IS

[Tigranes]

They may not.


That's not really relevant here: executing prisoners may have been OK in olden times, in the 21st century it's a war crime.

According to whom? You? International law? Quran and Hadiths override both. Moderate muslims can always be painted in the corner of not being not good enough. The Sixth Pillar of Islam is Jihad or holy fighting and this is an obligation for every Muslim on earth! No exceptions. "If they fight against you -- fight with them". One drone attack is a casus belli. There is a visible and invisible line between Dar al-Harb and Dar al-Islam, house of war and house of peace. Guess what is the goal of Islam? Peace.

 

[calad]

They might. This is not to say I favour an all out war in Iraq or Syria, but one could argue that ISIS is more of a rebellion against the Iraqi and Syrian governments than a foreign power attempting to conquer both, so it could go either way.

I might also defeat US.

I found this thread particularly twisted and sick. Are there moderate Christians?

 

[Agent327]

According to whom? You? International law? Quran and Hadiths override both.

No, they don't. The only thing applicable here is international law and the Geneva Conventions. Hence, it's a war crime to execute, torture or mistreat prisoners.

 

[Tigranes]

IS did not sign any conventions and is not even recognized as a state. And legitimate Muslim states would rather go by what was established in Medina, not Geneva, everytime there is a conflict of interests. And International law would take international community to enforce it. Turkey is out of the game, for example. 49 Turkish hostages IS has would not allow Turkey to be united with any future NATO actions even, and NATO is a very specific subset of international community. Feel free to bump this discussion after you see Saudi Tanks in Mosul. Somethings tells me -- that well not happen.

 

[Timsup2nothin]

No, they don't. The only thing applicable here is international law and the Geneva Conventions. Hence, it's a war crime to execute, torture or mistreat prisoners.

ISIS is not a signer of the Geneva conventions, hence they have no applicability at all.

 

[Flying Pig]

IS members remain citizens of states which have signed the Conventions or are members of the UN, though. That's enough to be tried under the Geneva Conventions by international law. War crimes also considered to have universal jurisdiction, meaning that anybody who commits them anywhere is liable to be punished for them, regardless of their nationality or the law of the place in which they happen.

 

[Tigranes]

So if Britain strips the citizenship from Jihad John his future lawyers can use this? See, right now the problem is not what can West formally do with terrorists after they capture them (this is a big topic for another thread). In the minds of jihadist international law does not take a precedence over the obligations he is considering holy. It takes Muslim to dissuade another Muslim.

 

[brennan]

I last came across the notion of a state stripping people of their citizenship when I read 'Eichmann in Jerusalem'. I really, really, seriously hope my government doesn't decide to copy one of the nazi's lead-ups to the final solution...

 

[Borachio]

I don't think they can do so, legally. The only people who could have their British citizenship removed are those with dual citizenship.

Not that legal niceties seem to bother British governments over much.

 

[innonimatu]

There are moderate Muslims, the problem of course lies in the fact that we never see or hear them speaking out against or actively opposing the extremists. That opens them up to suspicion as well, since general human thinking goes that if you don't speak out against something then you must be a secret supporter of it. I personally don't agree with that logic, but I would like to see moderate Muslims be a little more vocal and active in their opposition to the extremists.

There is this thing called the Syrian Arab Republic, with an army and all, actively opposing those guys for years. Now your president, not content with arming the extremists, wants to bomb those opposing them. Because, like in Libya, destroying a stable state and bringing about chaos in its place will bring... is it 'freedom' still? Or some other excuse now?

 

[Agent327]

Libya nor Syria were nor are stable states. They both are/were in a state of civil war, which can hardly be described as 'stable'.

ISIS is not a signer of the Geneva conventions, hence they have no applicability at all.

Not having signed Geneva Conventions does not make one immune to being prosecuted for war crimes. The Geneva Conventions merely define proper treatment of prisoners for those ignorant of what constitutes proper treatment. Beheading people is definitely not 'proper treatment of prisoners'.

 

[Borachio]

Neither is keeping them locked up in Guantanamo. Nor water-boarding. Nor "special" rendition.

I fancy immunity from prosecution (or not) depends on something more than just how you might treat prisoners.

 

[Agent327]

Neither is keeping them locked up in Guantanamo. Nor water-boarding. Nor "special" rendition.

Both under US and international law such actions are illegal. But the US had active cooperation from other countries in this. Countries which since have, in part at least, refused to take back their abducted citizens.

I'm not sure why you mention this though. It has little relation to IS ignoring basic human rights. (Even if you'd like to argue: 'they did it too!' Which, obviously, isn't much of an argument.) Nobody claimed the US (or any of its allies) have clean hands here.

 

[Borachio]

Indeed. I'm just musing, that's all.

 

[Commodore]

There is this thing called the Syrian Arab Republic, with an army and all, actively opposing those guys for years. Now your president, not content with arming the extremists, wants to bomb those opposing them. Because, like in Libya, destroying a stable state and bringing about chaos in its place will bring... is it 'freedom' still? Or some other excuse now?

Oh believe me, I am very upset with how my government has handled both Libya and Syria. Toppling the Libyan government and severely destabilizing the Syrian government has led us (by "us", I mean the entire international community) directly into the crisis we are facing now.

The best way I see to potentially fix this situation is to encourage more moderate Muslims to fight back against ISIS and give them the tools and support to do so. We also need to make sure Assad wins in Syria.

 

[kramerfan86]

I just boggles my mind Obama thinks he can get rid of ISIS and not support Assad. There are no moderate rebels now, the non ISIS group is dominated by somewhat less barbaric groups like al-Qaeda affiliates, who even if they werent just milder extremists dont have the ability to win this war anymore. Assad needs to win if the goal is to remove the barbarians.

 

[Gucumatz]

There are moderate rebels right now, those would be the Kurds - not many in Syria I know but still.

 

[Timsup2nothin]

Moderate (n): an extremist currently lacking the weaponry to express their views.

 

[Borachio]

Hmm. Not sure about that.

But you know this beheading business: are those beheaded in some way incapacitated before the beheading, or is the beheading the means of incapacitating them?

I mean, the first thing they know about it, is that when they see someone approaching wielding a sharp knife?

It must be a very messy affair.

But hey! Don't go getting offended just because I'm wondering about this.

 

[Tahuti]

Hmm. Not sure about that.

But you know this beheading business: are those beheaded in some way incapacitated before the beheading, or is the beheading the means of incapacitating them?

Beheading animals that are incapacitated is Haraam AFAIK. You need to strike to their veins when the blood flows through at full swing...