In hoping they got that Jihadi John executioner?

[Alfieisnoisy]

Very odd AIBU and perhaps I am being very U.

I am as woolly and bleeding heart as you get usually.

I know we set a dangerous precedent by these attacks...no jury or judge, no trial (not that they could easily get him back to hold one).

I am conflicted about how I feel but I am just thinking of Alan Henning and all those other people who went out to eithe support aid or to tell the world what was happening and who died brutally at his hands.

I am also sad that a promising young man (from what I have heard) became so radicalised.

Oh I don't know what to think but for the likes of Alan Henning's family I hope this man is now dead. And I shouldn't be speaking for the Henning family, they may not agree with the actions taken, I don't know them or what their wishes may be.

Talk to me those of you able to put an alternate point of view, am willing to be persuaded that the air strikes are wrong but at the moment I just feel glad that they have potentially kills someone who has brought so much suffering to many people throughout the world by his actions.

Booyaka

But again strangechild, you've ignored the question.

Because you're asking a question that is peripheral to the point I'm trying to make.

No doubt you would prefer everyone on this thread to agree with your black and white attitude, but I'm troubled by it, and by the way in which you and others are presenting this as straightforward. It's not.

Yet if we went back to the 1940s and we miraculously found technology which would allow us to pinpoint the whereabouts of Hitler, Himmler, Hess, Goering, Goebbels and Von Ribbentrop and destroy them, vastly curtailing the war and preventing a lot of that destruction, people like you would be wringing your hands over their right to a fair trial and trying to block it.

We are not at war with ISIS. They think they are at war with us, but legally we are not at war with them.The way you conflate 'hand-wringing' and adhering to principles we have held for centuries in this country is worrying.

From a legal standpoint, only Parliament, which sets the laws followed by the courts, or some residual power the Queen has to kill subjects (actually signed away by King John in the Magna Carta), can authorise this. They didn't.

And yes, as I've said before, these people to you are just some faceless, shapeless, rightless mass, because you only ascribe rights to those who have done wrong, not the innocent.

Nope, I live in central london, work in central London, had friends involved in the 7/7 attacks carried out by Al-Qaeda, so actually all this feels very close to home.

BTW, there is no ‘right’ not to be murdered, as you were stating in an earlier post. There is a duty on people not to kill and yes, JJ failed to adhere to that duty on a spectacular scale. But so do lots of people in our society who carry out multiple murders.

If he'd been brought back to the UK and put in prison he would have been far too dangerous. He would have been a glamorous radicalising figure, attracting plenty of new recruits, especially in prison. The Guardian would be hanging off his every word from his jail cell, presenting him as a freedom fighter against the oppressive West. Cage and Liberty would be fighting for his freedom and classification as a Prisoner of War. I suspect if Corbyn was elected they may well be successful there too.

Ridiculous comment.

It's a fair point about the legalities of the war mind you.

He's still a war criminal though. They are at war with us and committing war crimes.

Does it make "our" actions right!? the honest answer probably is no. There aren't really any good guys here are there, just ones which are less of a threat to the innocent.

No, Strangechild, it's absolutely central to the point you're trying to make. And you have no answer for it at all. Which is why you're desperate to avoid the question.

You are saying 'we shouldn't have done this'. Yet you offer no alternative. Which really, is the answer in itself. To refuse to deal with this man would be to allow to continue doing what he has. So yes, no matter how much you bury your head in the sand, you prioritise his right to a trial above the right of people in Syria not to have their head cut off or be crucified, or burnt alive or raped or whatever knew wheeze he and his mates had come up with this week.

The points about us not being officially at war and the legality of killings like this in British law are entirely irrelevant because the act was not committed by British forces. But if it had been, it would have been in the areas where parliament had voted for bombing, so it would have been legal. It's legal for the states too, because their government has approved strikes there. There may not be officially a war, as there is not a state, but the military action is legal.

You are also entirely wrong about there being no right not to be murdered. Article 2 of the European Convention on Human Rights is the right to life. It also says the state has the right to take life in some circumstances which may prevent other deaths.

It's also interesting that you only see human rights in terms of yourself, your friends and the places you live, and you do not seem to see them in terms of people in other countries.

You are very, very lucky that you live in a state where your rights are well protected. I think you probably take them for granted so much, that it's not occurred to you that JJ has been centrally and assiduously involved in a regime which has the stated aim of denying hundreds and thousands, if not millions of people, of those basic rights.

Hand wringing is a very good description. Because the people who do it normally do very little but wring their hands about one or two people who have committed vile acts, whilst taking or advocating little action to protect the masses of people whose rights those people have taken away.

