouse, and many more.
            The country is not safe. Our intelligence services are just very good.

          • sarky

            I stand by the fact the country is safe. I can’t remember this sought of hysteria when the IRA were active.

          • dannybhoy

            Hysteria?
            It’s not hysteria. We’re just looking objectively at what we know. The real debate has been on the government’s conduct. Whether it was right or wrong etc.
            I think it’s a very small minority who think that actually killing the was wrong.

          • carl jacobs

            Thus illustrating the difference between distance and race.

            What’s really going on, sarky? People are afraid of Muslims and Muslim immigrants. They doubt their loyalty. They doubt their intentions. All you have to do is observe the recent attack in France to understand why.

            So you are in a situation where the Gov’t could kill either a Muslim or an ethic national from a predominantly Muslim state, claim national security as justification, and expect to receive general public acclaim. There is now a predisposition to believe that certain groups are threatening. That’s why a dead Bob Jones would produce a different reaction. There would be no predisposition to believe a claim of threat.

            That is exceptionally dangerous.

          • Dreadnaught

            So you condemn POTUS for nailing Bin Laden rather than trying to take him alive?

          • carl jacobs

            No. I think a gov’t has fairly broad powers to kill foreign nationals. OBL wasn’t a US citizen. This is about constraining the gov’ts claim of authority to kill its own citizens for reasons of national security.

          • Dreadnaught

            He gave up his rights a a citizen when he turned traitor

          • carl jacobs

            A fair argument. If you scatter his remains all over Sryia, I won’t complain.

            But what if he was an otherwise unknown UK citizen of Pakistani descent? What if he was shot dead on the streets in the UK, and the only evidence you had against him was a Gov’t claim that he was a traitor? Would you believe the Gov’t or not?

            And if you did believe the Gov’t, how much of your belief would be rooted in the fact that the dead man was of Pakistani descent?

          • dannybhoy

            We are increasingly aware that the danger to our security comes from Muslim fanatics, not little old Methodist ladies..
            The statue of Lord Nelson in Trafalgar Square gets covered in bird droppings. Only an idiot would say it ain’t birds..

          • sarky

            yeah, but they’ve got rid of the birds…..

          • Dreadnaught

            we have plenty of white skinned muslims all over Europe and in the UK. It wouldnt matter a jot.

          • carl jacobs

            You didn’t answer my question, Dreadnaught. Would you believe the Gov’t or not?

          • Dreadnaught

            yes I would, I would further like them to give the green light to the military to get on with taking more of them out as we did with the IRA.

          • carl jacobs

            Then be honest about what you are doing. Don’t give this job to the military. Form a Secret Police Organization. Call it the CHEKA. Give it the power to seize people off the street, take them into a basement, and shoot them in the back of the head. Because that is where you would be going.

            “Citizen! You have been condemned as an Enemy of the Revolution a Traitor and are hereby sentenced to death.”

            [Bang]

          • Dreadnaught

            You can keep you fantasy scenario carl I don’t buy it.
            War has been declared on us. Politicians until now wouldnt take the step to moblise a proper defence that will involve killing the enemy.
            The hit list announced yesterday includes the stupidly named Jihadi John, among several known others and that’s fine by me
            If we have no faith in our military or belief in our own government, we might as well pop down to the local mosque, offer up our women and buy an instant muslim outfit and roll over now.
            The fact that it is now known that we will target and kill ex-British muslims fighting against us may deter some other would-be deluded characters taking the same express route to Allah’s brothel in the sky.

          • CliveM

            Carl,

            If he had a gun in his hand and a bomb wrapped round his, absolutely.

            Some of what others are saying is bordering on the hysterical. This won’t lead to drone strikes in the UK or when people are on holiday for their two weeks in Spain.

          • carl jacobs

            But I deliberately excluded confirmatory evidence. I want to know if you would take the Gov’ts word that it had to kill a UK citizen with no external confirmatory evidence available to support the claim. The problem is not killing an ex-Patriot who takes up residence with the enemy in a foreign country. The problem will occur on your own streets.

            Do you want to give the gov’t that kind of power?

          • CliveM

            This is about realistic options. In the UK the man could be arrested, swamp the area with armed police and ‘take them in’. The Gentlemen in question placed themselves beyond UK jurisdiction, but were planning a war against our state. The Govt chose the only realistic option.

            To take HJ’s point for a moment. Let’s suppose for arguments sake an atrocity had happened, maybe more then one, what is the Govt supposed to do? Sit back and say “well they’re UK citizens, on the off chance they’re stupid enough to come back we’ll arrest them then, in the mean time we’ll just have to put up with it”!!

          • The Explorer

            Being in Syria isn’t the same as being on the streets of the UK.

          • carl jacobs

            You are correct. What constrains the gov’t to take account of that difference?

          • The Explorer

            Uncertainty. If you’re a British Muslim on the streets of the UK you might be just a British Muslim on the streets of the UK. If you’re a British Muslim with ISIS in Syria your intentions are clear.

          • carl jacobs

            I was thinking more along the lines of legal constraint.

          • dannybhoy

            You are being unrealistic here Carl. We have around three million Muslims here in the UK. Our government like any government would want to be absolutely sure of what they were doing..

        • Dreadnaught

          You’d have us follow the US and hold the right to bear arms to keep them on their toes? Look where that has taken the USA – no thanks carl.

        • AndyM

          The ability to capture someone in Leeds and inability to apprehend someone in ISIS controlled Syria is very relevant. I wholly commend our governments efforts to stop them planning to kill me, and if killing them is the only viable option, so be it!

          • carl jacobs

            The Gov’t isn’t claiming the authority to kill on the basis of an inability to arrest. It has redesignated a citizen as a combatant so that the judicial process does not apply. What prevents that designation from being acted upon in the UK proper?

            I am not arguing for a blanket prohibition. There are circumstances where a Gov’t would have to do exactly that. Rebellion is a good example. Terrorism is another. What I am asserting is that this power should not be discretionary and held in the sole hands of the executive. It is not simply a matter of employing military forces.

            It has proved exceptionally difficult to professionalize military forces in Africa. Said militaries are principally designed to protect the gov’ts hold on power. Their opponent is their own people. It is a cornerstone of military professionalization that the use of the military against its own population be severely constrained by law. That’s what I worry about in this trend – the lack of constraint of law and the potential to politicize the military.

            You really don’t want to travel that road.

          • Dreadnaught

            It has redesignated a citizen as a combatant

            It [UK] did not. He did that entirely on his own volition and conspired to recruit others to murder citizens of the UK.
            Joining ISIS and Posing with an AK47 while pointing to the sky is a bit of a giveaway.

          • carl jacobs

            I didn’t say the redesignation was wrong. I didn’t day killing him was wrong. In fact I think it was justified. But what if he had returned from Syria to the UK? Would you then arrest him? Why not just kill him since you have already redesignated him? Why go through with the legal process when you already have the authority to just kill him?

            The answer to that question reveals the problem.

          • Dreadnaught

            Trying to guess if he would change his mind and come back to the UK is not what I would call an effective act of national security In this new-age cyber led terrorist warfare, niceties like the Geneva Convention do not exist. We just haven’t caught up with the paperwork yet and lives are being destroyed by vermin like this shit.

