Urban75 Home About Offline BrixtonBuzz Contact

The Islamic state

FWIW, I'd say we're in some state of conflict with IS, not sure I think that it's a war. But the difference might be irrelevant.
 
Last edited:
LynnDoyleCooper said:
Huh, I wasn't addressing that issue of right/wrong at all. (And there you go again with your certainty that it's illegal, despite the State who define the legality saying it wasn't.)
Click to expand...
here i'm referring to the 2013 vote, and not the legality of the killing
I was just saying I think an element in the 'don't intervene it'll provoke them' is the influence of pacifism IMO.
Click to expand...
what pacifist influence is this?
 
frogwoman said:
Theres another reason this worries me though. When i heard about this yesterday i was happy (or at least didnt care) t their death, as they are war criminals, killing prisoners for isis snuff videos is a war crime, they have almost certainly raped and beheaded people too. Fuck them.

However, the reason it worries me is that during the last year daesh have built a reputation on being the 'defenders' of sunnis in iraq and syria and around the world. They have against seemingly all odds , managed to not only seize and hold territory despite battling every other armed force in the area, but managed to set up social services and manage these areas relatively efficiently (if horrifically). Most of their propaganda now involves showing their efforts in this area. Couldnt stuff like this strike potentially add to the idea that they are an underdog but are still 'winning' and therefore make some people more likely to support them?
Click to expand...

That is no doubt what they will claim, but one shouldn't forget that the whole notion of them being the underdog is absurd; they get almost all of the outside support for "the rebels" as it is and the odds that they have faced - an overstretched and fatigued Syrian Army, an Iraqi Army under Maliki that probably existed for the most part in a series of fake wage claims, and a US-led campaign that remains remarkably hands-off in the circumstances - hardly constitutes being up against it.
 
Pickman's model said:
i don't think you need to be a pacifist to say 'there's something wrong here' when the state starts defying its own legislature.
Click to expand...

but it hasn't.

firstly Cameron said all the way through the IS-Iraq debate that he would use force against IS in Syria if he felt it neccesary, and the motion passed. overwhelmingly.

secondly in the Syria debate, Cameron asked for permission - idiot - to attack Syrias' Chemical weapons and associated military infrastructure to both prevent its further use and 'Pour encourager les autres'. thats all it asked for, and as this attack neither attacked Syria's Chemical weapons capability, or its military, or its 'government', this cannot possibly be described as having gone against the vote in the Commons.

had the motion said 'we want permission to attack any target we see fit, for any reason we see fit, on Syrian territory', and been defeated then you'd be right, but the wording was very specific, and therefore so was the rejection of that wording.
 
kebabking said:
but it hasn't.

firstly Cameron said all the way through the IS-Iraq debate that he would use force against IS in Syria if he felt it neccesary, and the motion passed. overwhelmingly.

secondly in the Syria debate, Cameron asked for permission - idiot - to attack Syrias' Chemical weapons and associated military infrastructure to both prevent its further use and 'Pour encourager les autres'. thats all it asked for, and as this attack neither attacked Syria's Chemical weapons capability, or its military, or its 'government', this cannot possibly be described as having gone against the vote in the Commons.

had the motion said 'we want permission to attack any target we see fit, for any reason we see fit, on Syrian territory', and been defeated then you'd be right, but the wording was very specific, and therefore so was the rejection of that wording.
Click to expand...
date and / or link pls

e2a: is this the 3rd or 4th time i've asked?
 
Pickman's model said:
do you believe the raf now declare hostilities?
Click to expand...

no, i believe that thats the moment we went from a period of verbal conflict to a period of blowy-uppy, killing people conflict.

government said 'thou shalt', but thats only words, not deeds. several days later, deeds happened.
 
kebabking said:
no, i believe that thats the moment we went from a period of verbal conflict to a period of blowy-uppy, killing people conflict.

government said 'thou shalt', but thats only words, not deeds. several days later, deeds happened.
Click to expand...
it's disappointing you don't seem to know when this occurred.
 
kebabking said:
but it hasn't.

firstly Cameron said all the way through the IS-Iraq debate that he would use force against IS in Syria if he felt it neccesary, and the motion passed. overwhelmingly.

secondly in the Syria debate, Cameron asked for permission - idiot - to attack Syrias' Chemical weapons and associated military infrastructure to both prevent its further use and 'Pour encourager les autres'. thats all it asked for, and as this attack neither attacked Syria's Chemical weapons capability, or its military, or its 'government', this cannot possibly be described as having gone against the vote in the Commons.

had the motion said 'we want permission to attack any target we see fit, for any reason we see fit, on Syrian territory', and been defeated then you'd be right, but the wording was very specific, and therefore so was the rejection of that wording.
Click to expand...
upload_2015-9-8_15-42-37.png
House of Commons Hansard Debates for 26 Sep 2014 (pt 0001)
 
agricola said:
That is no doubt what they will claim, but one shouldn't forget that the whole notion of them being the underdog is absurd; they get almost all of the outside support for "the rebels" as it is and the odds that they have faced - an overstretched and fatigued Syrian Army, an Iraqi Army under Maliki that probably existed for the most part in a series of fake wage claims, and a US-led campaign that remains remarkably hands-off in the circumstances - hardly constitutes being up against it.
Click to expand...
yep i know.
Thats not how a lot of people will see it though.
 
Pickman's model said:
was this on 29 aug 2013?
Click to expand...

Yes.

The actual motion was about striking Assad's Regime. Fuck all to do with bombing ISIS in Syria.

