• 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 Isis member Sally Jones 'killed in airstrike with 12-year-old son'

Tigerace117 said:
The Jewish League didn't make a habit of commiting horrific war crimes. There is no equivalency between the two groups, nor between those veterans and this "lady".

SOF forces operating with insurgents run the risk of being killed in action all the time during the Cold War. It was mostly East Bloc personnel, however, in those roles.
Click to expand...

Tigerace117:

First a correction. I wrote Jewish League when I should have written Jewish Agency. I should have caught that error and edited that but I missed it until I read your reply and did a literal face-plant.

Second, the Jewish Agency did commit war crimes and crimes against humanity as did the Irgun and Lehi with which the Agency was inseparably intertwined. But this is a tangent from the issue at hand so I won't pursue it further in this thread.

Third, extrajudicial killing of non-combatants is never right, period. Any state leadership which does it should be sanctioned and the leaders prosecuted. No one is above the law and if those accused of such alleged crimes cannot or will not be prosecuted by their own national law and institutions, then international law and tribunals should be used. If a nation defies such laws and institutions then it should be isolated and other nations should refuse to allow trade with the offending states. Star Chamber justice is a political toxin which must be rooted out and expunged.

Cheers.
Evilroddy.
 
The moment she joined ISIS her life became forefiet and only necessitating death. The death of her son is on her for endangering him. That guilt belongs on her in hell.
 
Evilroddy said:
Rogue Valley:

I will assume you are referring to my above post, if not ignore what follows.

You wrote:



No, not forgotten but unproved in a court or military tribunal. Death by allegation is never a good idea. Should the European, American and Canadian WWII veterans who trained the Jewish League's armed forces between 1945 and 1948 have been killed extrajudicially for their aid to violent non-state actors? Should SOF operators who train insurgents abroad be extrajudicially killed because they teach the illegal use of violence? No, they should be caught, detained and prosecuted for crimes under the Rule of Law. Only if they resist arrest violently is their killing justified.

Cheers.
Evilroddy.
Click to expand...

Death by allegation? She made her admissions VERY public.
 
Fledermaus said:
Death by allegation? She made her admissions VERY public.
Click to expand...

Fledermaus:

Free and responsible states should not be in the business of killing people (and especially non-combatants) unless this happens during declared wars against clearly delineated foes in a recognised battle-space or happens as a result of a legitimate and open legal due process, subject to legal review. To allow otherwise will only eventually backfire when a state begins to believe that it can apply such extrajudicial remedies to its own inconvenient citizens. Almost all military and intelligence kit and procedures eventually trickle down to domestic law enforcement and its practices. You already have proactive SWAT teams and militarised police forces. Do you really want domestic death squads or drone strikes teams too? That's where this is likely headed.

This is too dangerous a power to allow states to have and exercise with impunity, so it must be publicly opposed and stopped as soon as possible, by citizens concerned for their own liberties and lives. Any drone operator, assassin or soldier who participates in such an action and who can be proved in a court of law to have done so, should and must be prosecuted and punished for such complicity in extrajudicial killing. Just following orders is not an excuse. Anyone who orders such actions should be prosecuted and punished too. In my opinion there is no legitimate place in a free and responsible state for overt and institutionalised assassination/extrajudicial killing. It must stop now.

Cheers.
Evilroddy.
 
Last edited:
apdst said:
He would have grown up to be the next generation of terrorists.
Click to expand...

Adpst:

So you're willing to punish a new generation for the misdeeds of the parents. You're two-thirds of the way to endorsing the North Korean institution of "three generations of punishment". Congratulations Kim ap Pst! You are moving to harmonise the North Korean and Southern Louisianan legal systems in the spirit of international unity and cooperation. Your are the new American Dear Leader! Just don't try to weaponise Carolina Reaper pepper sauce and Fourth of July rocket delivery systems or you and yours may be on the receiving end of this new-found legal harmony!

Cheers.
Evilroddy.
 
Evilroddy said:
Adpst:

So you're willing to punish a new generation for the misdeeds of the parents. You're two-thirds of the way to endorsing the North Korean institution of "three generations of punishment". Congratulations Kim ap Pst! You are moving to harmonise the North Korean and Southern Louisianan legal systems in the spirit of international unity and cooperation. Your are the new American Dear Leader! Just don't try to weaponise Carolina Reaper pepper sauce and Fourth of July rocket delivery systems or you and yours may be on the receiving end of this new-found legal harmony!