I'm not at all sure there's such a big mismatch when someone who's anti-death penalty accepts this was perhaps inevitable

As an anti myself (though hopefully not a "bleeding heart liberal") I can see a difference between judicial killing and the horrors which happen in a war zone. Whether he was dead or jailed, the deranged would make a martyr of JJ anyway, and at least this way he no longer has a voice with which to corrupt others

Less than ideal certainly, but perhaps the lesser of two evils?

Booyaka

No, Strangechild, it's absolutely central to the point you're trying to make. And you have no answer for it at all. Which is why you're desperate to avoid the question.

No, it’s not ‘absolutely central’ to the point I am trying to make. For the last time, as I have repeatedly stated: I posted on this thread in response to the posters reveling in this man’s death. In particular, I came on to criticise the self-styled liberals and anti-death penalty types virtue signalling their own credentials, and then making an exception for this man in the very same sentence. I was pointing out the hypocrisy of this position.

The central question in your mind is how JJ ought to have been killed. You, from what I can gather, are pleased he has been killed without due process. I am not. You think an exception can be made for this man, because he’s evil. I think we ought to have waited til it was possible to capture him, and we ought to have put him on trial, because our society, and the things we believe in, make us superior to the deranged, misogynistic and barbaric lunatics attracted to ISIS.

You prioritise his right to a trial above the right of people in Syria not to have their head cut off or be crucified, or burnt alive or raped or whatever knew wheeze he and his mates had come up with this week.

Presumably you are therefore advocating we send troops into Syria, because JJ is one of thousands of ISIS fighters doing this. If you really think that taking him out is actually going to affect the leadership of ISIS or their day-to-day operations, or constitute a significant operational blow, you are mistaken. And don’t forget, some people are already anticipating that his death will act as a recruitment tool for ISIS, so we may have more and more young men and women joining these dreadful people. And sorry, but I repeat, in Britain, citizens have the right to be tried before their peers in a court of law before sentence is passed. We live in a democratically organised community and we operate under the rule of law. You don’t appear to value the rights we have held here for centuries: you appear to be willing to accept the proposition that we can kill people, including our own citizens, abroad because of the acts they may commit in the future (you’ll know that a strike can’t be used in retribution, as former Attorney General Dominic Grieve admitted yesterday). Be careful, because if it goes we will all suffer.

Furthermore, as you’re so concerned about the human rights of the Syrian people, please explain how you feel about the 1,147 people who lost their lives as ‘collateral damage’ between the start of the US’s drone operations and Nov 2014 (people caught up in 41 targeted killings).

The points about us not being officially at war and the legality of killings like this in British law are entirely irrelevant because the act was not committed by British forces.

Yup. I felt the need to remind you we were not at war, because you made a ridiculous comparison between the situation in Syria and the Second World War.

But since we’re on this topic: Philip Alston, UN special rapporteur on extra-judicial, summary or arbitrary executions puts it, targeted killings result in ‘the displacement of clear legal standards with a vaguely defined license to kill, and the creation of a major accountability vacuum’

DC and Obama invoke the concept of self-defense under article 51 of the UN Charter to justify the use of lethal force without due process. This is a contested claim, look into it.

But if it had been, it would have been in the areas where parliament had voted for bombing, so it would have been legal.

As you know, DC will not bring this vote to Parliament - indeed recently delayed doing so, for the second time - because he is concerned that he will lose the vote. So it’s not that straightforward.

And BTW, unless you ignored all newspapers yesterday, you would have heard DC going on about how Britain worked ‘hand in glove’ with the US on this operation.

It's also interesting that you only see human rights in terms of yourself, your friends and the places you live, and you do not seem to see them in terms of people in other countries.

You may not like it but JJ was a British citizen. You want to swap his rights for theirs, as though it’s a zero sum game. How about not setting JJ’s rights in opposition to those of the Syrians caught up in this shit-storm? How about defending everyone’s human rights here? Instead, you seem to be willing to ditch human rights on an ad hoc basis. Your attitude seems to be don’t like ‘em? Fuck ‘em. So please don’t set yourself up as a defender of human rights. And can I add, the people directly affected by JJ’s actions - the families and friends of James Foley, Alan Hemming and David Haines, amongst others, have all come out and stated that they would have preferred to see their loved ones’ murderer put on trial.

You are very, very lucky that you live in a state where your rights are well protected. I think you probably take them for granted so much, that it's not occurred to you that JJ has been centrally and assiduously involved in a regime which has the stated aim of denying hundreds and thousands, if not millions of people, of those basic rights.