          • DanJ0

            Much the same argument was presented by a QC on the Today programme on Radio4 this morning.

          • bluedog

            ‘I am not arguing for a blanket prohibition. There are circumstances where a Gov’t would have to do exactly that. Rebellion is a good example.’ Not hard to imagine a situation in which a democratically elected government does declare that a state of rebellion exists within its borders. Take two recent situations, the actions of migrants trying to reach Britain from the rail terminal at Calais and the behaviour of ‘Syrians’ trying to reach Vienna from Budapest rail terminal in Hungary. In both situations the civil power was stretched by the actions of a large group of non-nationals, any one of whom could have been a member of ISIS or similar seeking access to Europe. In addition, most of these non-nationals are travelling without any form of identification. Scenarios are clearly developing in which an elected government’s will feel obliged to protect its own citizens from indeterminate threats by rebellious groups of stateless persons. What to do?

        • In Perfect Ignorance

          I agree. What next, drone strikes against British fugitives in South America? Should we send drones to Rio and blow up every tax exile or criminal we can find?

          Now that the principle has been established that we can bomb our citizens wherever they are, who’ll be next? Another jihadi tomorrow? And in a year or 5 years when Cameron is long gone and some other goon is running the nation?

          Prime Ministers can now blow you up wherever you are in the world. There’ll be no accountability or parliamentary debate. All they need to do is say “it was necessary” and we’ll just have to accept their word for it.

          Democratic accountability was another victim of this attack. And the fake archbishop tries to justify it with an emotive “but they were trying to kill the Queen!” The life of the monarch is worth more than all of our hard-won democratic freedoms? Cromwell must be spinning in his grave!

          • CliveM

            Well theres nothing quite like being a bit a drama queen.

          • Hmmm… drama queen, indeed.

          • Dreadnaught

            The life of the monarch is worth more than all of our hard-won democratic freedoms?

            That is such a stupid statement. The fact that we have a monarch is a result of having had a 17thC Republic and rejected it .It was the realisation even then, that was not the way to go. The prosperity and freedoms we have today is not linked to republicanism or single party politics it because we have a nonpolitical head of state.

    • Dreadnaught

      If Leeds was an active battlefield engaged in a war with rest of the nation, then indeed a sniper assassination of an identified target would be totally legit and cheered to the rafters.

    • goatgate

      Why on earth return terrorists to Leeds. What have we done to deserve your wrath.

    • dannybhoy

      This is the third case of paranoia thinly spread with intrigue that I have encountered during the last 24 Hours.. Thanks Jack.
      -Bauer that is…
      First off although we British are often cursed with poor governance, we have as yet little reason to fear a UK government targetting its own citizens and aerially ‘taking them out’ for not paying their tv licence. The politicians would never stand for it. Losing a few constituents could make all the difference to their re-election prospects.
      So unlike you Yanks, when we Brits look up as we’re taking out the garbage, it’s to see what the weather’s like. Not to check for incoming..

      Actually I do agree that there needs to be safeguards, but I am very concerned that these procedures remain invested in our democratically elected government ministers, rather than be handed over to unelected, unaccountable, money grubbing lawyers and judges.

  • Well, we’re in a kill or be killed situation.

    • sarky

      Are we?

    • David

      Quite !

  • The Explorer

    If the Left objects, I can see why the Left loves suicide bombers so much. The Left has committed itself to national suicide.

    • CliveM

      Well where have you been!!

      • The Explorer

        Ill.

        • CliveM

          Hope you are better.

          • dannybhoy

            Me too, Explorer, I wish you well and God’s comfort.

          • The Explorer

            Thanks.

          • Pubcrawler

            Seconded. Good to see you back Explorer

          • The Explorer

            Thank you.

          • The Explorer

            The specialist has upped my medication. That’s a good thing because it gives the heart muscle a chance to repair itself. The price is extreme tiredness until the body adjusts itself to the new dose.

          • CliveM

            Well I’ll pray for quick adjustment and repaired heart.

            Hope the tiredness is beginning to recede.

        • You’re in Jack’s prayers, Explorer.

          • The Explorer

            Thank you.

        • IanCad

          I swear that a while ago you were “Ill” Now you are “Unwell” I do hope that is an improvement. Either way – chin up – get well soon.

          • The Explorer

            Thank you. Ill looked too much like III, so I changed it.

  • Hi

    I have no such squeamish liberal qualms. They are terrorists who have practically renounced being British, so we should take their citizenship away (what about letting those brits who want to defend or live in ISIS controlled territory go there and we can take in the Christian and Kurdish refugees) and are committing high treason, genocide, slaughter , selling people into sex slavery and forced conversions or death .

    They are traitors to the Crown and the punishment for treason is to be hung drawn and quartered. So being targeted by drones is quite mild. No we fight for our right to exist as a free people. We can leave it to the do gooders who will survive through this because of actions like this to re write history in a later date. Right now we’ve got to defend our civilization.

    Also I think we need to give more aid to the Kurdish people and give them the weapons they need to establish their own freedom and homeland. (Personal bias towards Kurds: a Kurdish family prevented my grandparents and my great grandmother from being raped and killed , during the farhud in 1941, so like I wouldn’t be here otherwise).

    • In Perfect Ignorance

      The punishment for being a traitor is a stiff prison sentence. It hasn’t been hanging, drawing and quartering for several hundred years.

      Maybe you want to turn the clock back to Tudor times. As a woman you’ll lose the vote altogether, as will most men. So clearly democracy is not something you set much store by.

      So why do you want to protect us against Arab terrorists? It seems your ultimate goal is the same as theirs. A society where citizens are subject to unspeakable brutality on the whim of whoever’s in power. Is the issue just that their God isn’t your God?

      You can’t slide a piece of paper between the views of hard-line Christians and their Muslim counterparts, can you? Different sides of the same coin.

      • Hi

        That’s utter nonsense.

        “Maybe you want to turn the clock back to Tudor times. As a woman you’ll lose the vote altogether, as will most men. So clearly democracy is not something you set much store by.”

        That’s the ISIS view. I want to DEFEND Britain from antisemitism, , anti Christian, homophobia, racism, sexism , supremacist , anti science view and genocide that ISIS promotes and indeed undertakes.

        “You can’t slide a piece of paper between the views of hard-line Christians and their Muslim counterparts, can you? Different sides of the same coin.”

        I’m Jewish not Christian. If you’d have googled farhud – the merciless pogrom , slaughter and rape of the Jews of Baghdad in 1941 (where before the ethnic cleansing a third of the city was Jewish) by pro fascist Islamist ideologues you’d have gotten that bit.

        • In Perfect Ignorance

          You’re Jewish? Then why do you support summary execution at the sole discretion of the government?

          That sort of weapon has been used against your people before. In the not too distant past.

          If you think you’re safe just because you don’t break any laws, what if some of the nightmare scenarios that seem to haunt the dreams of some who post here come true? A Muslim party in some future coalition government might not be so well disposed towards you. If you flee to Israel, the bombs might follow you there.