The Prime Minister (Mr David Cameron): I beg to move,

That this House:

Deplores the use of chemical weapons in Syria on 21 August 2013 by the Assad regime, which caused hundreds of deaths and thousands of injuries of Syrian civilians;

Recalls the importance of upholding the worldwide prohibition on the use of chemical weapons under international law;

Agrees that a strong humanitarian response is required from the international community and that this may, if necessary, require military action that is legal, proportionate and focused on saving lives by preventing and deterring further use of Syria’s chemical weapons;
Click to expand...
House of Commons Hansard Debates for 29 Aug 2013 (pt 0001)
 
kebabking fair enough he did say
upload_2015-9-8_15-52-8.png
but there has not been any genuine proof of which i'm aware adduced to show that 'a vital british interest' was at stake, unless a case to that effect is wending its way unseen through the legal system.
 
Pickman's model said:
View attachment 76335
House of Commons Hansard Debates for 26 Sep 2014 (pt 0001)
Click to expand...

you'll note the 'this campaign'.

Cameron was very specific that the Syria strike was not part of the wider anti-IS operation that the UK is currently involved in, rather that it took place under exactly the same legal framework that would have allowed such a strike anywhere that met the critea, so Libya, or Somalia or anywhere else that the normal legal framework of either extradition or local law enforement would not apply.

you'll also note this exchange with Perter Hain during that same debate - Cameron makes very clear that he reserves the right to conduct airstrikes within Syria without first informing the HoC if he feels that either its required to protect civilians on the ground, or is required to preserve a critical British national interest. the HoC heard that, and the motion still passed.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mr Peter Hain (Neath) (Lab): I support the Prime Minister’s motion. I also think that, in the end, we will have to deal with ISIL in Syria as well. Did I hear him correctly a moment or two ago? Did he say that if there

26 Sep 2014 : Column 1265

was an urgent humanitarian need, he would take the action and then get subsequent support from the House? Surely it should be the other way round.

The Prime Minister: No, no. To be absolutely clear, the right hon. Gentleman heard me right the first time round. If there was the need to take urgent action to prevent, for instance, the massacre of a minority community or a Christian community, and Britain could act to prevent that humanitarian catastrophe—if I believed we could effectively act and do that—I am saying I would order that and come straight to the House and explain afterwards.

Let me be clear: I think the convention that has grown up in recent years that the House of Commons is properly consulted and there is a proper vote is a good convention. It is particularly apt when there is—as there is today—a proposal for, as it were, premeditated military action. I think it is important to reserve the right that if there were a critical British national interest at stake or there were the need to act to prevent a humanitarian catastrophe, you could act immediately and explain to the House of Commons afterwards. I am being very frank about this because I do not want to mislead anybody.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

just seen your post above - trawling through the same shit i see!
 
kebabking said:
you'll note the 'this campaign'.

Cameron was very specific that the Syria strike was not part of the wider anti-IS operation that the UK is currently involved in, rather that it took place under exactly the same legal framework that would have allowed such a strike anywhere that met the critea, so Libya, or Somalia or anywhere else that the normal legal framework of either extradition or local law enforement would not apply.

you'll also note this exchange with Perter Hain during that same debate - Cameron makes very clear that he reserves the right to conduct airstrikes within Syria without first informing the HoC if he feels that either its required to protect civilians on the ground, or is required to preserve a critical British national interest. the HoC heard that, and the motion still passed.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mr Peter Hain (Neath) (Lab): I support the Prime Minister’s motion. I also think that, in the end, we will have to deal with ISIL in Syria as well. Did I hear him correctly a moment or two ago? Did he say that if there

26 Sep 2014 : Column 1265

was an urgent humanitarian need, he would take the action and then get subsequent support from the House? Surely it should be the other way round.

The Prime Minister: No, no. To be absolutely clear, the right hon. Gentleman heard me right the first time round. If there was the need to take urgent action to prevent, for instance, the massacre of a minority community or a Christian community, and Britain could act to prevent that humanitarian catastrophe—if I believed we could effectively act and do that—I am saying I would order that and come straight to the House and explain afterwards.

Let me be clear: I think the convention that has grown up in recent years that the House of Commons is properly consulted and there is a proper vote is a good convention. It is particularly apt when there is—as there is today—a proposal for, as it were, premeditated military action. I think it is important to reserve the right that if there were a critical British national interest at stake or there were the need to act to prevent a humanitarian catastrophe, you could act immediately and explain to the House of Commons afterwards. I am being very frank about this because I do not want to mislead anybody.
Click to expand...
you're tardy
 
gimesumtruf said:
The sun will freeze over before you get any proof.
Click to expand...
And quite rightly so.

Any such proof would almost certainly involve revealing security and operational details that need to be kept secret.

The government killed a couple of ISIS cunts who happened to be British and were possibly/probably/definitely/maybe/perhaps, plotting attacks on the UK. It wasn't illegal.

Nothing bad has happened here and lives have probably been saved.
 
Spymaster said:
And quite rightly so.

Any such proof would almost certainly involve revealing security and operational details that need to be kept secret.

The government killed a couple of ISIS cunts who happened to be British and were possibly/probably/definitely/maybe/perhaps, plotting attacks on the UK. It wasn't illegal.

Nothing bad has happened here and lives have probably been saved.
Click to expand...
what, operational secrets like the ones we already know about the interception of communications?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

tim
Bizarre acts of terrorism - statue of Lenin and Mao blown up in Texas.
Replies
3
Views
404
belboid
belboid
Bingoman
Turkish terror attack 23rd October 2024
Replies
4
Views
768
_Russ_
_Russ_
tim
State murder in Singapore.
Replies
21
Views
849
A380
A380
JimW
Indian state implicated in murder of Sikh activist in Canada
2
Replies
30
Views
2K
_Russ_
_Russ_
Pickman's model
fascist republican state legislators (usa)
Replies
0
Views
379
Pickman's model
Pickman's model
Back
Top Bottom