Cameron Shaming the Country

I don't think your thoughts make you a "bad person" Anya. I think the whole thing is very confusing. We no longer trust governments to tell us the unvarnished truth which doesn't help - although we were probably naïve for ever doing so.

Do we have a legal right to do this? I can't believe we do but I also don't know why we would need to. Surely anyone who has gone to fight for an enemy of our country is committing treason. I don't believe that means you can kill them without a trial but it should mean you have other options open to you. I actually don't know what the country can do if someone commits treason and haven't heard any discussion of it. If anyone has any insight into this I would love to know.

To me, democracy is on a par with freedom of speech which of course we all uphold until it becomes abused i.e. the N word which I think we all agree is totally unacceptable, any abuse that is homophobic, racist, or totally derogatory is quite rightly dealt with in the most severe way; Therefore freedom of speech is not a free in all circumstances and clearly never can or should be. The same with democracy, yes of course, but in extreme circumstances such as defence of the realm and its citizens, backed up by intelligence you cannot wait till IS or whoever, is actually committing acts of extreme brutality under your nose before you finally decide, after endless heartsearching and much handwringing that now is the time to actually do something. I'm sure Russia and the Arab states are the answer, but how on earth do you ever get meaningful dialogue with either?!!! Russia perceives the West as weak and ineffective, the Arab states probably think the same. Truth is that they run rings round us and we can do absolutely nothing about it except defend ourselves as best we can and put up with bricks and boulders that will inevitably, metaphorically be thrown at us . No you shouldn't celebrate people being killed, but for the removal of these monsters there is one big cheer in this family.

I agree Iam. Russia and the Arab States are the key I think. We need to know who's providing the arms - to all sides - and persuade them to stop. Somehow. Someone is funding these wars and providing the ammunition to keep them going. Why? To whose advantage? Certainly not the Syrians.

Pogs - my understanding is that the BBC has been heavily criticised for calling IS the Islamic State, that's why the phrase "so called" is now being used. The criticism was that by calling the terrorists Islamic State, the BBC was somehow legitimising it.

I'm finding the polarised discussion a bit tedious, though I can see how it's happened.

I don't believe a "chat" with Islamic State would sort things out but I wish proper talks between significant countries with influence could be arranged. I'm sure that diplomatic efforts are being made but I so wish someone, anyone, would get the Russians, Saudi's and other key Arab states, EU leaders and the USA round a table to try and reach some consensus about how to prevent these murderous individuals continuing to rampage about killing innocent people. I'm sure others with a better understanding of the area will point out other countries I should have included.

It probably makes me a Bad Person, but I really feel no regret that two jihadists, who having been educated in this country and chosen the path of hatred, have been killed.

Nicholas Mercer? Is this the Human Rights Lawyer? Then he certainly would NOT have been "in the loop"! The man has a history of opposing the military! I would take any pontifications from him with a very large amount of salt.

It's about time bodies such as the United Nations grew a backbone and declared IS a world wide terrorist organisation, stop pussy footing about and declare all out war on IS.

Countries will be able to unite to destroy the barbaric organisation IS with full autonomy to destroy it and all those who are prepared to share in it's ideology male or female.

The Iraq war has proven to be a curse on this country and I understand the reason why but for goodness sake the world cannot be come so impotent it runs scared because of it as it only allows the likes of IS to flourish.

It appears to me that the target of aggression is almost as much about the dislike/mistrust of Cameron as it is the killing of a terrorist.

If only IS respected national boundaries! ! !

The BBC are saying 'so-called' Islamic State. What the hell does that mean? Is it me or does anybody else find that annoying, it 'is' Islamic State.

A member of my family was one of Saddam's human shield.

A targeted attack on a known terrorist is not the same as an attack on innocent people.

I'll reiterate again, depending on where you and your love ones live in the UK, some will never have to contemplate the possibility that a terrorist attack will affect them in anyway. It does focus the mind somewhat.

Ana, we trotted along with America over Iraq and Afghanistan, are we safer now ?