          These extra-judicial murders were a profoundly undemocratic act. I used to be proud of British democracy. No longer.

          • dannybhoy

            You could always move..

          • Hi Danny

            I think I’ll be the one to move.

          • dannybhoy

            Don’t go Hannah. We need you to torment and tease us… !
            Besides where you might be thinking of going is getting very crowded.. My sister and her husband are over there now.

          • Hi

            When I’m utterly depressed and despondent I think there’s no future for Jews in Britain because of the antisemitism of the far left, the far right and Islamist antisemitism. Last year the antisemitism was rank and my bros were attacked for being visibly Jewish .

            Yet British Jews are extremely patriotic , educated , well off, , business leaders and scientific leaders, but feel this country isn’t a welcome place for Jews. Israel is constantly demonized , our synagogues are like fortresses and it’s not cool to be an Israel supporter (even though Israel is without ANY DOUBT: WELL COOL!!!!!!!!) I see the left in Britain is about to endorse a hard core socialist who likes Hamas , his “friends” or a red flag to any Jew.

            I do owe a debt to British education, but feel increasingly like I cannot contribute here, I may end up in Israel and I’ve been thinking about this for a while now. And at least there I don’t have to justify infant male circumcision, I don’t have to defend kosher slaughter and I can just be a Jew with my beloved partner. I do sometimes think she’d be happy there and so would me.

          • dannybhoy

            There’s a lot that Hannah, and in truth if I were Jewish and young again, that’s where I’d go.

          • CliveM

            I’m sending you a music link!!

          • bluedog

            Don’t go, Hannah. Israel is a very small and heavily populated country that is terribly vulnerable to attack by some crazed Ayatollah. In the long-term you and your brothers are far safer in the UK or elsewhere in the West, whatever the short-term disadvantages may seem to be.

          • In Perfect Ignorance

            It’s difficult to deny that an increasing Muslim presence in Britain is making it harder for Jews to live their lives unmolested. This is a regrettable consequence of immigration policies that have given too little thought to how incoming migrants would integrate into the fabric of our society.

            The problem is that these people are here now, and like it or not, we have to cope with their presence. No Jew in Britain should feel unsafe. The law should protect you. Unfortunately it does not, and this is a problem for us all. A country where large sections of the population feel at liberty to flout the law with impunity is properly termed a “failed state”. I sometimes wonder if that’s not where we’re heading.

            In any case, if you do decide to emigrate to Israel, you might want to consider giving up your British citizenship altogether. The precedent set by Cameron that will allow all future prime ministers to order the murder of any British citizen abroad for whatever reason they like (all they’ll have to do is tell Parliament that it was “necessary” without further explanation), won’t apply to you if you’re no longer British.

            Your best protection against state-sponsored assassination will be an Israeli passport. If I were Jewish, I think I’d be considering my options right about now too.

          • Royinsouthwest

            What mental impediment prevents you from grasping the fact that the people killed by drones had joined a foreign army that is at war with other types of moslems, kurds, christians, yazidis and infidels in general?

          • In Perfect Ignorance

            The people killed by drones were British citizens judged unfit to live by one man. The prime minister is apparently now judge and jury over us all. Worse than that, he doesn’t even have to justify himself or face any kind of parliamentary scrutiny before he acts. All he has to do is say that it was “necessary”.

            In assuming these powers, he joins a select and extremely dubious club. Former fellow members were Hitler, Mussolini, Stalin and Chairman Mao. Not quite the Bullingdon Club, is it? But not, one suspects, a million miles away from it either.

            Even the dreaded Blair didn’t dare do what Cameron has just done. His majority has clearly gone to his head. I used to like and support Cameron. No longer. What he’s just done is the single greatest betrayal of the principle of democracy that ANY prime minister has committed since the War. If the prime minister now holds the power of life and death over British citizens abroad, how soon will it be before drones or snipers are taking us out on the streets of London?

        • CliveM

          He is called in perfect ignorance. I’m sure it can’t have been motivated by modesty.

      • dannybhoy

        You’re talking the same kind of twaddle as Sorenson. If you were talking about the Mediaeval Church I would be bound to agree with you, but thank God we have moved on since then.
        Tell me the name of ONE single Christian whose actively arguing and plotting for the imposition of Christianity on our country.

        • sarky

          Martin?

          • dannybhoy

            :0)

        • Busy Mum

          They may not be actively arguing and plotting but maybe they are praying for it!

      • The Explorer

        “The issue is just that their God isn’t your God.”

        You can prefer peaches to nectarines and good luck to you. But if 2+2=4 then 2+2 can’t equal 5.

        If there’s reincarnation, the Christian view of the after life is wrong. If atheism’s right, Hinduism and Christianity are both wrong.

        The Islamic God and the Christian Trinity are incompatible. They can both be wrong, but they can’t both be right. In the eschatology of both religions, the false version will ultimately be eliminated.

        • In Perfect Ignorance

          “If” is exactly the right word. Religion is all about “if”. What if God exists? What if Allah exists? Well, what if?

          If you’re happy to live your life according to what might be, even though you have no proof at all that it really is, that’s your affair. I choose to live my life according to the fact that, as there is no proof of God’s existence, or Allah’s existence, both deities (whether they exist or not) are completely irrelevant to my life.

          An invisible god who leaves no trace of himself anywhere, and leaves us with no riddles that can’t be explained in purely materialistic terms, clearly doesn’t either want or need us to believe in him. Conforming my life to the supposed strictures of a god who doesn’t care enough about us to give us clear evidence of his existence seems like a perfect waste of time to me. A waste of a life, even. How can you worship a god who’s perfectly indifferent to you?

          There may be some elements of Christianity that I might choose to follow of my own free will because they seem sensible to me. But to slavishly follow all the precepts of any religion on the sole basis of “what if?” seems to me to be the height of folly. What if there’s a God? What if there’s a Flying Spaghetti Monster? Or what if Lord Voldemort rules creation?

          You keep a broomstick by your bed on the off-chance that one day you’ll be able to fly through the air on it. I’ll put mine in my broom cupboard and use it for sweeping the floor.

          • The Explorer

            I believe in Christianity because I believe the evidence for it to be good. I disbelieve in Islam because I believe the evidence for it to be poor. A blog, however, is not the forum for explaining why in detail. But my point is that the evidence for each faith is different; it’s not just a matter of taste. I didn’t raise the other issues you mention.

    • Since the Crime and Disorder Act 1998 became law, the maximum sentence for treason in the UK has been life imprisonment. It is an indictable offence to design, endeavour or attempt to assassinate the sovereign. There is no time limit on the prosecution of treason committed outside of the United Kingdom.

      • Hi happy Jack

        Well I stand corrected. But surely we’ve got to DEFEND ourselves against this stuff before we get to a terrible situation where mobs start rampaging against innocent and law abiding Muslims? Yeah I do have Muslim friends. Well Kurds and I do know one or two gay /lesbian Sufi or mystical Muslims.

        • Happy Jack understands the intent, just does not agree with the method used. (Incidentally, he also thinks “Operation Wrath of God” was morally wrong as well as ineffective). This was a state sponsored assassination and Jack would like to know the legal basis for it.

