Good points Jamesy - excellent post. :clap1::clap1::clap1:

:clap1::clap1::clap1:

Every dead terrorist is one terrorist less. It takes only one terrorist to spray an unarmed, innocent crowd with machine gun bullets. It takes only one terrorist to bomb a building full of unarmed, innocent people. It takes only one terrorist to sever the heads of dozens of cowered, bound, terrified innocent abductees.

Every DEAD terrorist means one murdering demon less, and the potential saving of thousands of innocent lives.

:joker: some people will believe anything.

Come on guys. I'm not saying it's a bad thing that terrorists have been killed, but... I have a 5 year old. I know a hasty excuse when I hear one!

"I know it wasn't allowed but we had to coz coz coz... And anyway! Anyway! Listen! Anyway! It was OK becoz coz coz.... "

:clap1: :clap1: :clap1:

With respect, TS... maybe you're more acquainted with a five year old's excuses but you're not really acquainted with this particular issue. You have your own opinion, I can accept that, but you're taking your depressive cynicism a step too far. I have no doubt that the intelligence was sound and the decision to carry out the bombing legal. If you want to disagree because it's the Tories, go right ahead. But they will have been advised by the security services and I trust them implicitly.

Have a think for a minute and try to remember... this is IS we're talking about here. IS. Not the Boy Scouts.

Maybe he has disrespected Parliament by not even just discussing this with other Party leaders.

However, I don't care really, those who lost their lives never needed to, all they had to do was keep away from the rotten organisation that is IS.

Had they done so they would be living today and be under no threats whatsoever.
On this incident, I support the PM unreservedly.

And you are I suppose?

Your optimism is equally as baffling as even as we speak there is wrangling over the legality over the admission of targeted strikes.
No one is disagreeing because it's the tories, it would be wrong whoever was in power naturally.

As a matter of fact, yes.

There. I've replied to you. Happy?

:clap1::clap1::clap1:

Not really, when even govt officials and experts are confused over this issue what makes you so confident?

If I told you that I'd have to kill you.

:clap1::clap1: lets hope more will follow.

Nay worries then liv, I won't ask again :laugh:

Number 10 has revealed that the legal advice that approved the RAF drone strike that killed two British Islamic State terrorists was drawn up “some months ago”. But the attack only took place on 21 August. The revelation came as David Cameron came under pressure to publish the legal advice he received from the attorney general, Jeremy Wright. Humza Yousaf, the SNP MSP and the Scottish government’s international development minister, said:
If it were truly an act of self-defence it would be helpful for the UK government to share the intelligence behind that, if that is sharing it with party leaders or sharing it with parliament. The democratic will of the parliament was not to have military intervention in Syria when this was brought to the parliament a couple of years ago, and that parliamentary will has been ridden roughshod over so we need the reasons why.

http://www.theguardian.com/politics/...mment-59043753

https://pbs.twimg.com/media/COW8yWmWcAAYWIV.jpg

SNP can see it in Private

:clap1:

Absolutely nothing to do with the Tories, Livia, in fact I seem to remember Labour being pretty good at "finding" reasons to make strikes and attacks not too long ago. Not sure what the security and intelligence services were doing then? Were they not the same services? Am I confused? Or did they drop the ball? I mean, you have been quite vocal about Mr Blair in the past... Maybe he had different, silly, Labour intelligence services who were not to be trusted quite so implicitly.

Alternatively, (all) military forces quite often decide which strikes they want or need to make, and then find justifications. In that order.

I'm not even saying there was no need for this strike or that it wasn't done for good reasons. I'm just saying, they needed the strike to be legal, so they found a way to make it so. It reeks of being an excuse, because it is one.

The whole "going to war on a lie" following the "sexed up" dossier published by Blair's government, and which was followed by a suicide or a murder depending on your view point... bears no resemblance to this matter at all.

I think you'd be surprised how far the hands of the military are tied in matters like this.. unless you know something I don't, which I doubt.

I understand you're not saying you have a problem with this strike... but there's always something, isn't there, that doesn't sit right with you when it comes to Britain. I think you underestimate both the security services and their legal advisers. But that's your right because we live in a free country, in part thanks to the security services and the military.

There's always something that doesn't sit right with me when it comes to the entire world, Livia, because most of it is bull****, lies and charades. Or in other words, "Politics". There's always more to the story. Always. Whether it comes out in 10 years, 100 or 1000... it always does in the end.

You have a very one sided view of anything concerning the UK military and intelligence services, though, and that view falls into the camp of "can do absolutely no wrong".

Which is, frankly, completely illogical. No matter how excellent you believe them to be, there is no such thing as infallible.

And yes of course it bears resemblance, unless you're claiming that the intelligence services didn't know that the UK was going to war on a lie far in advance? Bit of a catch 22 there, though. If they're innocent, they're incompetent.

I don't consider the security services or the military to be infallible because they are human. But I trust them to do the best they can.

I never said the security services didn't know, of course they knew. But Prime Minister trumps Head of Security Services.

Paddy Ashdown
on BBC News says if this is Self Defence
and can be proven then
its all Legal.

Hopefully when they all have their little pow-wow it will be made clear that Mr.Cameron has the support of those that matter to blow the little feckers to kingdom come.

And then the world will be saved, just like it was in Afghani...st... Oh no wait. No.

The alternative it to sit back and let IS prosper. We can't negotiate with them, they despise the West and want nothing we've got and they've said many times they will not stop till their flag is flying over the White House.

The fact that there isn't a better option doesn't make it a good option. "If you think this ends well, you haven't been paying attention", etc.

I'm sure other options would be considered. Do you have one?