RAF kills two Britons in Syria
- Thread starter Blackleaf
- Start date
This is good news now what about those family members in Britain did they support
or know their family went there to fight? If so they should be deported. It is time to
take a more active stand against those who support the enemy while residing in our
country or in the nations of the west. A coordinated policy is required. Those who
contribute money, travel or other assistance to family member to go fight for the
enemy should be subject to anti patriot laws. Something new? Not at all we had
such actions in WWII for those who supported the enemy and we are at war by the
way. For those who bury their head in the sand
or know their family went there to fight? If so they should be deported. It is time to
take a more active stand against those who support the enemy while residing in our
country or in the nations of the west. A coordinated policy is required. Those who
contribute money, travel or other assistance to family member to go fight for the
enemy should be subject to anti patriot laws. Something new? Not at all we had
such actions in WWII for those who supported the enemy and we are at war by the
way. For those who bury their head in the sand
Not Tru. If you have GAELIC blood in ye, yer no Briton. If you have Welsh/Cornish/Devon Celtic blood, you are a true Briton ... that is, an aboriginal inhabitant of Britain.
Them English Brits, tho ...
No. It's a racist comment. Would you call someone a black dog or a Chinese dog?
The last time I looked at a map, Cornwall and Devon are in England.
Of course not! Those terms are too general.
I didn't call you a White dog, I called you an Anglo-Saxon dog.
Well, Anglo-Norman probably would have been more accurate, but who can keep track of all these little tribes and factions of white people? Specially since they just won't stay where Jesus flang 'em.
Oh, and Blackie's an imbecile, so what you've seen already is about as good as it gets.
Two new YouGov polls show the British public are overwhelmingly in favour of drones strikes and almost split down the middle when it comes to taking in "refugees".
Last month, the Prime Minister authorised a drone strike in Syria which killed two British citizens who were fighting for ISIS and apparently plotting terrorist attacks. Do you support or oppose this?
Support: 66%
Oppose: 11%
Neither: 9%
Don't know: 14%
Supporters by party
Conservatives: 85%
Ukip: 82%
Labour: 60%
Liberal Democrats: 60%
Opposers by party
Labour: 16%
Liberal Democrats: 14%
Ukip: 5%
Conservatives: 3%
David Cameron has said that Britain will take in up to 20,000 refugees from Syria over the next five years. Do you support or oppose this?
Support: 27%
Oppose - we should be taking in more refugees sooner: 15%
Oppose - we should not take in as many: 45%
Don't know: 13%
Supporters by party
Liberal Democrats: 37%
Labour: 30%
Conservatives: 29%
Ukip: 9%
"Oppose - we should be taking in more refugees sooner" by party
Liberal Democrats: 25%
Labour: 21%
Conservatives: 5%
Ukip: 3%
"Oppose - we should not take in as many" by party
Ukip: 79%
Conservatives: 55%
Labour: 38%
Liberal Democrats: 28%
9696 UK adults were questioned 7th-8th September 2015
https://yougov.co.uk/news/2015/09/08/public-approval-syria-drone-attacks/
Last month, the Prime Minister authorised a drone strike in Syria which killed two British citizens who were fighting for ISIS and apparently plotting terrorist attacks. Do you support or oppose this?
Support: 66%
Oppose: 11%
Neither: 9%
Don't know: 14%
Supporters by party
Conservatives: 85%
Ukip: 82%
Labour: 60%
Liberal Democrats: 60%
Opposers by party
Labour: 16%
Liberal Democrats: 14%
Ukip: 5%
Conservatives: 3%
David Cameron has said that Britain will take in up to 20,000 refugees from Syria over the next five years. Do you support or oppose this?
Support: 27%
Oppose - we should be taking in more refugees sooner: 15%
Oppose - we should not take in as many: 45%
Don't know: 13%
Supporters by party
Liberal Democrats: 37%
Labour: 30%
Conservatives: 29%
Ukip: 9%
"Oppose - we should be taking in more refugees sooner" by party
Liberal Democrats: 25%
Labour: 21%
Conservatives: 5%
Ukip: 3%
"Oppose - we should not take in as many" by party
Ukip: 79%
Conservatives: 55%
Labour: 38%
Liberal Democrats: 28%
9696 UK adults were questioned 7th-8th September 2015
https://yougov.co.uk/news/2015/09/08/public-approval-syria-drone-attacks/
Yes, but you're a COLONIAL, old boy! Haven't had the advantages of proper society out there among the savages, eh what?