          • chiefofsinners

            I think the legal basis is very simple: self defence.

          • Well, yes, that’s what’s being claimed. However, it is not sufficient to justify assassination of British citizens in another sovereign nation.

          • chiefofsinners

            Why not?
            And by ‘sovereign nation’ do you mean the lawless waste they call the Islamic State?

          • magnolia

            You are right. And how would we feel if in the wake of rioting in Britain the airforce from another country decided to fly over the UK’s troublespots, seeing as they were lawless areas already, and take out some of their least favourite citizens who happened to be in the area?

            Or are we more of a sovereign nation than others?

          • sarky

            It’s already happened. The Russians took out Alexander Litvinenko on our soil. Look at all the mock indignation that caused amongst our government. Seems to be a bit of pots and kettles going on.

          • … allegedly.

          • Royinsouthwest

            We are not talking about rioting. We are talking about a war waged by savages who care nothing for the Geneva Convention and who cannot see anything wrong in mass rape, sexual slavery, beheadings etc.

          • chiefofsinners

            Why not?

          • Because we have no authority or legal right to go about unilaterally administering summary justice through assassination in another country.

          • chiefofsinners

            Yes we do. It’s not justice, it’s self defence. Even though international law was written by people who are now dead, for situations which no longer exist, it allows for self defence.

          • Well, let’s see the evidence. Given the press are reporting this chap was orchestrating and masterminding attacks months ago (April) that never materialised, one has one’s suspicion. It strikes Jack as being more of a propaganda mission.

          • chiefofsinners

            The Inspector is quiet tonight. Could they be one and the same?

          • He’s probably monitoring the nefarious activities of the homosexualists. Besides, he’s an armchair Alpha male. All hot air. Jack blames people like him for climate change.

          • Orwell Ian

            I don’t think the mission was a propaganda one but the timing of its disclosure conveniently smothered at least two headline events. 1. Criticism about the UK’s response to the migrant crisis. 2. A poll that showed there is now a majority in favour of Britain leaving the EU.

          • chiefofsinners

            Sovereign nation? You mean the lawless wasteland they call the Islamic State?

          • No, Syria.

          • chiefofsinners

            You think we should have made an extradition request to President Assad?

          • Lol … not really since we want to do for him too.

          • It is when they are known to be plotting your demise HJ. ISIS or whatever they are calling themselves these days embody pure evil and savagery in case you’ve forgotten. They need curbing as they will take hold of a small Island like the UK what with many sympathisers here already.

          • Royinsouthwest

            If they are “British” then they are traitors. They are at war with us. Even if they only want to behead foreigners, i.e. non-British infidels, that is sufficient reason for killing them

          • Possibly, if it’s the only means available,due process is followed and it is legal. All terrorist activity against us is a direct threat to our peace. We faced this with the IRA. However, this isn’t the Wild West. The maximum sentence for high treason these days is life in prison, according to British law. We don’t just execute people on the authority of the Prime Minister, based on the say so of secret intelligence information and claims of self defence.

            Note, Cameron stated the Attorney General. a political appointment, had told him: “there would be a clear legal basis for action in international law.” This tells us nothing about the strength of evidence substantiating this “clear legal basis”. It simply states there is an argument, not the strength of that argument i.e. self defence. And a democratic country with a government accountable to us, has to simply accept David Cameron’s word because he can say no more because of “national security”. For sure, he’s a man of his word, known for noble conduct. We now know there is a “Kill List” of British citizens, authorised by him months ago. They all pose a threat to us and are targets for assassination when the opportunity arises.

            If this doesn’t trouble you, then let your joy at the death of a man who took pleasure in inflicting great evil be unconstrained by other considerations. Jack doesn’t feel quite the same way and thinks we should look at the implications of all this more cautiously. David Davis, not a wimp but a man of integrity who places great weight on civil liberties and the proper conduct of government, has expressed guarded concern. Jack pays attention to him even when though he doesn’t always agree with him.

            If Labour are the Loyal Opposition, they will push this one.

          • Owl

            er, yes it is.

          • Hi Jack

            To be ecumenical , I think the next Israeli operation should be called “grapes of Inspector’s wrath”.

          • carl jacobs

            Jack would like to know the legal basis for it.

            There is no legal basis for interactions between nations because there is no law between nations – except the law of nature, red in fang and claw. The Israelis could do what they could get away with. That’s reality.

            A nation has all the authority within itself to kill its external enemies.

          • All authority comes from God, Carl. Leaders will be accountable to Him for the righteousness of their actions. Don’t forget that His laws apply because nations consist of people made in His image and leaders have moral obligations across national boundaries. There is a crafted set of widely recognised and generally agreed constraints on the actions of nation states. Most of them are based on Christian values.

          • carl jacobs

            And the Israelis killing PLO operatives in Europe would contradict the Law of God … how exactly?

          • Word has it they killed the wrong men and those really culpable escaped. If there was tangible evidence, get them extradited, put them on trial and present it. This was a politically motivated exercise, not a search for justice. In legal terms, they committed acts of murder in the countries in which they operated. They had no legitimate authority to kill in another country.

          • carl jacobs

            The Israelis never claimed that “Wrath of God” was only about killing the perpetrators of Munich. It was just as much about killing PLO operatives and disrupting their network.

            This was a politically motivated exercise, not a search for justice.

            Yes it was. Why is that a problem? It’s called “War.”

            In legal terms, they committed acts of murder in the countries in which they operated.

            That’s probably true. But those agents killed under the cover of authority of the Israeli gov’t. That means it wasn’t murder as far as Israel was concerned. Killing Heydrich was also technically murder in Reich’s Protectorate of Bohemia & Moravia.

            They had no legitimate authority to kill in another country.

            According to whom? How would they even get such authority? Who would grant it?

            So my question still stands.

          • The Israeli government’s legitimate authority does not extend to usurping the God given authority of another nation. Wasn’t that one of the Protestant charges against Papists? Isn’t that based on the Gospel? The Israelis had no right to kill in another country, whatever the motive, unless or until the grounds were established for a judicial execution.
            Responding to terrorism does not remove the moral or legal constraints on nation states. Murder is murder. It is a grave offence against God and the moral order. It produces bitter fruit.

          • carl jacobs

            So … I guess you weren’t too pleased with that whole OBL episode then, huh?

            usurping the God given authority of another nation.

            You mean like when Nation state A conquers Nation state B in order to achieve Nation state A’s political objectives? I do believe that ‘conquest’ qualifies as ‘usurpation.’

            The Israelis had no right to kill in another country, whatever the motive, unless or until the grounds were established for a judicial execution.

            According to whom? You keep asserting this like it is a metaphysical fact. By whom must the grounds be established? To whom? Is it sufficient to establish those grounds in Israel? When the Israelis sent agents into South America looking for Nazis, did they have to establish grounds to the satisfaction of the South American gov’t in question? Should they have asked for extradition – this tipping off the target? The Israelis didn’t bring back every Nazi they found, you know.