It has that stated aim - but as you may have noticed ISIS’s rhetoric exceeds the reality of its power. The regime will be defeated, ISIS will go down as another gruesome footnote in history. I’m asking what we as a society will be left with after this is over if we stoop to their level.

Hand wringing is a very good description. Because the people who do it normally do very little but wring their hands about one or two people who have committed vile acts, whilst taking or advocating little action to protect the masses of people whose rights those people have taken away.

How is one extra-judicial killing of a British citizen going to protect the people of Syria? My question for you is, if you want to see human rights restored to the millions currently caught up in this shit-storm are you willing to send in troops?

I'm out now, at least until the weekend's over.

You were pointing out the hypocrisy in your own little fit of virtue signalling. You are taking great pleasure in signalling how much more virtuous you are because you are opposed to this killing too. The fact that are apparently incapable of seeing the link between not believing this killing should have happened and the consequences for his future victims says more about your own blinkeredness and refusal to consider the rights of anybody but JJ than it does about anybody else.

I don't support sending in ground troops, partly because any civilian deaths involved would absolutely dwarf what we've seen in air strikes.

Killing one person may not affect their day to day operations, but this is part of a concerted campaign which has disrupted their entire leadership.

And most importantly, you have again failed to suggest any alternative method of dealing with ISIL. You seem to be under the impression that they'll just disappear of their own free will, that if you bury your head in the sand and pretend it's not happening.

He wasn't killed for things he 'might do', but for things he had done, would have done in future and was engaged in doing at the time he was killed. Your statement is the equivalent of someone insisting a sniper shouldn't take out someone with a gun to an innocent person's head, who has said they are going to kill them, because they 'might not do it'.

Personally I doubt very, very much that history will judge us for 'stooping to their level'. I suspect history will probably judge us more for not acting decisively against them earlier. I think history will judge us for considering the rights of the people doing the killing above those of innocents. I think that the situation we are in at the moment is very, very much akin to the 1930s. Hope that they won't get any worse, hope they'll go away, hope that what they're doing will just keep on happening to someone else.

You'll be demanding 'peace in our time next'. You offer no solution but inaction. And evil triumphs when good men stand aside and do nothing.

There is a clip of JJ in the mail. How embarrassing for security forces, he was of a low IQ.

Link please howrorebuild. I can only find info that he was shy and vulnerable and an outsider. Nothing to suggest that he was of very low IQ.

It's not at all surprising that he was a vulnerable young man. I imagine lots of men in his shoes are looking for a hole to fill in their lives and that joining a group of any kind can help them feel a sense of belonging. It doesn't make them any less reasonable for their actions.

I doubt that the security forces will feel any kind of regret or embarrassment.

His female teacher stated he wasn't SEN. I will see if I can find the link.

responsible not reasonable.

The only shame for me is that he is likely to have died instantly and not known much about it. Pity...

He worked for an IT firm, so I suspect that he had an acceptable level of intelligence. Not to mention the fact that he was a graduate. He may have had some complex needs, but it seems that his IQ wasn't one of them.

I've found this on the Daily Mail website.

Claudia Giarrusso, who taught Emwazi at the London secondary school, said he 'wasn't highly intellectual' and 'wasn't special needs' so 'he wasn't on our radar all the time'.

He wasn't special needs at all and I suspect you have misread the article. So no need for anyone to feel embarrassed then.

I've just seen your last post howto and I'm confused. Do you think he was special educational needs or not?

He had a degree from Westminster University in Information Systems and Business Management. So it's highly unlikely.

Although I imagine that the apologists will rewrite history to say he was if it suits their narrative.

Booyaka

You are taking great pleasure in signalling how much more virtuous you are because you are opposed to this killing too.

Can you read (serious question)? I will quote my first post, word for word:
FWIW I'm fine with the fact this has happened - no US soldiers were injured or killed in killing him, and he was obviously a dangerous man - but let's not forget that the manner in which he was killed is totally against the ideals we hold in this country.

So you know what, I won’t be hectored because I responded to the outpouring of vitriol on this thread that followed this man’s death, especially if that vitriol comes from people claiming to be oh-so liberal, and so very anti-death penalty, whilst contradicting themselves in the same sentence. It’s not virtue signaling to call out idiots when they’re making idiotic and self-contradictory statements.

(Incidentally, nowhere on this thread have I said I’m a liberal, though I do find it amusing that you use the label as a term of abuse)

The discussion you want to have is one that encompasses the entire military strategy in the region. That’s an important discussion, but it was not the subject of the thread until you came in and started banging on about it.

