He's still alive. He had an AR15 on him and it protected him from the US Government; the tea-baggers told me that's how it works.Quote:
Originally Posted by Neverna
Printable View
He's still alive. He had an AR15 on him and it protected him from the US Government; the tea-baggers told me that's how it works.Quote:
Originally Posted by Neverna
Are you talking about the black figure? It's a thermal image, body heat would be shown as white.Quote:
Originally Posted by Neverna
As a raving liberal, some may say, I fully support Davis in this instance.
Shame he met his virgins so quickly...with so little pain.
Silly comparison QCQuote:
Originally Posted by slackula
We should have a moment of silence for the passing of Jihadi John.
At 2 pm, Bangkok time.
No posting / typing for 5 minutes.
Are you with me?
I wonder who the next fake boogeyman will be to keep the dumb scared?Quote:
Originally Posted by snakeeyes
https://teakdoor.com/images/imported/2015/11/753.jpg
We'll all be murdered in our beds!
:smileylaughing:
My money's on Toronto Jane. Cue various articles over the next few weeks referring to her as black widow/mother of battles/femme fatale etc as we get to see a white chick a-decapitatin' and a-murderin' of the enemies of the Prophet.Quote:
Originally Posted by pseudolusI wonder who the next fake boogeyman will be to keep the dumb scared?Quote:
Originally Posted by snakeeyes
We'll all be murdered in our beds!
:smileylaughing:
Why would an enemy combatant get a trial?Quote:
Originally Posted by baldrick
Because an enemy combatant is a civilian and subject to treatment under civilian laws. I think you nay be confusing enemy combatant with lawful combatant. The legal status of enemy combatant was created so we didn't have to deal with boring military stuff like the Geneva Conventions that forced us to be nice to prisoners.Quote:
Originally Posted by Humbert
I thought it was a rather obvious point. But apparently not.Quote:
Originally Posted by slackula
He was an ISIS combatant so he was a legitimate target. I'll leave it to you to defend this piece of shit.Quote:
Originally Posted by DrB0b
I'm not defending. I was answering your question. If you don't like my definition of enemy combatant then take it up with George Bush, it was created under his watch to allow terrorists to be legally detained incommunicado and without trial. Military Commisions Act 2006.Quote:
Originally Posted by Humbert
Sadly so.Quote:
Originally Posted by DrB0b
Parsing language is not getting us any closer to the facts. You said he was a 'civilian'. He left Britain to take up arms as a soldier and has been identified as part of ISIS's command structure. He was most certainly a legitimate military target.Quote:
Originally Posted by DrB0b
errr, as humans it is pretty much the only way we get to the facts.Quote:
Originally Posted by Humbert
No, the law says he's a civilian. I say he's toast and the world is a better place for it. As I said, if you don't like the laws under which the US fights take it up with them and not with me.Quote:
Originally Posted by Humbert
under what rules of engagement ?Quote:
Originally Posted by Humbert
understand that if they managed to kill him without hitting any people going about their daily business - good - a psycho who deserved to die in my opinion
but so far he has only been trialed by youtube , twitter and the sunday sun - they should have given him an absentee trial in a real court of law and sentenced him to death
public opinion is easily manipulated - what happens if you end up with an full on religious nutter in the white house ? elton john will be on a drone hit list ?
Are you not aware that there is a coalition of Western powers including the US, United Kingdom, France, Germany, Canada, Australia, Turkey, Italy, Poland and Denmark are engaged in a military action to defeat the Islamic State? What do you expect, a contingent of lawyers on the battlefied to litigate their army into the ground?Quote:
Originally Posted by baldrick
Dunno if that slaughter in Paris last night was triggered by this ?
I would imagine these bastards have sleeper cells dotted throughout Europe just ready and waiting for the call
exactly what I asked forQuote:
Originally Posted by Humbert
because there will be rules of engagement , you are not allowed to just kill eveyone and sh1t down their throats anymore.Quote:
Originally Posted by baldrick
else the b52s would be carpet bombing again
Tell that to the crispy critter formerly known as Jihadi John.Quote:
Originally Posted by baldrick
Rumor has it IS leadership decided Jihadi John was doing damage to the movement and fed western intel his where abouts.