            Responding to terrorism does not remove the moral or legal constraints on nation states.

            You have yet to establish any. What law prevents the Israelis from killing PLO operatives in Italy – other than the practical limitations of what might happen if the agents get caught? Tell me what Law they violate. And don’t say something ambiguous like the “Law of God.” Give a specific reference. Also don’t say murder. Nations send men out to kill other men under cover of authority all the time. Sometimes they even declare war before they do so.

            President Reagan sent F-111s to bomb Libya in 1986. He didn’t declare war. He dispatches those airmen under cover of authority of the US Constitution. Did he therefore usurp the God-given authority of the Libyan gov’t? Did he send those airmen to commit murder? They killed people, you know.

          • It has nothing to do with whether Jack was “pleased” or not with the OBL episode or not. For the record, he was not. Nor is he impressed with Guantanamo Bay.

            “Behold, the Lord has set a king over you. If you will fear the Lord and serve him and hearken to his voice and not rebel against the commandment of the Lord and if both you and the king who reigns over you will follow the Lord your God it will be well. But if you will not hearken to the voice of the Lord and rebel against the commandment of the Lord, then the hand of the Lord will be against you and your king.”
            (1 Sm 12:12b-15)

            There’s no role for extra-judicial assassinations within one’s own nation and certainly not in the nation of another where there is no legitimate right to kill.

          • carl jacobs

            Non-responsive. Your inability to answer my direct questions only serves to display the weakness of your case.

          • Because you don’t accept a response does not make it “non-responsive”.

            Do you believe that responding to terrorism involves any moral issues beyond outcomes? That the ‘War on Terror’ permits morally unconstrained actions? You may not intend it but you appear to have a casual attitude towards so called “collateral damage” and seem to place no moral boundaries on counterterrorism other than that dictated by success. You balance good and evil to justify assassinations. It may be wrong – but if, on balance, it achieves a good outcome, then it is acceptable.

            To Jack’s mind, the assassination of actual or suspected terrorists raises significant moral issues. Assassination in counterterrorism is wrong and, as such, can never be morally justified where the victim’s life is taken and no process of law is adhered to that enables him to bring a defence against alleged charges. The outcome of an assassination is the termination of the victim’s life by the assassin who takes the law into his own hands, whether or not his ‘authority’ comes from a higher national authority, to dispense punishment, and in doing so he becomes the judge of the victim’s deeds.

            Such assassinations undermine faith in the justice system and in the international community of nations as the state is undermining the rule of law. The application of moral principles and due process and the presumption of innocence, are fundamental and countering terrorism should not negate them for utilitarian ends. A society that ignores morality, due process and the rule of law in responding to terrorism is on the path to becoming a rogue state itself.

          • carl jacobs

            It was non-responsive because you didn’t address a single point I made. You provided a quote from Scripture that had no applicability to the question at hand, and then re-asserted what you have been saying all along.

            Assassination in counterterrorism is wrong

            We know that. Tell us the authority by which you say it. Specifically. Because I don’t agree. So to change my mind you’re going to have to establish an authority for your assertion.

            Such assassinations undermine faith in the justice system

            What international justice system? There isn’t one. You keep overlooking that salient fact. If you think I am wrong, then point me to this international justice system so I may examine it.

            Just out of curiosity. The Israelis broke all kinds of laws when they kidnapped Eichmann. Do you suppose that Israel’s violation of national law was more damaging to justice than hanging Eichmann by the neck until he was dead was beneficial?

          • My starting position is:

            “If so why should we not do evil so that good may come of it? That is what we are accused of preaching by some of our detractors; and their condemnation of it is just.”

            It applies to nation states as much as it applies to individuals. As it is impossible to determine the morality of an action purely by assessing its consequences a prior standard of judgment must already be in place.

            Just war theory (yes, Jack knows you dismiss this as idealistic waffle) cannot be applied to terrorists as they are illegal combatants, however they define themselves. Jack is arguing that the non-judicial assassinations of criminals, at home or abroad, outside of due process, the rule of law, a presumption of innocence and the right of mounting a defence, amounts to murder. Murder is a grave evil and can never be justified whatever apparent good one believes may result.

            There is no international justice system but there is one at home in Western nations. Nevertheless, there are various agreements and understandings about proper conduct between nations. It serves all our common good that nations act morally towards to one another and we should all work to strengthen this. Acting without applying the principles of criminal justice against terrorist individuals undermines this system at home. It grants some secret branch of the state the ‘right’ to kill on behalf of that state when national security ‘justifies’ it. It also leads to “whataboutery” in dealings between states and allows for similar rogue action on their part. Therefore, it runs counter to the common good.

            As for Eichmann, there are several issues about Israel’s use of a special unit formed specifically to track down and kill enemies of the state wherever they might be in the world. The Israeli government decided that Eichmann should not be assassinated but brought back to Israel to stand trial. Once found, Eichmann was kidnapped and smuggled to Israel, a violation of Argentinean legal sovereignty. Jack would say that the conduct of the Israelis did not contribute to the common good, their own or between nation states, and cannot be justified because it brought one man to justice.

          • Ivan M

            OBL had to be taken out in that fashion because the Americans did not have to honesty to admit that their nominal ally Pakistan, was playing a double game hiding him in Abbotabad. It was lies compounded on lies and that is why nobody is impressed with it. It is basically the same story with the criminal enterprise that the West has embarked upon in Syria, where they claim to be fighting Islamic extremism, yet make common cause with the international wing of the al-Queda and in many cases even arm them. Tell the truth and let the chips fall where they may. That in the end is what the gods will shower with success.

          • eyesopenwider

            “Teach and govern thy people Israel…” … excerpt from the queens coronation ceremony in 1953…

            Remember…treason doth never prosper…

            God
            Queen (that keeps and understands her oath)
            Country

          • dannybhoy

            Different cultures, different world views Jack. I agree that the operation failed, but morally wrong? According to one faith that teaches “an eye for an eye” and another that believes pretty much the same?
            I don’t think you can apply your standards to people whose beliefs are different. Lets say for example the Germany that produced some of our great philosophers also produced Nazism.. When it comes to war of any kind our moral values sometimes takes second place to the need to survive or overcome..

          • Who’s standards? Jack is advocating there is an objective moral standard that holds regardless of different cultures and situations.

          • dannybhoy

            Yes, God’s standards, our Lord’s standards. But in the world in which we live Jack, we know that not every nation accepts those standards, and that even in our own post Christian western nations our governments no longer hold to those standards.
            That’s not to excuse an ‘anything goes’ morality, but a) in this world we have never had nor ever will have an all Christian society that would refuse to go to war.
            b) Even in the Christian Church we have failed amongst ourselves to live up to God’s standards. We have killed, tortured, schemed and manipulated, failed to defend the innocent (Holocaust/ Pogroms) and forced others to convert.
            So we accept the rightness of God’s morality even when we fail to consistently live it and may (depending on our traditions), have to resign ourselves to a spell in purgatory..
            In all wars/Crusades we have used subterfuge, deceit and dissembling to secure a victory over our enemies.
            Even Christian leaders however reluctantly, have allowed these methods to be used in order to protect our national security.
            The world as you know Jack, is a messy place in all kinds of ways.