The fact that are apparently incapable of seeing the link between not believing this killing should have happened and the consequences for his future victims says more about your own blinkeredness and refusal to consider the rights of anybody but JJ than it does about anybody else.

In your scary world view, human rights extends only to those you happen to deem worthy of them. You either believe in the universality of human rights or you don’t, because the clue’s in the name - human rights. So stop invoking them, because it’s pretty clear that you don’t understand the basic idea that underpins them.

I don't support sending in ground troops, partly because any civilian deaths involved would absolutely dwarf what we've seen in air strikes.

So, to carry on that train of thought, what’s your plan? Continue targeted assassinations until every one of the estimated two hundred thousand ISIS fighters are dead? You know of course that British military personnel have consistently argued there is no way to defeat ISIS without putting boots on the ground, so what’s your answer? Armchair warfare ad infinitum? (Incidentally, what are your thoughts on the ‘collateral damage’ caused by these ‘targeted’ assassinations?)

Killing one person may not affect their day to day operations, but this is part of a concerted campaign which has disrupted their entire leadership.

A concerted campaign, one which will bring down ISIS, would have precisely the consequence of disrupting and shutting down their day to day operations. As many commentators have pointed out, JJ has disrupted the leadership not one jot because he wasn’t one of the group’s leaders, he was a dreadful man used for propaganda purposes. The lives of those who have lost their loved ones at his barbaric hand have been destroyed but I don’t hear them condoning the manner of his death.

And most importantly, you have again failed to suggest any alternative method of dealing with ISIL. You seem to be under the impression that they'll just disappear of their own free will, that if you bury your head in the sand and pretend it's not happening.

Hilarious. How are you proposing to deal with ISIS exactly? By carrying out targeted assassinations, two hundred thousand times? Good luck with that. Killing JJ is not ‘dealing with ISIL’ by any stretch, as you are trying to pretend. One man is dead, but unfortunately ISIS have many others in their ranks. You are trying to defend your pleasure in this guy’s death by pretending it strikes at the heart of the organisation, that tactically it’s a good move, and that this fight is only about how many baddies we can kill, rather than a fight over the right way to live and the kind of society we are a part of. We are a more civilized, open, better, kinder, fairer society than the alternative promoted by ISIS. We should practice these principles at home as well as promote them abroad, and we should not be undermining them in our foreign conduct.

He wasn't killed for things he 'might do', but for things he had done, would have done in future and was engaged in doing at the time he was killed.

Ok, I’m going to repeat myself. You cannot carry out a strike against someone in retribution against acts already committed - that is not legal, nor would the government try to argue that it was.

Furthermore, as I said above, the legality of using drones for assassinations such as this one, as an act self-defence, is also contested.

Notwithstanding any of that, you are seeking a moral justification for your pleasure in this man’s death by trying to pass it off as an important event in the battle with ISIS, and worth sacrificing our principles for. Well, I don’t agree, and you’re not going to change my mind, no matter how loud or long you shout for.

Personally I doubt very, very much that history will judge us for 'stooping to their level'. I suspect history will probably judge us more for not acting decisively against them earlier. I think history will judge us for considering the rights of the people doing the killing above those of innocents. I think that the situation we are in at the moment is very, very much akin to the 1930s. Hope that they won't get any worse, hope they'll go away, hope that what they're doing will just keep on happening to someone else. You'll be demanding 'peace in our time next'. You offer no solution but inaction.

Are you swotting up for your history GCSE? Every historical reference you make is to the Second World War, and in each case the comparison is entirely inappropriate. (Does comparing me to Neville Chamberlain make you Churchill? That’s pretty amusing.) We have not declared war on ISIS, DC can’t even bring himself to put a vote in favour of airstrikes in Syria before Parliament. There is no single, clear enemy in the region, because the position of the UK and US is that they will not negotiate with Assad, so you can’t compare it to Germany in the 1930s, and there is no sign of meaningful international co-operation to deal with ISIS.

And evil triumphs when good men stand aside and do nothing.

Yup, the hatred and tit for tat retaliation in place of a concerted plan agreed by a coalition of nations which adheres to legal principles, is really working well so far.

And BTW, if you are going to quote Burke, you should try and avoid this particular gem, which is most often used to warn against government intrusion into the rights of its people - which, by coincidence, is one of the point I’ve been making here: beware when the government usurps the rights of its citizens, no matter how much you personally dislike some of them, because it may come back to bite you.