Sally Jones (white widow) killed by drone,

[anonymous-user]

Sally Jones head of HR for Isis has been blown up by a predator drone,

https://www.thesun.co.uk/news/4665086/british-jiha...

Sun article for awesome sensationalism.





As the sun says “quite frankly, good riddance”

[anonymous-user]

I see the angels of death are falling over themselves this morning to applaud this womans brutal death. I ask you this. Wouldn’t it have been fairer to arrest her and let her face trial rather than just kill her by a remote controlled act of murder?

I believe it would have been fairer and simply better that she be captured and put on trial for her alleged offences. To this end a team of Commandos* could have been sent to capture her, read her rights to her Then she could have been brought back to the UK to face trial.

A suitable human rights lawyer could have been appointed to defend her (of course she could have chosen her own solicitor as is her right) and eventually after a few years she would then have faced trial. Without pre judging such a trial it would show the world how fair we are.
Assuming a guilty sentence or plea and assuming a custodial sentence (both of which are just assumptions) then by keeping her behind bars we would show a clear sign to all followers of that brand of terrorism.


Edited to add

• Commandos could actually be a volunteer force of people who receive military training. These people could be made up of people who strongly believe in civil liberties and treating people fairly. A sort of “Dads Army” of well meaning civil libertarians.

Edited by anonymous-user on Thursday 12th October 10:04

[anonymous-user]

STe_rsv4 said:

techiedave said:

I see the angels of death are falling over themselves this morning to applaud this womans brutal death. I ask you this. Wouldn’t it have been fairer to arrest her and let her face trial rather than just kill her by a remote controlled act of murder?

I believe it would have been fairer and simply better that she be captured and put on trial for her alleged offences. To this end a team of Commandos* could have been sent to capture her, read her rights to her Then she could have been brought back to the UK to face trial.

A suitable human rights lawyer could have been appointed to defend her (of course she could have chosen her own solicitor as is her right) and eventually after a few years she would then have faced trial. Without pre judging such a trial it would show the world how fair we are.
Assuming a guilty sentence or plea and assuming a custodial sentence (both of which are just assumptions) then by keeping her behind bars we would show a clear sign to all followers of that brand of terrorism.

Ah yes. Lets risk the lives of our armed forces to infiltrate into a country where if captured, you likely face being tortured then beheaded on camera. Then once you have somehow exfiltrated with the hostage in said hostile territory, the UK taxpayer will no doubt spend millions on the high profile trial, all the while the hand wringing lefties will defend the accused while her family come out and announce that she was just misunderstood.

Nah mate, just keep sendig in drones, Ill sleep better at night knowing which way my taxes were spent.

Your taxes are not the issue here

I totally abhor your views and the way in which you welcome the spectre of death rather than the angel of justice and fairness I simultaneously support your right to express these views as I appreciate we live in a democracy.
Until such time as we can supress such views as yours I am obliged to put up with them though I suspect the tide is turning against them and in any case once new laws are put in place you will be stopped from espousing them on the internet.
However I must actually thank you as I have edited my post to include something I meant to post originally and that is the definition of commando

[anonymous-user]

Zod said:

Do you know what a parrot is?

I suspect he does but the other guy whose deleted his post in the last 5 minutes plainly doesnt

[anonymous-user]

techiedave said:

I see the angels of death are falling over themselves this morning to applaud this womans brutal death. I ask you this. Wouldn’t it have been fairer to arrest her and let her face trial rather than just kill her by a remote controlled act of murder?

Edited by techiedave on Thursday 12th October 10:04

Its not decent war porn unless they release the footage in high definition. The graphic team at the Sun can only do so much.

[anonymous-user]

dieselgrunt said:

she is one of the few people who deserved a death sentence rather than imprisonment in prison.

Maybe they could have imprisoned her somewhere other than a prison ?