          • “When it comes to war of any kind our moral values sometimes takes second place to the need to survive or overcome.”
            And that sits you squarely on the slippery slope. It’s not a long trip. Safe landing.

          • dannybhoy

            You are ignoring the realities of history Jack.

          • History, Jack believes, substantiates his views. Immorality in warfare, or consequentialism is any sphere, results in unintended and unforeseen outcomes. It’s the way it is. We are designed to live a certain way.

          • dannybhoy

            Jack,
            it was you who about a year ago tried to explain why it was right that the Medieval Catholic Church engaged in the detention, torture and forced recantation of people who were ‘unorthodox’ in their beliefs?

          • No universally “right” for all time but prudentially justifiable and understandable given the times and context. Besides, the Church followed due process and established sophisticated methods of trial and examination and kept detailed records.

      • IanCad

        Jack, you and I and a few others are in the minority on this issue.
        Take heart!! The majority are nearly always wrong.

        • chiefofsinners

          That’s democracy for you!

        • With barbarians at the gate, what is one to do?

          • It’s a test of moral character and also trust in God. Better to go down in good faith than survive through evil means.

          • Hi Jack

            So not a test of who might get mass murdered or not?

          • dannybhoy

            But you can only decide that for yourself Jack, not the whole of society.

          • CliveM

            Happy Jack

            Someone threatens my son, I will use whatever means.

          • dannybhoy

            Absolutely Clive. As I said yesterday an individual Christian can take whatever action their conscience dictates, but our familial and community relationships mean we have a responsibility to consider their wellbeing and safety whatever we as individuals may choose for ourselves.

          • So if ‘someone’ informed you a person was going to kill your son but for ‘security reasons’ could not disclose the ‘evidence’, and then offered to assassinate said person, would you agree?

          • CliveM

            Depends on who the person is.

    • dannybhoy

      Tell it like it is girl..

    • David

      Well said Hannah !

    • Phil R

      “They are traitors to the Crown and the punishment for treason is to be
      hung drawn and quartered. So being targeted by drones is quite mild”

      Same outcome but you have dispensed with any legal restraint on the Government.

      Let say that we let the DC off on this and applaud him. You are letting an individual decide who is a threat and is free to kill them on their say so.

      Logically it will not stop there

      Anyone who is deemed a threat could in the not too distant future have a drone waiting to kill them when they step out of the front door in the morning.

      Drones could be programmed to kill both specific individuals or whole groups of people.

  • Murti Bing

    Excellent article! This was absolutely the right thing to do, and should be done again if the opportunity arrises. Anyone who thinks otherwise must either not value their freedom very highly or be supremely ignorant. Or perhaps even both.

    These individuals went to Syria so as to kill innocent people for fun. This is unacceptable in any decent society. Furthermore, they justify this fun by saying it is done in the name of God. This is a form of blasphemy which must be rejected outright by any world religion. Any ideology which accepts this form of reasoning as legitimate forfeits its right to a peaceful existence.

    Unfortunately, for the rest of us to continue to live in a free and fair society, dare I say even a peaceful society, we must sometimes fight for it, however distasteful this might seem. It is certainly not done for fun. To those who say we should be more tolerant, I say be careful what you tolerate – even the cute cats bite!

  • chiefofsinners

    Not a word out of place, your Grace.

    Possibly David Cameron’s finest hour to date.

    • Ivan M

      Hardly, the man is a stupid arse and it shows. This kind of thing has to be done on the quite, with the results found by historians digging through the archives. One would expect some action in any case after the massacre in Tunisia. ISIS have their own matryology and this will ensure that every British traveller has to be that much more careful in the future.

      • chiefofsinners

        Admittedly competition for ‘Cameron’s finest hour’ is not fierce.
        But suppose for a moment that these men were spared and in a couple of months they turned up on a Greek beach with guns? Or at your children’s primary school? Tricky decision for Dave.

        • Ivan M

          They are expendable foot soldiers. Their deaths should not be tootled. The grapevine will have the information, and the message would be duly received by the resident Ummah.

          It makes a mockery of the claim that the UK is prepared to handle all contingencies, when they can’t handle two fellows who look like my teenaged son. This from a country that was once prepared to go on a nuclear war with the Soviet Union. How the mighty have fallen.

      • Busy Mum

        Agree – why, why, why was there this announcement to the Commons? And is it linked in some way to the refugee ‘crisis’? Timing and all that…..

  • Phil R

    All of you who think that this is a good idea have seen the “Minority Report” I take it?

    That is where we are. …

    • dannybhoy

      No we ain’t.
      Not yet.

    • chiefofsinners

      There are no easy choices here and no option to not choose.

    • sarky

      In a crap movie?

      • Hi

        Don’t: I had to sit through it when visiting my sister Ruth, who thinks Tom Cruise is “hot”….

        • … tell her he’s a short-arse.

          • Hi Jack

            mum’s wisdom was to go out with men with big and broad shoulders , worked for those of my sister’s who have. Apparently they have big luncheon boxers too. Not sure what that means. My sister Rachel said it is about guys with big hands, a big heart & schtick….

          • chiefofsinners

            Happy Jack? Rules on divorce recently relaxed for Catholics…

          • Hi
            Delicacy need here , but inspector and Jack aren’t Jewish& I can’t think of either being ger….

          • chiefofsinners

            I am sure that circumcision would be no skin off Jack’s nose.

          • dannybhoy

            No, not his nose…

          • chiefofsinners

            Jack’s definitely sniffing around here. First he slags off the competition and before you know it he’s laying his credentials on the table, so to speak.

          • dannybhoy

            That’s another name for it..

          • You seem somewhat obsessed with Jack’s nose, CoS.

          • chiefofsinners

            I believe it was you who raised the subject and provoked this outpouring of admiration and envy.

          • Jack has never raised the matter of his nose, Sir.

          • chiefofsinners

            I stand corrected in the presence of nose man. Etc.

          • Rumour has it, the deed’s been done on the Inspector and his views are closer to Judaism, if only he could get over his dismissal of the OT and all this “lesser race” nonsense.

          • No …. but the Inspector is neither Catholic nor Christian.

          • chiefofsinners

            I was thinking more of you doing the connubials.

          • Jack stands at 6feet 2inches and weighs in at some 13 stone, with broad shoulders. He can, quite impartially, confirm the objective truth of your sister Rachel’s statement.

          • chiefofsinners

            She said ‘Schtick’, not ‘sticky’

          • carl jacobs

            You expect us to believe this self-description, huh?

          • Up to the reader, Carl. Still, you being a Homer Simpson lookalike must have some advantages.

          • carl jacobs

            I have my hair, thanks. You can be envious now. And people generally guess my age short 15 years from what it is.

          • Really, people think you are in your mid-70′?

          • CliveM

            6ft something around the waist perhaps.

            Seen his blog!

          • carl jacobs

            Perhaps we should call him “Adonis Jack.”

          • CliveM

            There’s a labour Peer, who calls himself Lord Adonis, so why not !

          • carl jacobs

            Just think!

