British jihadists killed in RAF drone strike

[SWP's back]

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

That's not the Saudi's backing it.

You may as well say Birmingham backs ISIS.

And as the richest terrorist group in the world due to their racketeering and control of some oil fields, they aren't in need of financial backing either.

Every Saudi I know, which I dare say is a fuck load more than you, hate them and what they misrepresent of Islam. And the powers that be in KSA really don't want them as neighbours, hence attacking them via air strikes.

 

[SWP's back]

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'm sure anyone actually needing to know the extract level of threat would have been present in the COBRA meeting discussing them.

 

[No6]

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)

Fair enough.

On another pouint, I wonder if it's the same "intelligence" agents that we were told had uncovered Saddam's ability to launch an attack on the UK in 45 minutes?

 

[The Count Of Monte Cristo]

The Saudi's backing ISIS.

So other than that it's correct yeah?

 

[Monkfish]

I'm sure anyone actually needing to know the extract level of threat would have been present in the COBRA meeting discussing them.

that's alright then - we don't need to know anything. Dont worry the MP's from Eton, the judges form Eton and the security chiefs from Eton will look after this on behalf of us plebs like they always have

I reckon he was throwing stones at no.10 and perfecting his skimmers so they would reach the UK

 

[No6]

That's not the Saudi's backing it.

You may as well say Birmingham backs ISIS.

And as the richest terrorist group in the world due to their racketeering and control of some oil fields, they aren't in need of financial backing either.

Every Saudi I know, which I dare say is a fuck load more than you, hate them and what they misrepresent of Islam. And the powers that be in KSA really don't want them as neighbours, hence attacking them via air strikes.

But if it had been groups in, say, Iran both vocally and financially supporting IS, you can bet your bottom oil-dollar that there'd be moves to impose ball-breaking sanctions on the nation, or even hawks suggesting military attacks. However, due to business interests we don't pursue, or even talk about, the same measures being applied to SA. And that is the point that a lot of posters on here have been alluding to. That it isn't a simple case of goodies and baddies, that in fact the whole clusterfuck is extremely complicated and nuanced and as such jumping in with laser guided missiles directed from 3000 miles away isn't perhaps the best course of action and in the long term will probably make matters a lot worse.

By the way, what do your Saudi mates think of the public beheadings and lashings carried out in their own Kingdom? Is the irony of their disgust at IS barbarity lost on them?

 

[jimbobblue]

Fair enough.

On another pouint, I wonder if it's the same "intelligence" agents that we were told had uncovered Saddam's ability to launch an attack on the UK in 45 minutes?

Maybe, or maybe they are doing it for the oil?

 

[leewill31]

The most disgusting thing about this is how civilized it all is.
Our Government has murdered a British national without trial.

The 52 lives lost on the 7/7/2005 didnt get a trial before being killed so i am sure as hell not concerned about him not getting a trial.

 

[west didsblue]

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 whole letter is extremely simplistic.

For example the final paragraph starting "And all this started by us invading a country...." ignores plenty of events that preceded the Iraq invasion - 9/11 for example.

I think you'll find it all started a long long time before that and is a lot more complex.

 

[SWP's back]

So other than that it's correct yeah?

That some of our enemies have the same enemies as ourselves yeah. But look back 100 years and it was the same then. It's like supporting Utd/Chelsea when they were playing Liverpool in the year they won the league in April.

The rest, ie ISIS may be better than what comes after, I find hard to believe as well.