[anonymous-user]

DoubleSix said:

techiedave said:

Your taxes are not the issue here

I totally abhor your views and the way in which you welcome the spectre of death rather than the angel of justice and fairness I simultaneously support your right to express these views as I appreciate we live in a democracy.
Until such time as we can supress such views as yours I am obliged to put up with them though I suspect the tide is turning against them and in any case once new laws are put in place you will be stopped from espousing them on the internet.
However I must actually thank you as I have edited my post to include something I meant to post originally and that is the definition of commando

Loving your work!


n.b. Why are people so thick/gullible?

Thing is though some of the crap I stick up is actually just a quick copy/ paste/ edit for ridiculousness from actual responses elsewhere.
I should start linking to some of the stuff I find. It's seriously scary when you read it. Facebooks a treasure trove for such stuff. Then you look at the peoples profiles and you think fook they really mean it.

[anonymous-user]

DoubleSix said:

techiedave said:

Your taxes are not the issue here

I totally abhor your views and the way in which you welcome the spectre of death rather than the angel of justice and fairness I simultaneously support your right to express these views as I appreciate we live in a democracy.
Until such time as we can supress such views as yours I am obliged to put up with them though I suspect the tide is turning against them and in any case once new laws are put in place you will be stopped from espousing them on the internet.
However I must actually thank you as I have edited my post to include something I meant to post originally and that is the definition of commando

Loving your work!


n.b. Why are people so thick/gullible?

Bit weird really, plenty of people disapprove of drone strikes. It’s not an view you won’t hear from people.

It’s certainly not a stranger view than you’d hear from people on here. I’m not surprised people thought it wasn’t sarcasm at all. I thought it was genuine and just though fair enough, each to their own,

You only get it because you’re internet mates or something,

[anonymous-user]

STe_rsv4 said:

What the fk is all this "whhoshing" and "parrots" st all about on here lately?
sorry, its a a rhetorical question. I know that it means that "I have somehow been suckered in" to a sarcastic stament made by a poster on here.

My point is, how the fk is someone meant to know a sarcastic post from a genuine post in writing? And more so, why do it in the first place, unless it helps make you somehow feel more witty and gives you the chance to put up a generic parrot meme to generate laughs?

Exactly. It’s just an in joke at others expense but it’s a huge forum and most posters don’t know the whoosher so it’s a pointless clique thing.

Poster A posts sarcasm
Poster B says it’s weird
Posters C and D say oh look! whoosh! We know poster A isn’t like that normally.
Poster B and everyone else says who’s poster A

Edited by anonymous-user on Thursday 12th October 11:36

[anonymous-user]

DoubleSix said:

El stovey said:

Exactly. It’s just an in joke at others expense but it’s a huge forum and most posters don’t know the whoosher so it’s a pointless clique thing.

Poster A posts sarcasm
Poster B says it’s weird
Posters C and D say oh look! whoosh! We know poster A isn’t like that normally.
Poster B and everyone else says WTF who’s poster A

You’re wrong.

It’s just satire.

Close enough to the truth to be worrying, far away enough to be hilarious.

Edited by DoubleSix on Thursday 12th October 11:42

Which you only get as you know the poster. Look we get it, you’re mates and know what each other normally posts. Not everyone else does though. It’s a big old forum.

People come here and post all kind of views. If you don’t know them, you don’t know if they’re taking the piss or not.

[anonymous-user]

DoubleSix said:

El stovey said:

Which you only get as you know the poster. Look we get it, you’re mates and know what each other normally posts. Not everyone else does though. It’s a big old forum.

People come here and post all kind of views. If you don’t know them, you don’t know if they’re taking the piss or not.

Why do you keep saying that??

I don’t know him from Adam.

Re-read his post, it’s bloody obvious to anyone but a child or the dull of mind I’m afraid.

Great we all get the clever satire now. Anyone who didn’t is thick, maybe we can move on?

[anonymous-user]

gooner1 said:

Amateurish said:

Amazing that we now live in a world where you can be assassinated by the US for sending propagandist tweets. Hurray?

Sorry, we are not acquainted, was the above satire?

[anonymous-user]

gooner1 said:

Amateurish said:

No, serious point. Is that allowed?

