• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

British IS fighters 'must be killed', minister

PeteEU said:
He should be fired from government. Not only is it not his area, but goes against government policy, not to mention the law. ....................~.
Click to expand...
Well, one can't really gag a politico when he's being interviewed on TV and asked specifically on a topic.

What's more, he didn't advocate killing them anywhere other than on the ground in Syria and Iraq while still fighting. In the context of their returning to Britain he advocated arrest and trial in accordance with British law.

Me, especially before having had my morning helping of caffeine, I'd be prone to have them shot in transit. But then perhaps it's a good thing that nobody lets me run the world.:lol:
 
Oops. It should be "meant" not "ment". D'oh!

Cheers.
Evilroddy.
 
Regarding this thread topic, "British IS fighters 'must be killed', minister says". I can't recall previous threads with a similar thread topic "must be killed" but I can recall a thread from around 4 years ago that discussed the home secretary seeking powers to strip terror suspects of UK citizenship that generated quite a bit of discussion due to the usage of the word "suspects".

https://www.debatepolitics.com/europe/185073-uk-ponders-citizenship-removal-powers.html
 
Serenity said:
Regarding this thread topic, "British IS fighters 'must be killed', minister says". I can't recall previous threads with a similar thread topic "must be killed" but I can recall a thread from around 4 years ago that discussed the home secretary seeking powers to strip terror suspects of UK citizenship that generated quite a bit of discussion due to the usage of the word "suspects".

https://www.debatepolitics.com/europe/185073-uk-ponders-citizenship-removal-powers.html
Click to expand...
Where I don't want to go thru all of that one, the first page at least shows that (apart from the problematic application of "suspect") the salient point of statelessness appears to find avoidance altogether in criticism (at least on that page, no idea whether it finds mention later in the thread).

To impose statelessness upon anyone would defy a charter that Britain is signatory to and is unlikely to abrogate.

That, especially on a bad day, I might feel like cutting those that have committed terrorism adrift in a leaky rubber inflatable is totally irrelevant in face of this.

Just saying.
 
Chagos said:
Where I don't want to go thru all of that one, the first page at least shows that (apart from the problematic application of "suspect") the salient point of statelessness appears to find avoidance altogether in criticism (at least on that page, no idea whether it finds mention later in the thread).

To impose statelessness upon anyone would defy a charter that Britain is signatory to and is unlikely to abrogate.

That, especially on a bad day, I might feel like cutting those that have committed terrorism adrift in a leaky rubber inflatable is totally irrelevant in face of this.

Just saying.
Click to expand...

No one has to go through all of that. It's in response to post two and three having a dig at peoples prior positions. I stand by my position in that thread given the situation at the time and what was being discussed. That's the thread I can recall which was discussing suspects. If there's another thread to actually see peoples past positions that are different to what I've posted then feel free to post would be my suggestion.
 
Serenity said:
No one has to go through all of that. It's in response to post two and three having a dig at peoples prior positions. I stand by my position in that thread given the situation at the time and what was being discussed. That's the thread I can recall which was discussing suspects. If there's another thread to actually see peoples past positions that are different to what I've posted then feel free to post would be my suggestion.
Click to expand...
Aaah, right. I get it now.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom