Jihadi John

Cliff

Distinguished Member
Its 99% certain Jihadi John is no more. His vehicle was tracked and blown up.
Responsible for some terrible executions of innocent people and I think most will agree this action was warranted.

My copy of the Guardian hasn't come through the letter box yet, so there might be some who think this is an illegal action?
 

Cliff

Distinguished Member
Jeremy Corbyn does have issues, but, in a measured way said he would have preferred Mr John captured and brought to justice in a court of law. Now, we may all agree, but in the circumstances, wouldn't that be rather difficult and totally impractical?
Maybe send a court subpoena?

The question is would Jeremy Corbyn OKed this action had he been PM?
 

Navvie

Active Member
I'm not entirely sure the subject is appropriate. I mean, RIP. Really?

For the record, from everything we've been told about Emwazi by the media he sounds like a bad guy who deserves all he got (gets?).

Unless we're at war in Syria, this would seem to be a state assassination of a suspect whose guilt had not yet been proven in a court of law.

Edit: And that, only that, makes me uneasy.
 
Last edited:

bishbashboshdj

Well-known Member
Jeremy Corbyn does have issues, but, in a measured way said he would have preferred Mr John captured and brought to justice in a court of law. Now, we may all agree, but in the circumstances, wouldn't that be rather difficult and totally impractical?
Maybe send a court subpoena?

The question is would Jeremy Corbyn OKed this action had he been PM?

And of course this question out of the blue has got no agenda attached to it......?
 

johntheexpat

Distinguished Member
The question is would Jeremy Corbyn OKed this action had he been PM?
Why would he have had any say? Was Dave asked by our American cousins "Hey buddy, do you mind if we take out JJ?"

I imagine JCs reaction is the same now as if he had been PM. Whatever that reaction might be.
 

Navvie

Active Member
@Navvie: the title is meant to be sarcastic.

As somebody who's been known to use a smidge of sarcasm from time to time, I'm normally pretty good at noticing when others are also using it. Must be having an off day. To be fair, the first post does make more sense when the title is taken as sarcastic.

Apologies all round!
 

Toko Black

In Memoriam
Jeremy Corbyn does have issues, but, in a measured way said he would have preferred Mr John captured and brought to justice in a court of law. Now, we may all agree, but in the circumstances, wouldn't that be rather difficult and totally impractical?
Maybe send a court subpoena?

The question is would Jeremy Corbyn OKed this action had he been PM?

On surface it's a relatively simple issue for me:

If you can capture and remove the threat, then we should not execute anyone.
If capture and removing the threat is not possible or beyond reasonably agreed risk levels, remove the threat by lethal force.

i.e. If we could have captured and prosecuted this 'person' then we should, but it seems pretty reasonable to assume that for all intents and purposes, the only practical way to stop him murdering innocent civilians was to take him out.

Their is only two issues bugging me about this particular approach:

In this case it does appear that capture and prosecution was highly unlikely and at significant risk of lives to be practical.
However, I do worry about who gets to decide when and where those decision are made and on what criteria - I'm not sure I'd be happy letting someone like Putin decide what the criteria are.

The second issue is much more of a tiny niggle in the back of my mind, but I feel it should be more significant.
When I think about the law and criminal cases, I don't blame psychopathic serial killers for their actions, they can't help it as that is simply how their minds function.
My position is that of protecting the public by locking away untreatable and unsafe criminals for as long as it takes to keep society safe from them .... but not punishing them or taking out revenge.
........ but in the case of this Jihadi John, if all we know is true, I can't help feeling happy about him not meeting his not maker.

Good riddance to bad rubbish.
 

IronGiant

Moderator
I thought it odd on the news when the commentator suggested that the families of his victims would probably have preferred it had he faced trial. Erm, really?
 

bishbashboshdj

Well-known Member
Hardly matters. Since when did any of these lunatics require a martyr for additional inspiration?

JJs only possible use would have been a source of intel. Otherwise, **** 'im.

Well the most of the techniques they use to recruit and retain loyalty is based around a mixture of punishment and martyrdom.

So it clearly does matter.

In killing him this way, it leaves ISIS with a body of a martyr to parade, it doesn't expose to the world what he really did whilst on trial, it doesn't provoke the justice we say our democracy stands for, and it doesn't make him face up to what he did on trial.

Plus theres nothing to show that he's actually dead..... they could blow up a random person and say "oh we've got Jihadi John"

So yeah, it matters quite a lot.
 

Cliff

Distinguished Member
And of course this question out of the blue has got no agenda attached to it......?
It is very pertinent.
If JC has cold feet about this kind of action and would rule it out, its another reason for his unsuitability to be PM.
 

bishbashboshdj

Well-known Member
It is very pertinent.
If JC has cold feet about this kind of action and would rule it out, its another reason for his unsuitability to be PM.

You're arguing a straw man aren't you?

"Jeremy Corbyn isn't fit to be PM, because we don't know what he'd have done in this situation".

Brilliant.
 

lucasisking

Distinguished Member
Well the most of the techniques they use to recruit and retain loyalty is based around a mixture of punishment and martyrdom.

So it clearly does matter.

In killing him this way, it leaves ISIS with a body of a martyr to parade, it doesn't expose to the world what he really did whilst on trial, it doesn't provoke the justice we say our democracy stands for, and it doesn't make him face up to what he did on trial.

Plus theres nothing to show that he's actually dead..... they could blow up a random person and say "oh we've got Jihadi John"

So yeah, it matters quite a lot.

Every member of ISIS and every Islamist in general is a potential martyr-in-waiting. Martyrdom is a central tenet of their interpretation of Islam.

Should we stop fighting them entirely, 'lest they become martyrs'? Will they all miraculously calm down if they don't have any martyrs to idolise? I think we're a bit beyond that now.
 

bishbashboshdj

Well-known Member
Every member of ISIS and every Islamist in general is a potential martyr-in-waiting. Martyrdom is a central tenet of their interpretation of Islam.

Should we stop fighting them entirely, 'lest they become martyrs'? Will they all miraculously calm down if they don't have any martyrs to idolise? I think we're a bit beyond that now.

Letting them make martyrs of people with international reputations, who are the idol of fear the want to get across to the rest of the world, is not a good idea.

Even if they don't win in the short term, they end up winning in the long term.
Charlie Hebdo is in disarray and on the verge of closing down.
Tunisia's tourist industry has been destroyed in 1 attack, Egypts tourist industry is going the same way since they claim to have down a plane.

And now they've got the body of an international face of ISIS to parade around, point out that he was killed by the west against their own democratic ideals, and claim he was chosen by Allah for Martyrdom, because thats exactly what Daesh will do.

I'm not shedding a tear for the fact he's dead, and I'm glad its the US rather than the UK that got him, but I think the West needs to tread very carefully on this one. After all Daesh is a result of the Wests failed previous attempts to stamp out Islamic Extremism, so clearly we've failed pretty resoundingly over the last 20 or so years.
 
I thought it odd on the news when the commentator suggested that the families of his victims would probably have preferred it had he faced trial. Erm, really?

Heard a few family and friends of the Taxi driver/aid worker who was beheaded on the radio this morning say that they would rather he had faced trial
 
Last edited:

IronGiant

Moderator
Heard a few family and friends of teh Taxi driver/aid worker who was beheaded on the radio this morning say that they would rather he had faced trial
OK, that will be why then, thanks.
 

Toko Black

In Memoriam
I thought it odd on the news when the commentator suggested that the families of his victims would probably have preferred it had he faced trial. Erm, really?

As Aclass mentioned, some already made a statement accordingly.

On a more general theme, I would guess that regardless of wanting him to be executed, many relatives would want him to stand trial for the following reasons:
- to be able to confront him/her directly or indirectly with what they have done.
- to be able to hear the evidence officially laid out in court.
- to get the sense that their loved ones had their day in court, albeit by proxy rather than just being a sideline in a news paper. i.e. an official recording of the crimes committed against them.

I suppose for many of us, we may feel cheated of full justice should the perpetrator die before facing trial. Human psychology and expectations at play.
 

The latest video from AVForums

Star Wars Andor, Woman King, more Star Trek 4K, Rings of Power & the latest TV, movies & 4K releases
Subscribe to our YouTube channel

Latest News

JVC adds Filmmaker Mode to latest D-ILA projector firmware
  • By Andy Bassett
  • Published
Bowers & Wilkins launches Px8 headphone
  • By Andy Bassett
  • Published
Sky set to launch its plug-and-play Sky Stream solution
  • By Ian Collen
  • Published
Movies Podcast: 26th September 2022
  • By Phil Hinton
  • Published
AV Podcast: 26th September 2022
  • By Phil Hinton
  • Published

Full fat HDMI teeshirts

Support AVForums with Patreon

Top Bottom