            “He has a mind made of bronze.”

            Oh, this has possibilities.

          • chiefofsinners

            Mind of bronze, heart of gold, nerves of steel and a nob of butter.
            Apologies, Jack. ‘No offence’

          • CliveM

            Oh dear, the wife is now wondering why I’m laughing so much…….

            You’re a bad man, but that was funny

          • No offence taken, Jack understands weakness.

          • chiefofsinners

            yes – “The tongue is a little member, yet it boasteth great things.” – James 3:5

          • CliveM

            I think he has released a Genie, he may regret………

          • chiefofsinners

            You can be arrested for doing that in public.

          • CliveM

            I think HJ maybe worried you’re getting obsessed!

          • chiefofsinners

            Yes- I’ll zip it up now.

          • So what’s your height and weight, Carly baby? We know you have hair.

          • carl jacobs

            Oh, no, Jack. I could never say. I am not worthy to be compared to your chiseled magnificence.

          • Embarrassed, eh?

          • carl jacobs

            Who wouldn’t be when compared to such a sterling example of manhood?

          • Guessing you undress at night with the lights off.

          • carl jacobs

            It’s the shame of not being able to measure up.

          • You have your hair, Carl, and people believe you be in your 60’s. Be grateful for small mercies.

          • carl jacobs

            I am, Jack. After all, there is only such much residual benefit available for the rest of us.

          • There you go … thinking along zero sum lines again. We really must do something about this, Carl.

          • 35 inch waist, Clive.

          • CliveM

            Adon… Er is that so HJ? And they say the camera never lies.

          • dannybhoy

            You mean your trousers are 35″ waist? The rest is overspill….

          • dannybhoy

            Self deception more like..

        • chiefofsinners

          Yeah, Scientology is really attractive in a man.

          • Hi chief ,

            Thankfully I pounced on this and said it wasn’t compatible with Judaism. Although my sister Ruth is a 40something ,but slim and attractive , divorced lady(her abusive pig of a former husband we won’t mention) with a very kind heart.Hopefully we’ll match make her to a loving soul mate soon….

          • The Inspector?

          • Hi

            I don’t think Inspector would want to go out with a Jewish women with black curly hair & brown/ olive skin….

          • Lol …. more fool him. More likely he’d wilt, quite literally, in terror. The “Flirty Forties” are when a woman hits her prime before the “Fit Fifties” kick in.

          • sarky

            Sounds a bit like my Mrs (half eqyptian)

          • Hi

            We’re Sephardic Jews. In Israel they call us mizrahi , Jews from the middle east and north Africa & Asia.

          • dannybhoy

            The Inspector will be very fortunate to find any lady willing to put up with his eccentricities and trenchant views..
            :0)

        • dannybhoy

          Tom Cruise hot?
          Midlife Crisis thetan style…

        • CliveM

          Small but imperfectly formed.

          Saw him years ago in the cinema in a Film called Legend. Starred the Devil. Went with a couple of Christians, one of who em prayed through the whole film against the “demonic influences”!

          It was so embarrassing.

      • Phil R

        What has been done is what Martin Neimoller warned us about.

  • carl jacobs

    There has been a lot of “We must kill them before they kill us” on this thread – but without a great deal of precision on how exactly “they” will be identified. That’s the rub, after all. At some point you have to give someone authority to parse people into separate groups. Who does that and how? Under what kind of constraint? Those are important questions when the answer decides the difference between who lives and who dies.

    • Powerdaddy

      You have just discribed the Inspectors dream job, he would be 1st in line if it were ever advertised. Scary thought that………..

      • The person specification would demand high intelligence, subtle judgement, the use of reason and an ability to present a cogent argument. He would not get through an assessment centre’s psychological profiling. Indeed, he might even find himself placed on a list of those to be closely monitored.

    • bluedog

      But how do you ‘identify’ stateless and notionally stateless persons? The answer is a long term programme in which each individual of an identifiable group or nation has their biometrics recorded, principally through the reading of the iris of the eye. Unlike finger prints, this cannot be altered. Individuals claiming to be stateless can potentially be identified on their return, having been biometrically recorded on their departure. Thus all citizens and any jihadis who leave by legitimate channels become identifiable. Under EU open border policy, this measure is possibly ultra-vires. The migrants and everyone else understand this and are exploiting the vacuum.

      The danger at present is that within the swarms of migrants both in the Balkans and on the Med. coast, there will be returning jihadis who have destroyed their national ID. There is already evidence of migrants travelling with false Syrian passports. ISIS is a well-funded non-state actor which could easily finance the landing of jihadis in Europe through the Turkish corridor or across the Med into Italy or Spain. Most jihadis appear to give themselves away through communications networks and we can assume the British government’s own extensive SigInt operations would have picked up the jihadis recently killed, while they were stationary. It is also reasonable to assume from the PM’s comments that the intentions of these jihadis had been advertised on-line. Once the jihadis leave Syria where there is no longer a functioning state, tracking and killing them if necessary becomes very difficult. A British drone strike on a village in Turkey could have unintended consequences.

      In conclusion, just as the jihadis can take advantage of a fluid and ill-defined situation in the EU, the antidote for a nation-state is to take action in the fluid and lawless environment that the jihadis themselves prefer. Thus, what the jihadis see as a refuge becomes a deadly trap for them. Operationally they are probably safer in a weak EU nation with a large Muslim population.

      • magnolia

        Unless you think authoritarianism and trampling on the civil liberties of all and sundry for some elusive “safety” is part of the problem not the solution. Do we want our governments to behave with this level of untrammelled authority? Really?

        And how do you ensure that the boundaries of who is traced, snooped upon, bugged,tagged, and generally recorded down to their irises, DNA, and skeletal frame points of reference is not used against you as a dangerous Christian?

        How do you put that monster back in a bottle, precisely?

        • bluedog

          ‘How do you put that monster back in a bottle, precisely?’

          Too late, it’s already happening in some jurisdictions, but you may not be aware. The emergence of two factors, mass tourism and radical Islam are now conflating to cause an overwhelming migration crisis in Europe. If European society is to survive, there must be controls. You cannot maintain a welfare state with open borders. If migrants come to a European country demanding benefits, the simple question ‘Who are you?’ is reasonable. Bear in mind that the migrants have destroyed their ID so they can answer as they please. As a taxpayer you should be very concerned that a stateless individual can arrive in the EU, expect and be granted potentially lifetime benefits just because they say they are Syrian. So much the better if they know enough about Christianity to be able to claim they are Syrian Christians.

          • magnolia

            Well I agree with that, and that there must be controls. I never thought we should interfere in Syria (and countless other places) in the first place.

            It is the biometric codification of the populace I was very uncomfortable indeed at the suggestion of. The balance of safety and civil liberty is a fascinating one. I would err on the side of civil liberty and personally regard biometric tracking as a nightmare scenario.

          • bluedog

            It is indeed an Orwellian scenario but clearly one our government has not chosen but which is imposed by radical Islam.