Probably don't even belong to a decent club, what?
Exactly, so my using the term "Anglo-Saxon dog" can't possibly be racist. It's called bigotry. If yer gonna call people out for stuff, at least get it right.
The Left should keep its moral lectures to itself
I'm sick of lefties' sense of moral superiority, when they actually have a fundamental lack of humanity
(L-R) Reyaad Khan, Junaid Hussain and Rahul Amin
By Dan Hodges
09 Sep 2015
The Telegraph
549 Comments
I’m not sure if Reyaad Khan or Ruhul Amin - the two ISIS fighters killed by an RAF drone strike - were personally responsible for throwing two gay men off a roof in Homs two months ago. Perhaps they were part of the mob that waited below to throw rocks at their broken bodies.
Maybe it was them who doused Jordanian pilot Moaz al-Kasasbeh in petrol, locked him in a cage and burnt him alive. Or they were behind some of the rapes Angelina Jolie talked about in the House of Commons yesterday, rapes of girls as young as seven that she said were being used by ISIS as the “centrepoint of their terror”.
Anyway, we'll never know now, because they’re dead. And I’m glad they’re dead. I wish all the Isil butchers were dead. Drones. Smart bombs. The tip of a bayonet. It doesn’t really bother me how. The more of them we can kill, the better.
At least, that was my initial reaction when I heard about their deaths. “Good”, I said to myself, “they got what was coming to them."
That wasn’t the reaction of quite a few other people. Over at the Stop The War Coalition, they took a short break from masterminding Jeremy Corbyn’s election campaign to post up an angry statement declaiming “UK government rides to war killing its own citizens and on the backs of refugees”. In the Guardian, Gary Younge wrote “Britain can now add extrajudicial killings to torture, rendition and occupation as tools in defence of “Enlightenment values”. The human rights group Reprieve took to the air waves to complain “the fact that David Cameron has bypassed parliament to commit these covert strikes is deeply worrying – as is his refusal to share what legal advice he was given.”
Each to their own I suppose. Well, kind of.
Over the past month people on the centre-Right of politics - actually those on the centre-Right of the Left of politics - have been asking themselves “what’s gone wrong?” Corbynmania. The flight from reason. The rout of the moderates.
The list of answers would currently fill a small phone directory. But I think one of the most significant has been revealed in the reaction to the Reyaad Khan and Ruhul Amin “assassination”.
The Left have immediately scrambled to the top of the moral high ground. The rule of law has been traduced. The state cannot act as judge and executioner. We are destroying the very values we are supposedly defending.
And the moderate center-Right have happily ushered them up there. OK, this may be a legally grey area. But the practicalities of defending the realm some times supersede the principles. The end justifies the means.
It happens time and time and time again. The Left wraps itself in the warm, heavy cloak of morality. And those on the centre-Right opt for the ugly and superficial undergarments of pragmatism.
It has to stop. The killing of Reyaad Khan and Ruhul Amin was - probably - legally correct. As ever, there are differing viewpoints. But the balance of independent legal opinion I have read supports the government’s stance.
But even if it wasn’t legally correct, it was morally correct. These men were Isil fighters. We know this because they told us they were. They posed for photos. They issued statements. They posted videos.
Reyaad Khan and Ruhul Amin were modern day Nazis. They were willing members of the one of the most evil, barbaric, sadistic organizations ever to exist on our planet. Stopping them from continuing their campaign of barbarism was our moral duty.
Yes, Gary. Our enlightenment values do mean that when confronted by people who adopt mass rape, torture and murder as their hobbies, we stop them. If we can arrest them, great. But if we can’t, we’re going to have to just kill them. And when we do kill them, that is not evidence we are “just as bad as them”. It’s evidence that we are better than them.
I can take the hard-Left's ideological purity. But I’m sick to the back teeth of their presumption of moral superiority. If you genuinely think we would be living in a better world today if Reyaad Khan and Ruhul Amin were happily driving along to the scene of their next mass rape then it’s you, not the so-called liberal interventionists, who should be taking a look at your personal value system.