Cheers.
Evilroddy.
Click to expand...

I'm willing accept a certain amout of collateral damage to break the cycle.
 
Manc Skipper said:
So a twelve year old child obliterated is mere collateral damage. How Christian is that?
Click to expand...

That kid was spawned by a servent of Satan. It was a legitimate kill.
 
Evilroddy said:
Fledermaus:

Free and responsible states should not be in the business of killing people (and especially non-combatants) unless this happens during declared wars against clearly delineated foes in a recognised battle-space or happens as a result of a legitimate and open legal due process, subject to legal review. To allow otherwise will only eventually backfire when a state begins to believe that it can apply such extrajudicial remedies to its own inconvenient citizens. Almost all military and intelligence kit and procedures eventually trickle down to domestic law enforcement and its practices. You already have proactive SWAT teams and militarised police forces. Do you really want domestic death squads or drone strikes teams too? That's where this is likely headed.

This is too dangerous a power to allow states to have and exercise with impunity, so it must be publicly opposed and stopped as soon as possible, by citizens concerned for their own liberties and lives. Any drone operator, assassin or soldier who participates in such an action and who can be proved in a court of law to have done so, should and must be prosecuted and punished for such complicity in extrajudicial killing. Just following orders is not an excuse. Anyone who orders such actions should be prosecuted and punished too. In my opinion there is no legitimate place in a free and responsible state for overt and institutionalised assassination/extrajudicial killing. It must stop now.

Cheers.
Evilroddy.
Click to expand...

They are effing terrorists. ISIS. Good riddance.
 
apdst said:
I'm willing accept a certain amout of collateral damage to break the cycle.
Click to expand...

apdst:

Would you be so willing to accept such "collateral damage" if it was you and yours dying from such a policy? It's far easier to accept the deaths of strangers than the deaths of your own. Violence begets violence and killing begets more killing. You are not breaking the cycle, you're feeding it and intensifying it. You are creating the world of Cain. Invoking Satan is just a superstitious mechanism to demonise those who your nation wishes to kill. It allows you to justify murder and to feel that you yourself are off the hook for the acts performed in your name. You're not. Satan is the deceiver, so look closer to home for his beguiling presence than Mesopotamia. He is smiling over the shoulders of those with their hands on the joy-sticks and over the shoulders of those who order such murder in the halls of power.

This must stop.
Evilroddy.
 
Fledermaus said:
They are effing terrorists. ISIS. Good riddance.
Click to expand...

Fledermaus:

Well, that was a well reasoned response. I can't help but imagine the monsters of ISIL claiming, "They are effing infidels. America. Good riddance." Maybe you're not that far apart? There are secular terrorists and fanatics in this world too. So perhaps the ideas which you are expressing represent the emerging "American Taliban" which will exterminate all who stand in opposition to the American Way. More reflection seems needed.

Where and when does the killing end? When you run out of ISIL militants who will be anointed as the next target/cause for elimination? Somalis, Yemenis, Syrian Ba'athists, Iranian Revolutionary Guard, North Koreans, Russians? When will the American Fennris of the New World be sated in its blood-lust and greedy pursuit of happiness? When will you stop killing in this brave new world of video-game remote-murder and war which is not declared and is hidden from your own citizens' sight? When will you turn on your own with these methods? This must stop.

Cheers.
Evilroddy.
 
Last edited:
Evilroddy said:
Fledermaus:

Well, that was a well reasoned response. I can't help but imagine the monsters of ISIL claiming, "They are effing infidels. America. Good riddance." Maybe you're not that far apart? There are secular terrorists and fanatics in this world too. So perhaps the ideas which you are expressing represent the emerging "American Taliban" which will exterminate all who stand in opposition to the American Way. More reflection seems needed.

Where and when does the killing end? When you run out of ISIL militants who will be anointed as the next target/cause for elimination? Somalis, Yemenis, Syrian Ba'athists, Iranian Revolutionary Guard, North Koreans, Russians? When will the American Fennris of the New World be sated in its blood-lust and greedy pursuit of happiness? When will you stop killing in this brave new world of video-game remote-murder and war which is not declared and is hidden from your own citizens' sight? When will you turn on your own with these methods? This must stop.

Cheers.
Evilroddy.
Click to expand...

Is or is not ISIS a terrorist organization?

Are they or are they not openly at war?
 