B0B, why your wittering on about the Military Commisions Act 2006 is a bit of a suprise to me, give it deals with how the US would deal with an ISIS member should they get their hands on them in the US, in terms of detention, trial, their rights.
Personally I would apply the sniff test:
Has the chap unlawfully killed people in the past and is there any evidence that, given the opportunity, he would not do the same in the future?answer yes to these questions, then there is a fairly universal duty to kill the chap. its derivative of the right of self defence that we all have. I would say a justified killing, but personally the sadist in me would rather had him spending the rest of his life in a US super max jail..... but that would be a crime.
is there an expectation that before this chap could be detained for trial he would carry out or conspire with others to carry out unlawful killings?
As for what his status is in law. when you go to ISIS, put on the uniform you leave your civilian and non-combatant status far away. What you become depends on which laws you choose to cherry pick, I will go for the geneva convention.... and that would make the status of ISIS members rather complicated.
They are engaged in a international conflict, the genera convention provides duties and obligations under these circumstances. but ISIS and a few of the other contries have not signed up to the GC.... so how far does it go?
take the discipline of a central command&disaplin and wear a uniform makes you a combatant in an armed force.... which does give you rights. But an armed force that does not enforce the GC rules of conflict looses that status.... which would leave you few protections.
more targets for hellfire - the irony of using religion in the naming of their weapons may be lost on them
https://foreignpolicy.com/2015/11/13...ia-iraq-state/Quote:
One of militants now in American crosshairs is Boubaker Hakim, who, in an Islamic State video, took credit for the assassinations of a pair of Tunisian politicians in 2013. Hakim also reportedly has ties with Ansar al-Sharia and has worked with its associates in operations targeting Western diplomats in Africa.
There’s also Frenchman Peter Cherif. In 2004, he was captured near Fallujah, while fighting with al Qaeda in Iraq, the predecessor of the Islamic State. In March 2007, he escaped from prison and fled to Syria. But he was again captured and extradited to France. Then, in July of 2011 on the last day of his trial, he managed to escape once more, this time heading for Yemen, where he reportedly joined al Qaeda in the Arabian Peninsula. Other reports suggest that he may now be fighting in Syria.
Another French name on the U.S. list: Maxime Hauchard, who went to Syria to join the Islamic State in August 2013. Officials identified her as one of the extremist fighters in a November 2014 execution video of a group of Syrian soldiers, which also featured the severed head of an American hostage.
Washington is also charging a female Islamic State member named Sally Jones, a British civilian who traveled to Syria to join the Islamic State with her husband, a hacker. In Syria, they worked together to target U.S. military personnel by creating an online list of targets to help aspiring lone-wolf attackers. In August, she offered tips on how to make homemade bombs.
You give citizens their day in court. ISIL is as at war with the U.S. War combatants don't get their day in court. Plus, this guy was guilty of war crimes, which is much worse than simply being a soldier. No mercy for this mofo.Quote:
Originally Posted by slackula
Quote:
Originally Posted by slackula
Exactly what I was going to say. Another major difference between ISIL and the IRA is that the IRA is fighting for a specific political goal: reunification of Ireland. This is much more similar to civil war, if that's not exactly what it is. IRA's fight is with Britain, not the USA. ISIL, on the other hand, has no political fight with any nation but with the world, as evidenced by the selection of their victims from many different countries. Therefore, they can be thought of as a global threat and can expect retaliation, in any of its forms, from any corner of the world, especially the U.S., as its citizens have been specifically targeted and executed "without trial".Quote:
Originally Posted by Pragmatic
Don't fucking equate criminals with war combatants, let alone war criminals.Quote:
Originally Posted by slackula
Not in this case. I repeat: don't equate citizens of any country with war combatants, especially war criminals.Quote:
Originally Posted by baldrick