Also shame about her son. Collateral damage?

It certainly is allowed and I agree re the shame about her son.

This wouldn't be the son whom the grandparents recognised in the footage posted of him would it ?
Oh no irony or sarcasm just a question btw
It's just if it is isn't that the same footage where he then shoots the prisoner in the head ?

I don't think I'll think its a shame myself.

[anonymous-user]

Smollet said:

gooner1 said:

Amateurish said:

No, serious point. Is that allowed?

Also shame about her son. Collateral damage?

It certainly is allowed and I agree re the shame about her son.

That’s what I thought initially but then there’s a fair chance given his parents and environment he lived in he too would turn into an equally nasty piece of work so perhaps it was a case of nipping one in the bud so to speak. Of course he could’ve grown up to be a thoroughly decent human being but we’ll never know now.

This was her son, apparently he goes through with the execution.



I expect it would have been difficult to integrate after growing up doing this kind of thing. Terrible brain washing by mum and she had already used him as a human shield many times according to the US.

Could therapy etc deradicalise young people of 12?

I understand there has been some success using cognitive behavioural therapy with African child soldiers and some middle eastern jihadis in the UAE and Saudi.

Unfortunately when your mum is high on the wanted list and uses you as a shield the odds of successful deradicalism aren’t good.

[anonymous-user]

STe_rsv4 said:

What the fk is all this "whhoshing" and "parrots" st all about on here lately?
sorry, its a a rhetorical question. I know that it means that "I have somehow been suckered in" to a sarcastic stament made by a poster on here.

My point is, how the fk is someone meant to know a sarcastic post from a genuine post in writing? And more so, why do it in the first place, unless it helps make you somehow feel more witty and gives you the chance to put up a generic parrot meme to generate laughs?

I agree it's really lame trying to bait people in. It wouldn't be so bad if was actually funny / witty satire.

[anonymous-user]

stitched said:

.............
Despite what he had been made into, I still regret her sons death, or more accurately losing him to fanatics, bear in mind that at 12 my son would have looked to me for the right thing to do. Probably would have pulled the trigger if told.
At 18 I hope he is beyond being duped so, he has a strong respect for his moral beliefs.
The crime here belongs only to his mother.

These, I think, are the fairest and most decent thoughts posted so far on this thread.

With advances in modern warfare, coupled with quite a new kind of enemy who has unconventional tactics and proves quite ruthless, I think we seem to be adjusting our morality in the wrong direction to cope with them. Technically, in legal terms, we do not support the death penalty. We do not view children as combatants. We believe in a fair trial. That goes out of the window in this case.

It's very mixed up and I don't think it's a situation where anyone can safely judge it to be absolutely just or unjust.

[anonymous-user]

Jawknee is innocent said:

anonymous said:

[redacted]

With an enemy who constantly changes tactics, cutting our cloth to meet the circumstances is the most logical way to act.

Of course it's logical, if considered in isolation.

The morality of war is questionable, again obviously, but this type of killing is even more so.

[anonymous-user]

eldar said:

anonymous said:

[redacted]

Interesting that you seem more concerned about the value of the perpetrator's life than the potential and actual victims. Jones was enthusiastically advocating war crime and genocide.

Arrest and trial would be the perfect option, certainly. Not practical, unfortunately, so let her continue or stop her to save others, possibly.

That's clearly not what I said.

[anonymous-user]

stitched said:

...
Despite what he had been made into, I still regret her sons death, or more accurately losing him to fanatics, bear in mind that at 12 my son would have looked to me for the right thing to do. ...

The crime here belongs only to his mother.

Well said. Those here who are crowing about the death of a child who had been brutalised and brain washed by his own mother and her associates are predictably PH but it's still depressing stuff to read.

[anonymous-user]

This film "Eye in the Sky" did not get the recognition that it deserved - a tense examination of the ethics of drone warfare. Intelligent script, strong cast, well made, and well worth a watch

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eye_in_the_Sky_(2015...

Edited by anonymous-user on Saturday 14th October 09:06