British jihadists killed in RAF drone strike

[urmston]

Once Corbyn gets his new job he'll probably rip into Cameron about this from the despatch box.

I can't wait.

 

[No6]

because it's bollox.

Why's it bollocks? Seems to sum up the whole imbroglio perfectly well and is factually correct. From the Daily Fail as well.

What bit's do you disagree with?

 

[jimbobblue]

Could not give two fucks that the guy is dead, good.
But, if he was living in london and apparantly preparing a terrorist attack, would a drone be allowed to get him while he was sat in his back garden? Serious question. I dont have a clue on the legality of it all so want to know if it is ok to take a guy if he is in another country but not ok to di it here? Or would it be the same?

To try and sum up, if he was in a house in London preparing an attack and we had intelligence that he was about to execute and attack then he would be arrested. If he was stood outside Buckingham Palace for example with a pipe bomb or other device he would be killed. It comes down to the severity of the threat they pose. We will always arrest to prevent an attack rather than let it happen and kill them after it.

 

[SWP's back]

But is that the sole reason we were allowed to kill him? Because we couldn't arrest him?
Hypothetically speaking, would it be legal to to launch a drone attack on somebody in the UK if they were thought to be plotting a terrorist attack

If people are in imminent danger that happens anyway with firearms officers shooting people.

 

[SWP's back]

Care to give a us a run down of your version of the situation then, or at least tell us the bits you think are 'bollox'?

The Saudi's backing ISIS.

 

[No6]

To try and sum up, if he was in a house in London preparing an attack and we had intelligence that he was about to execute and attack then he would be arrested. If he was stood outside Buckingham Palace for example with a pipe bomb or other device he would be killed. It comes down to the severity of the threat they pose. We will always arrest to prevent an attack rather than let it happen and kill them after it.

Just playing Devil's advocate here, but what level of "severity of threat" did he pose whilst in a desert 2,800 miles away? I can understand your argument that if he was stood outside Buck House with a pipe bomb ready to fire then he would more than likely be shot, but it'd be a pretty big fucking pipe bomb to be effective, and a credible threat, from nearly 3000 miles away wouldn't it?

 

[No6]

The Saudi's backing ISIS.

Saudi Wahabism is a major funder of IS. There's no doubt about that.

 

[SWP's back]

good call, that would stop any potential extremists from joining up, once we have burnt them we can rape their wives and take their children as slaves, you cant beat 'em join 'em eh Marco

The thing is, you'd rather he was doing to that to the Kurds then currently enjoying his 72 virgins.

 

[SWP's back]

Why's it bollocks? Seems to sum up the whole imbroglio perfectly well and is factually correct. From the Daily Fail as well.

What bit's do you disagree with?

The fact you called it factually correct.

 

[jimbobblue]

Just playing Devil's advocate here, but what level of "severity of threat" did he pose whilst in a desert 2,800 miles away? I can understand your argument that if he was stood outside Buck House with a pipe bomb ready to fire then he would more than likely be shot, but it'd be a pretty big fucking pipe bomb to be effective, and a credible threat, from nearly 3000 miles away wouldn't it?

I can't answer what threat he posed as i don't know what intelligence the MOD had. I can assume he is involved in some activity which may involve potential risk to British or Allied lives. I was trying to explain why some people are arrested in this country rather than drone style kills here. (Again of which is my opinion and no way confirmed facts :P)