Evilroddy said:
apdst:

Would you be so willing to accept such "collateral damage" if it was you and yours dying from such a policy? It's far easier to accept the deaths of strangers than the deaths of your own. Violence begets violence and killing begets more killing. You are not breaking the cycle, you're feeding it and intensifying it. You are creating the world of Cain. Invoking Satan is just a superstitious mechanism to demonise those who your nation wishes to kill. It allows you to justify murder and to feel that you yourself are off the hook for the acts performed in your name. You're not. Satan is the deceiver, so look closer to home for his beguiling presence than Mesopotamia. He is smiling over the shoulders of those with their hands on the joy-sticks and over the shoulders of those who order such murder in the halls of power.

This must stop.
Evilroddy.
Click to expand...

Me and mine aren't terrorists. I also know that if someone was gunning for me, I would be as far away from my family as possible, so they wouldn't become collateral damage.
 
Fledermaus said:
Is or is not ISIS a terrorist organization?

Are they or are they not openly at war?
Click to expand...

Fledermaus:

Yes, ISIL is a terrorist organization. You'll get no argument from me on that. That is not the point I am trying to make here. Whether or not there exists an ISIL or any similar organisation is an aside. The point is how the West behaves and conducts itself in the West's struggle against ISIL and its ilk. Extrajudicial killings of non-combatants is wrong. Period. It must stop.

On the issue of war, ISIL is at war with the state of Iraq and is in part at war with the state of Syria. The US and the West has not declared a war against ISIL and has reached half-way around the world to attack ISIL and others in Iraq and Syria, as part of its efforts to prop up the Iraqi government and undermine the Syrian one. This drive for stabilization/destabilization and support/subornation is born out of the folly of invading Iraq in 2003 and destabilizing the whole Mesopotamian region, so the responsibility for this mess rests in large part with the Coalition and the West for meddling in the first place.

Even in war it is criminal to target, attack and kill non-combatants, so the issue of defacto war is just a canard to distract from the immorality and illegality of the targeted killings and extrajudicial assassinations of non-combatants by Western forces and intelligence agencies.

Cheers.
Evilroddy.
 
apdst said:
Me and mine aren't terrorists. I also know that if someone was gunning for me, I would be as far away from my family as possible, so they wouldn't become collateral damage.
Click to expand...

apdst:

You yourself may not be a terrorist but you belong to an institution which many around the globe view as a practitioner of state-terror. It does not matter that you would likely reject this characterization, because it is their opinions and not yours which will drive their actions to attack you and yours. Furthermore your own president has said the US should attack the families of terrorists and thus a reciprocal policy of attacking yours might be adopted by your foes, despite your best efforts to remove yourself from proximity to your loved ones. You can't control what ISIL terrorists will do. You do have a say in what your own state does and will do. You should remember that what your state does to foreigners today, it might very well do to Americans tomorrow. So caution and sober restraint now may pay handsome dividends tomorrow for your own liberty and personal safety.

Cheers.
Evilroddy.
 
Evilroddy said:
Fledermaus:

Yes, ISIL is a terrorist organization. You'll get no argument from me on that. That is not the point I am trying to make here. Whether or not there exists an ISIL or any similar organisation is an aside. The point is how the West behaves and conducts itself in the West's struggle against ISIL and its ilk. Extrajudicial killings of non-combatants is wrong. Period. It must stop.

On the issue of war, ISIL is at war with the state of Iraq and is in part at war with the state of Syria. The US and the West has not declared a war against ISIL and has reached half-way around the world to attack ISIL and others in Iraq and Syria, as part of its efforts to prop up the Iraqi government and undermine the Syrian one. This drive for stabilization/destabilization and support/subornation is born out of the folly of invading Iraq in 2003 and destabilizing the whole Mesopotamian region, so the responsibility for this mess rests in large part with the Coalition and the West for meddling in the first place.

Even in war it is criminal to target, attack and kill non-combatants, so the issue of defacto war is just a canard to distract from the immorality and illegality of the targeted killings and extrajudicial assassinations of non-combatants by Western forces and intelligence agencies.

Cheers.
Evilroddy.
Click to expand...

Extrajudicial killings of TERRORISTS is a good thing....

She freely joined, aided and abetted a KNOWN TERRORIST ORGANIZATION.

As far as "declaring war"? That is a sovereign state to sovereign state issue. Call me once ISIL is a recognized sovereign state.