            One of the issues we face is the dynamic of offence and grievance. By admitting that the Islamic hordes have a grievance as a result of our own actions we assume guilt. We thus become vulnerable to the entreaties of Islamists and seek to assuage our guilt by accommodating them. By accommodating the Islamic hordes we reward ourselves by feeling righteous, leading to a mutually beneficial transaction. But what if the underlying premise is wrong? What if we are not the guilty party? What if the Islamists are like Obama, brilliant third-world anthropologists who play on white Christian guilt to their own advantage?

            We need to think carefully about the validity of Muslim claims and develop a counter narrative which enables popular support for resistance to this Muslim migrant invasion. Only when there is righteousness in resistance will we prevail.

    • Dreadnaught

      Up until now ‘they’ have been self identifying by their own egotistical use of technology. Trying to guess what methods are being deployed by various state agencies or indeed extrapolating potential legalities of the consequences of their actions is a wild-goose chase. No democracy has to expose its state secrets – even to blogs such as this.
      Never had you down as a supporter of the Snowden and Assange school of conscience cj.

      • carl jacobs

        Never had you down as a supporter of the Snowden and Assange school of conscience cj.

        That’s because I’m not. The difference between us is that you trust the Gov’t to properly use a carte blanche to kill people and I don’t.

        • Dreadnaught

          When I was serving and the order to open fire was given; I opened fire. I did not mentally debate the issue.

          • carl jacobs

            And if you were told to open fire on a group of UK citizens because you were told they were traitors, would you have done it? There are rules of engagement. You have to know who your enemy is before you can shoot him. The political leadership has to properly define the enemy before any shooting starts – especially if that enemy is indigenous. A solder is responsible to obey those rules of engagement and reject an illegal order.

            Do you remember Kent State? “Four dead in Ohio.” Someone in uniform should have swung for that. You don’t open fire on a group of people just because you are ordered to do so.

          • Dreadnaught

            I did two tours in Northern Ireland (among other places) in the 70s. They were UK citizens that were shooting at us.

          • carl jacobs

            If someone has a rifle, and is shooting at you, then it’s pretty obvious you can shoot back. And if he doesn’t have a rifle? What were your rules of engagement?

            Although I will say this. I now have a much better understanding of what you are saying because of that piece of information. Your arguments make a lot more sense to me now.

          • Dreadnaught

            A rifle or not – a fail to stop was authority to open fire.

          • carl jacobs

            If you assume the existence of an armed organization that is presently conducting assymetrical warfare, and you assume this organization has overwhelmed the ability of law enforcement to respond, then what you say makes sense. You have entered the realm of armed insurrection and the rules change.

            But you aren’t there at this moment.

          • Dreadnaught

            …the rules change

            The rules to combat ISIS are non-existent. ISIS is not bound by any Western logic or rules. The internet and global rise if militant Islam has made all conventional strategic tools and diplomacy obsolete. No holds barred is the only rule.

          • carl jacobs

            You can’t use the military to preemptively attack your own population. You have to have legitimate cause to deploy the military on your own sovereign territory. That’s why explicit legal requirements are imperative.

          • Dreadnaught

            A preemptive strike on your own population? – Are you conflating what we have been talking about with the National Guard deployments in the US?. Not sure why you are making these points.

  • Deimos

    I must admit to not reading to the bottom of this articles comments so apologies if any of my points are repeats, three minor revelation happened when reading this news..
    1. I think the identity of these naughty ishmalites is very easily confirmed by their frequent use of social media, it could be as simple as downing street “liking” a post on facebook.
    2. Could this be a simple way to solve two very pressing problems, refugees and IS.
    Open up an NHS recruitment office in the larger refugee camps and recruit any syrian doctors and nurses. At the same office have a jihadi jobcentre desk to give our departing killers a bus ticket and stamp their passports as “no longer needed by human race – no re-entry in this lifetime unless properly Droned”.
    3. As a final point I truly hope the families of the “Droned” do sue, send them to the caliphate in exchange for any Christians who by some miracle have survived the “religion of peace”.

    Funny note to end on, in order to guard their new model “Crusader” assault rifle against unauthorised use an American company has decorated it in two Bible verses, a nice big crucifix and changed the settings from “Safe, single shot, full auto” to “Peace, War, GOD WILLS IT”.

  • IanCad

    OK! Myself and others have declared our unease with the execution by whim of our subjects. Oh I know! Sure, they were shysters, and cutthroats to a man.
    However, let me state that the use of drones – especially tiny little ones – could certainly be justified in the case of Iran’s Supreme Leader – Ayatollah Ali Khamenei – who, apparently, has recently Twittered that Israel won’t exist after twenty five more years. It would be heartening to see this chap not existing pronto.
    The drone genie is going to come out of the bottle one day soon.
    Leaders will be the target.

    • dannybhoy

      I think drones will become part of law enforcement.. They will hover over you in the street as you get into your car, broadcasting “‘Ello Ello!” is that a bald tyre I see?”
      Then they fire the missile…

      • IanCad

        This is where the US has an advantage over us. They own guns and would not hesitate to shoot down any drone within range should they suspect it was looking at them.
        Drones are going to be a huge problem. Especially the small ones.
        On the bright side: Micro drones will become ubiquitous. Leaders will have to be very careful not to get too far out of line.
        I think Kim is pushing it. Not good to threaten Uncle Sam.

        • dannybhoy

          Our world is shrinking rapidly through the technological advances made in communications. So ideas, plans and technology can be accessed by almost anyone. I think the world is becoming increasingly dangerous, and that seems to me to fit in with the Bible’s affirmation that the world will end.. One is reminded of films like Robocop and the Terminator’s ‘rise of the machine.’ Nanotechnology and artificial intelligence are other areas of potential concern.

          http://www.defenseone.com/technology/2014/12/military-wants-smarter-insect-spy-drones/101970/

    • Ivan M

      In the interest of fairness this should apply to Americans and Israelis who regularly call for Iran’s destruction.
      Santorum: “I would like to bomb Iran back to the Stone Age..”
      etc etc.

      • IanCad

        Granted, Iran has been treated shabbily by the USA – going back to the overthrow of Mossadegh. Remember though, these are the Persians, not Arabs, and are a cultured, innovatve people groslsy misgoverned by religious fanatics. The West has been very unwise in its dealings with the descendants of Cyrus,
        That said, I hold to my comment. Israel cannot appear to be weak.
        The Middle East are like Germans – At your feet or at your throat.

        • Ivan M

          To get a handle on the Iranian situation, since the Islamic Revolution, the template should be the Russian Revolution. Then too the Communists had their overseas assassinations, just as the mullahs killed many overseas and at home. Like the Communists they had their revolutionary bloodletting phase. Now I believe they are into their version of the Brezhnev era. Yesterday’s revolutionaries are the nomenclatura now. Though the Israelis do owe the mullahs big time for the murder of Jews in Argentina in 1994, their support of Islamic Jihad and Hizballah, and generally their spoiler role during the Oslo peace process, I do think that at this stage any attack on Iran will only lead to a consolidation of the mullahs’ rule. Like the Communists they need crises abroad to sustain repression at home. If it were possible to separate the mullahs from the Iranian people, I would not really care if these murderers got their just desserts.