I could never accept an attack on innocent people , you seem to think I don !t care that people could be killed , I care, I care deeply but I do not share your trust in Cameron , and yes I campaigned against the government taking us into the Iraq war , my mistrust has nothing to do with party politics , when it comes to politicians ,war and truth I hold doubts

Why couldn't Cameron have gone over or sent someone to the IS controlled area of Syria and brought them back?
I don't know.
Perhaps you could have volunteered to pop over there, djen and asked them nicely to come back for a fair trial with due consideration for their human rights.

The Yazidi family interviewed on the train to freedom brought tears to my eyes, they were so thankful their two little girls were now safe from IS, unlike so many of their people.

Naive is a very understated word.

The upside to that scenario Ana, is maybe we would get a break from this terminal wallowing in self righteous indignation against anything that doesn't fit in with certain view points, because as we are constantly reminded by some on here who frequently tell us they are much, much nicer people and care far more than the rest of us about absolutely everything. Possibly you could be excused if you are one of the unfortunates that carry any English dna. Battling that inner oppressor gene is constant, how it rises to the fore at times thus rendering the carrier a complete non carer bastard with a total disregard for his/her fellow man. I blame it on England's dismal landscapes "what's to like" as one GN pointed out on another thread!

Having said what he has now in Parliament, do you think there will be no reprisals?

As I had obviously misunderstood what you said about future votes, why are you asking me about Iraq and Afghanistan, Anniebach?

And once again I ask, would you have accepted an IS attack on the UK as being perfectly acceptable because at least our PM had acted in accordance with the rules - never mind the deaths of possibly thousands?

Haven't heard of anyone having chats , talks yes, chats no.

I am open to all suggestions on how to stop the hell that is now the middle east

No prime minister in this country has the right to make decisions without consulting parliament. That's what a democracy is. It can be done without cameras there, but he should not be allowed to make decisions on his own.
He did not even consult the cabinet.

The trouble is that every one, archbishops, politicians, media people are so full of criticsm, but not one person comes up with any plausible idea or plan to even begin to help grasp this awful situation that the world is beginning to find itself in. When it's a question of national security I think that the prime minister has every right to make a decision without consulting parliament. This will undoubtedly be on the advice of the security services, and for heaven's sake these young men chose to become jihadists, they blatantly threatened all of us, and thank goodness we have a leader.who has the bottle to defend us. Having a chat with these people, if indeed you still had a head on your shoulders, is both naive and ridiculous, they are vile cruel monsters, and need wiping off the face of the earth. Ask the Yazidi people, I don't think they would have much faith in any chats.

TerriBull, you are so wrong .

Ana, not votes for 2020, votes to join America in their bombing now , have we not learned what happens when we dance to america's tune ? Was Iraq and Afghanistan not enough for you ?

God help us if JC ever becomes PM...

Well, as has been asked before dj, would you be quite happy if the attack had gone ahead and many people in this country had been killed, just as long as DC had done nothing, even though he knew it would or was likely to happen?

I think the pertinent words from that, Djen are 'although not party to the
Specific intelligence'. this Rev was not, as they say ' in the loop'.

(to Anniebach of course)

"The Rev Nicholas Mercer, a former lieutenant colonel and army legal adviser, was not convinced. He said: “The strike by a UAV [unmanned aerial vehicle] against a target in Syria is problematic legally. The strike took place in the airspace of a sovereign territory and the UK did not have permission to violate that airspace. Secondly, as this conflict is not an international armed conflict, the rules of war regarding combatants or civilians do not apply.

“Although not party to the specific intelligence, the grounds of national self-defence seem highly improbable given the age and background of this young man barely out of his teens. Only if he represented a threat to international peace and security by the scale of his proposed attacks could this attack begin to be justified. The fact that this matter reached the attorney general and the prime minister may suggest that other government lawyers were not prepared to sanction this strike.”"

Yes, of course DC organised the whole thing just to get votes in...erm..2020? That sounds likely.