|
|
Post by Progenitor A on Feb 9, 2018 9:53:14 GMT 1
Firstly, some perspective
Britain is engaged in an undeclared war with ISIL - we are targeting and killing them with drones, we have Special Forces on the ground in Syria seeking out ISIS people and killing them
Many of the people we kill in this way are British Jihadis, some of these have returned to the 'home' that they hate without being prosecuted
You may agree with or disagree with this killing in an undeclared war, but it is difficult to see any other way of dealing with our self-declared enemies
In parallel with this undeclared war we have undeclared Kurdish 'allies' doing the same thing - killing Jihadis in Syria
There is absolutely no doubt that the Kurdish and British efforts are complementary and I would not be at all surprised if there was co-operation and collusion
With this background, how to are we to understand the prosecution of a returned British ex-soldier that was fighting ISIL with Kurdish forces? He is being charged with 'terrorist' offences
It sounds odd to say the least
|
|
|
|
Post by aquacultured on Feb 10, 2018 1:17:42 GMT 1
Them Molsems. Them Grammer Schools.
(And now I've spotted Kow-towig to Molsem.)
I salute your anarchistic consistency.  Moutons: I agree, the case is intriguing, but I doubt that the judgment, whatever it is, will be hailed or held as a precedent. It's the fine detail of the case that should determine the outcome. That's what's (usually) great about justice: what you thought before and after the trial can be very different. |
|
|
|
Post by mrsonde on Feb 10, 2018 18:57:46 GMT 1
Firstly, some perspective Britain is engaged in an undeclared war with ISIL - we are targeting and killing them with drones, we have Special Forces on the ground in Syria seeking out ISIS people and killing them Many of the people we kill in this way are British Jihadis, some of these have returned to the 'home' that they hate without being prosecuted You may agree with or disagree with this killing in an undeclared war, but it is difficult to see any other way of dealing with our self-declared enemies In parallel with this undeclared war we have undeclared Kurdish 'allies' doing the same thing - killing Jihadis in Syria There is absolutely no doubt that the Kurdish and British efforts are complementary and I would not be at all surprised if there was co-operation and collusion With this background, how to are we to understand the prosecution of a returned British ex-soldier that was fighting ISIL with Kurdish forces? He is being charged with 'terrorist' offences It sounds odd to say the least Some clearing of this opacity might be derived from focusing on what we're really doing there. Fighting ISIL is a post hoc smokescreen, I think is pretty much inarguable - or, at the very least, it's an irritating but more readily sellable distraction from the real mission (leaving aside the deeper rationale, which is to be reliable allies with the US.) The real mission is and always was to overthrow the Assad regime. The purpose of that policy I suggest - the evidence is solid and extensive - goes back to the NeoCon agenda, eagerly adopted by the Obama/Clinton admin, of reshaping the whole Middle East, primarily to protect the petrodollar economic status quo and destabilise any threat to it - Saddam has gone, Gaddafi has gone, and Assad was the other principal player in that now outdated poker game. |
|
|
|
Post by alancalverd on Mar 4, 2018 9:51:16 GMT 1
The Prevention of Terrorism Act, now more honestly entitled the Terrorism Act, does not define terrorism. It is anything the government wishes it to be. So if HMG wants to cosy up to the Turkish government, then fighting on the same side as the Kurds is terrorism.
The only honest players in this business seem to be the Russians. A couple of years ago their ambassador to London explained that lots of people were going to die in Syria because that's what happens in a war, and they were going to help Assad so they could know what they were fighting for, who they were fighting with, how they would know they had won, and what would happen next*. Unpleasant choices have to be made in wartime, but as with the concealment of Colossus and the sacrifice of the Calais garrison, the long term and greater good often demands short term compromise.
*presumably, Assad becomes a Russian puppet until his accident, when he is replaced by an elected puppet.
|
|