We’re seeing this on an almost daily basis now. When it became clear a combination of Yvette Cooper’s intervention and the photo of Aylan Kurdi were beginning to transform the debate on refugees, social media began to fill up with frothing fury. Much of it came from the usual “we’re full, we don’t want ‘em here” brigade on the hard-right. But there was an equally rabid response from elements of the hard-Left. Those expressing concern were all hypocrites. They’d been silent till the photo of the little boy had appeared. Cooper was a hypocrite. She’d taken a hard line on economic migration. What about Palestine? Anyone who said they cared about this, but didn’t care about the Palestinians was a hypocrite.
Again, these are the sort of people we’re supposed to be taking moral lectures from? People whose response to a spontaneous, compassionate reflex is to scream “hypocrites, the lot of you!!!” at the top of their lungs?
Actually, it’s not just the hard-Left’s righteous arrogance and own moral hypocrisy that is so staggering. It’s the fundamental lack of humanity.
We saw this most graphically illustrated during the row over Jeremy Corbyn’s comments on how the death of Bin Laden was a “tragedy”. The hard-Left tied itself in knots tying to rationalize and legitimize this statement. He’d been talking about the cycle of violence it had perpetrated. He’d been specifically referring to the fact that Bin Laden had not been brought to trial.
Perhaps he was. But he didn’t merely say Bin Laden’s killing was “counterproductive”. Or “misguided”. Or “a missed opportunity to bring him to justice”. When asked to respond to the death of one of history’s worst mass murderers he instinctively reached for the word “tragedy”.
And we are – I’m told – all supposed to look up to this man, and the movement he leads, for moral guidance. He is, I read repeatedly, a man of inviolate principle and unshakable belief and unscripted word.
Well, if inviolate principle means saying to the likes of Reyaad Khan and Ruhul Amin “where you off to today lads? Throwing another couple of gays off a roof? Ooooooh, bit harsh. But OK, on your way” then you can keep it. Morality is not an abstraction. Nor is it codified under the rule of law. If a doctor helps a patient in agony to end their life they may have committed an illegal act. But they haven’t necessarily committed an immoral one.
So by all means, lecture us about politics. Lecture us about foreign affairs. Lecture us about international law. But please, if you really think the killing of Reyaad Khan and Ruhul Amin was wrong, keep your moral lectures to yourself.
The Left should keep its moral lectures to itself - Telegraph
It's racist. You're attacking someone on their race.
I'm sick of lefties' sense of moral superiority, when they actually have a fundamental lack of humanity
(L-R) Reyaad Khan, Junaid Hussain and Rahul Amin
By Dan Hodges
09 Sep 2015
The Telegraph
I’m not sure if Reyaad Khan or Ruhul Amin - the two ISIS fighters killed by an RAF drone strike - were personally responsible for throwing two gay men off a roof in Homs two months ago. Perhaps they were part of the mob that waited below to throw rocks at their broken bodies.
Maybe it was them who doused Jordanian pilot Moaz al-Kasasbeh in petrol, locked him in a cage and burnt him alive. Or they were behind some of the rapes Angelina Jolie talked about in the House of Commons yesterday, rapes of girls as young as seven that she said were being used by ISIS as the “centrepoint of their terror”.
Anyway, we'll never know now, because they’re dead. And I’m glad they’re dead. I wish all the Isil butchers were dead. Drones. Smart bombs. The tip of a bayonet. It doesn’t really bother me how. The more of them we can kill, the better.
At least, that was my initial reaction when I heard about their deaths. “Good”, I said to myself, “they got what was coming to them."
That wasn’t the reaction of quite a few other people. Over at the Stop The War Coalition, they took a short break from masterminding Jeremy Corbyn’s election campaign to post up an angry statement declaiming “UK government rides to war killing its own citizens and on the backs of refugees”. In the Guardian, Gary Younge wrote “Britain can now add extrajudicial killings to torture, rendition and occupation as tools in defence of “Enlightenment values”. The human rights group Reprieve took to the air waves to complain “the fact that David Cameron has bypassed parliament to commit these covert strikes is deeply worrying – as is his refusal to share what legal advice he was given.”
Each to their own I suppose. Well, kind of.
Over the past month people on the centre-Right of politics - actually those on the centre-Right of the Left of politics - have been asking themselves “what’s gone wrong?” Corbynmania. The flight from reason. The rout of the moderates.
The list of answers would currently fill a small phone directory. But I think one of the most significant has been revealed in the reaction to the Reyaad Khan and Ruhul Amin “assassination”.
The Left have immediately scrambled to the top of the moral high ground. The rule of law has been traduced. The state cannot act as judge and executioner. We are destroying the very values we are supposedly defending.
And the moderate center-Right have happily ushered them up there. OK, this may be a legally grey area. But the practicalities of defending the realm some times supersede the principles. The end justifies the means.
It happens time and time and time again. The Left wraps itself in the warm, heavy cloak of morality. And those on the centre-Right opt for the ugly and superficial undergarments of pragmatism.
It has to stop. The killing of Reyaad Khan and Ruhul Amin was - probably - legally correct. As ever, there are differing viewpoints. But the balance of independent legal opinion I have read supports the government’s stance.
But even if it wasn’t legally correct, it was morally correct. These men were Isil fighters. We know this because they told us they were. They posed for photos. They issued statements. They posted videos.
Reyaad Khan and Ruhul Amin were modern day Nazis. They were willing members of the one of the most evil, barbaric, sadistic organizations ever to exist on our planet. Stopping them from continuing their campaign of barbarism was our moral duty.
Yes, Gary. Our enlightenment values do mean that when confronted by people who adopt mass rape, torture and murder as their hobbies, we stop them. If we can arrest them, great. But if we can’t, we’re going to have to just kill them. And when we do kill them, that is not evidence we are “just as bad as them”. It’s evidence that we are better than them.
I can take the hard-Left's ideological purity. But I’m sick to the back teeth of their presumption of moral superiority. If you genuinely think we would be living in a better world today if Reyaad Khan and Ruhul Amin were happily driving along to the scene of their next mass rape then it’s you, not the so-called liberal interventionists, who should be taking a look at your personal value system.
We’re seeing this on an almost daily basis now. When it became clear a combination of Yvette Cooper’s intervention and the photo of Aylan Kurdi were beginning to transform the debate on refugees, social media began to fill up with frothing fury. Much of it came from the usual “we’re full, we don’t want ‘em here” brigade on the hard-right. But there was an equally rabid response from elements of the hard-Left. Those expressing concern were all hypocrites. They’d been silent till the photo of the little boy had appeared. Cooper was a hypocrite. She’d taken a hard line on economic migration. What about Palestine? Anyone who said they cared about this, but didn’t care about the Palestinians was a hypocrite.
Again, these are the sort of people we’re supposed to be taking moral lectures from? People whose response to a spontaneous, compassionate reflex is to scream “hypocrites, the lot of you!!!” at the top of their lungs?
Actually, it’s not just the hard-Left’s righteous arrogance and own moral hypocrisy that is so staggering. It’s the fundamental lack of humanity.
We saw this most graphically illustrated during the row over Jeremy Corbyn’s comments on how the death of Bin Laden was a “tragedy”. The hard-Left tied itself in knots tying to rationalize and legitimize this statement. He’d been talking about the cycle of violence it had perpetrated. He’d been specifically referring to the fact that Bin Laden had not been brought to trial.
Perhaps he was. But he didn’t merely say Bin Laden’s killing was “counterproductive”. Or “misguided”. Or “a missed opportunity to bring him to justice”. When asked to respond to the death of one of history’s worst mass murderers he instinctively reached for the word “tragedy”.
And we are – I’m told – all supposed to look up to this man, and the movement he leads, for moral guidance. He is, I read repeatedly, a man of inviolate principle and unshakable belief and unscripted word.
Well, if inviolate principle means saying to the likes of Reyaad Khan and Ruhul Amin “where you off to today lads? Throwing another couple of gays off a roof? Ooooooh, bit harsh. But OK, on your way” then you can keep it. Morality is not an abstraction. Nor is it codified under the rule of law. If a doctor helps a patient in agony to end their life they may have committed an illegal act. But they haven’t necessarily committed an immoral one.
So by all means, lecture us about politics. Lecture us about foreign affairs. Lecture us about international law. But please, if you really think the killing of Reyaad Khan and Ruhul Amin was wrong, keep your moral lectures to yourself.
The Left should keep its moral lectures to itself - Telegraph
It's racist. You're attacking someone on their race.
Last edited: