On a personal level, I couldn't give a toss about the deaths of those two either, or anyone else who signs up to join with ISIS on their mentalist crusade. And on a certain level it DOES satisfy the feelings of "serves those *******s right, they deserved it".
But its where it all leads that...
Loopholes and semantics I guess, they'll always leave some wiggle-room, but it does leave the door open to carte-blanche policy. When it comes down to it, it seems they can justify pretty much anything they want once its done.
Well put. I agree, it doesn't seem part of a wider strategy, it IS just policy on the hoof. The justification will always be that "this action directly thwarted an imminent terrorist atrocity on British soil" - and who can ever argue against that ?
Thing is, I just find it so, so hard to...
But does their execution represent an escalation in the UK's policy on dealing with jihadists ? Its easy to say "well they deserved it", but Parliament voted against airstrikes in Syria some time ago, and Parliament was bypassed on this occasion to carry this execution out (presumably as a...
My heart certainly doesn't bleed for them either. They made their choice, and paid for it with their lives.
But does this now represent a new phase of another conflict we're going to get directly involved with ? If there's one thing history has taught us, once you start upping the stakes, its a...
So we're told, and that's all we'll ever know about it. Again, we just have to "trust" our politicians on it, exactly as we did with the whole WMD argument.
Hard not to be cynical though, isn't it ? Air strikes in Syria could be the thin end of a very, very big wedge which I thought we were...
The wider issue is Cameron bypassing Parliament to authorise taking military action, based on intelligence that HE saw that warned of "an imminent threat to the UK".
That sounds somehow familiar...