You keep going on about "non-combatants"... Last time I checked ISIL is not a signatory on ANY international treaty. Nor are they considered "combatants" in the regular sense. They are a terrorist organization. At the most they fall under unlawful combatant. By definition unlawful combatants (illegal combatant or unprivileged combatant) directly engage in armed conflict in violation of the laws of war.
 
Manc Skipper said:
Such flexible morality for a so-called Christian.
Click to expand...

You're welcome.

"Blessed be the LORD my strength, which teacheth my hands to war, and my fingers to fight:"
 
Fledermaus said:
Extrajudicial killings of TERRORISTS is a good thing....

She freely joined, aided and abetted a KNOWN TERRORIST ORGANIZATION.

As far as "declaring war"? That is a sovereign state to sovereign state issue. Call me once ISIL is a recognized sovereign state.

You keep going on about "non-combatants"... Last time I checked ISIL is not a signatory on ANY international treaty. Nor are they considered "combatants" in the regular sense. They are a terrorist organization. At the most they fall under unlawful combatant. By definition unlawful combatants (illegal combatant or unprivileged combatant) directly engage in armed conflict in violation of the laws of war.
Click to expand...

Fledermaus:

Extrajudicial killing of anyone, alleged terrorist or not, is illegal and criminal. It is not a good thing. To advocate for it is irresponsible.

Sally Jones did not engage in direct combat and was therefore a civilian and not an unlawful combatant without privilege. Advocacy for a cause, even a very, very bad cause, does not equate to direct combat under arms. By such flawed reasoning doctors and nurses working with ISIL could be considered unlawful combatants and targeted militarily without due process. This is legally and morally wrong. Using that reasoning Tarleton's killing of American civilians during the Revlutionary War would have been legally fine, which it wasn't.

The Geneva Conventions protect individuals and not states. ISIL not signing it does not free other nations who have in whole or in part signed onto these conventions from following them. You are bound by them even if ISIL is not. Thus more flawed argument here.

This is wrong and profoundly morally corrupting behaviour which threatens to metastasise from foreign military realms to domestic internal security policy, if the militarisation of law enforcement policy continues at its present pace and thus such extrajudicial killing must be stopped now. Period.

Cheers.
Evilroddy.
 
Evilroddy said:
Fledermaus:

Extrajudicial killing of anyone, alleged terrorist or not, is illegal and criminal. It is not a good thing. To advocate for it is irresponsible.

Sally Jones did not engage in direct combat and was therefore a civilian and not an unlawful combatant without privilege. Advocacy for a cause, even a very, very bad cause, does not equate to direct combat under arms. By such flawed reasoning doctors and nurses working with ISIL could be considered unlawful combatants and targeted militarily without due process. This is legally and morally wrong. Using that reasoning Tarleton's killing of American civilians during the Revlutionary War would have been legally fine, which it wasn't.

The Geneva Conventions protect individuals and not states. ISIL not signing it does not free other nations who have in whole or in part signed onto these conventions from following them. You are bound by them even if ISIL is not. Thus more flawed argument here.

This is wrong and profoundly morally corrupting behaviour which threatens to metastasise from foreign military realms to domestic internal security policy, if the militarisation of law enforcement policy continues at its present pace and thus such extrajudicial killing must be stopped now. Period.

Cheers.
Evilroddy.
Click to expand...

There is no "alleged" terrorist. She admitted to it. She reveled in it.

She is not a "civilian". She is a AT BEST an unlawful combatant without privilege. Terrorists are terrorists.

As to the Geneva conventions, I suggest you READ them.

Applicability of the Geneva Conventions

1. The Conventions apply to all cases of declared war between signatory nations. This is the original sense of applicability, which predates the 1949 version. (DOES NOT APPLY)
2. The Conventions apply to all cases of armed conflict between two or more signatory nations, even in the absence of a declaration of war. This language was added in 1949 to accommodate situations that have all the characteristics of war without the existence of a formal declaration of war, such as a police action (a military action undertaken without a formal declaration of war). (DOES NOT APPLY)
3. The Conventions apply to a signatory nation even if the opposing nation is not a signatory, but only if the opposing nation "accepts and applies the provisions" of the Conventions. Source: 1952 Commentary on the Geneva Conventions, edited by Jean Pictet.(DOES NOT APPLY)
 
Fledermaus said:
There is no "alleged" terrorist. She admitted to it. She reveled in it.

She is not a "civilian". She is a AT BEST an unlawful combatant without privilege. Terrorists are terrorists.

As to the Geneva conventions, I suggest you READ them.

Applicability of the Geneva Conventions

1. The Conventions apply to all cases of declared war between signatory nations. This is the original sense of applicability, which predates the 1949 version. (DOES NOT APPLY)
2. The Conventions apply to all cases of armed conflict between two or more signatory nations, even in the absence of a declaration of war. This language was added in 1949 to accommodate situations that have all the characteristics of war without the existence of a formal declaration of war, such as a police action (a military action undertaken without a formal declaration of war). (DOES NOT APPLY)
3. The Conventions apply to a signatory nation even if the opposing nation is not a signatory, but only if the opposing nation "accepts and applies the provisions" of the Conventions. Source: 1952 Commentary on the Geneva Conventions, edited by Jean Pictet.(DOES NOT APPLY)
Click to expand...

Fledermaus:

Art. 2. In addition to the provisions which shall be implemented in peace-time, the present Convention shall apply to all cases of declared war or of any other armed conflict which may arise between two or more of the High Contracting Parties, even if the state of war is not recognized by one of them.

The Convention shall also apply to all cases of partial or total occupation of the territory of a High Contracting Party, even if the said occupation meets with no armed resistance.

Although one of the Powers in conflict may not be a party to the present Convention, the Powers who are parties thereto shall remain bound by it in their mutual relations. They shall furthermore be bound by the Convention in relation to the said Power, if the latter accepts and applies the provisions thereof.
Click to expand...

From:

https://ihl-databases.icrc.org/ihl/385ec082b509e76c41256739003e636d/6756482d86146898c125641e004aa3c5

Article 2 of GCIV makes it clear that signatory powers are bound to follow the conventions even if they are in conflict with states which are not parties to the convention. Syria is a party so the killing of Sally Jones outside of Raqqa was an illegal act and might constitute a war crime.

Cheers.
Evilroddy.
 
Evilroddy said:
Sally Jones did not engage in direct combat and was therefore a civilian and not an unlawful combatant without privilege.
Click to expand...

Sally Jones did pack heat. She also instructed suicide bombers. She also participated in the murder/slavery/concubinage of 3,500 female Yazidi women.

ISIS is designated a terrorist organization by the United Nations. By any reasonable metric, Sally Jones was part, parcel, and a willing participant of a global terrorist/criminal enterprise.
 
Evilroddy said:
Fledermaus:

From:

https://ihl-databases.icrc.org/ihl/385ec082b509e76c41256739003e636d/6756482d86146898c125641e004aa3c5

Article 2 of GCIV makes it clear that signatory powers are bound to follow the conventions even if they are in conflict with states which are not parties to the convention. Syria is a party so the killing of Sally Jones outside of Raqqa was an illegal act and might constitute a war crime.

Cheers.
Evilroddy.
Click to expand...

Applicability of the Geneva Conventions

1. The Conventions apply to all cases of declared war between signatory nations. This is the original sense of applicability, which predates the 1949 version. (DOES NOT APPLY)
2. The Conventions apply to all cases of armed conflict between two or more signatory nations, even in the absence of a declaration of war. This language was added in 1949 to accommodate situations that have all the characteristics of war without the existence of a formal declaration of war, such as a police action (a military action undertaken without a formal declaration of war). (DOES NOT APPLY)
3. The Conventions apply to a signatory nation even if the opposing nation is not a signatory, but only if the opposing nation "accepts and applies the provisions" of the Conventions. Source: 1952 Commentary on the Geneva Conventions, edited by Jean Pictet.(DOES NOT APPLY)

Artcile II:

Art. 2. In addition to the provisions which shall be implemented in peace-time, the present Convention shall apply to all cases of declared war or of any other armed conflict which may arise between two or more of the High Contracting Parties, even if the state of war is not recognized by one of them.

ISIS/ISIL is NOT a contracting party.

And SYRIA is not ISIL/ISIS so has no standing.
 
Evilroddy said:
Fledermaus:



From:

https://ihl-databases.icrc.org/ihl/385ec082b509e76c41256739003e636d/6756482d86146898c125641e004aa3c5

Article 2 of GCIV makes it clear that signatory powers are bound to follow the conventions even if they are in conflict with states which are not parties to the convention. Syria is a party so the killing of Sally Jones outside of Raqqa was an illegal act and might constitute a war crime.

Cheers.
Evilroddy.
Click to expand...

What state actor was Sally Jones affiliated with and what was her status, in accordance with the GC?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom