November 17, 2015

Labour Leader Jeremy Corbyn suggests he wouldn't have Jihadi John killed, questions legality of strike

StaffRebel Columnist

British Labour Leader Jeremy Corbyn is making headlines in the UK again this week after he suggested he wouldn't have ordered Mohammed Emwazi, more commonly known as Jihadi John, to be killed.

According to Express, Corbyn – a massive “anti-war” supporter said he was “awaiting an explanation” on why the ruthless ISIS terrorist was killed.

He told ITV News, “I would only authorise actions that are legal in the terms of international law.”

When pressed on if he believed the strike was legal he added, “I question that. Surely if somebody is doing something wrong you act legally against them. If we are setting ourselves up as the West, as in accordance with the UN, with international law and of our own laws, then I think we have to act in accordance with them.”

“I am awaiting an explanation of where the legal basis was for that incident that went on. Obviously people planning things to attack others is wrong, but there is a process to go on about that. That is why I am looking for a political process,” he concluded.


JOIN for more fearless news and commentary you won’t find anywhere else.

Trudeau is already abandoning our allies — and the war on terror
SIGN OUR PETITION demanding he continue Canada’s role in the anti-ISIS coalition.

Trudeau's Liberals MUST halt plans to bring in 25,000 Syrian refugees
until they can guarantee the safety of the Canadian people.

You must be logged in to comment. Click here to log in.
commented 2015-11-18 17:26:09 -0500
What’s #his address?
commented 2015-11-18 12:39:41 -0500
Ha ha ha!
commented 2015-11-18 12:35:34 -0500

Whatever, pinhead.
commented 2015-11-18 12:18:06 -0500
commented 2015-11-18 11:54:26 -0500

Ok. So you do understand that there are long held rules of engagement in war, and there are specific doctrines on who are combatants and non-combatants. Since ISIS (Or whatever it wants to be called these days.) isn’t a formal state, nor has a regular and defined military, short of being no more than an armed gang on their turf, their fighters would be defined as non-combatants. That doesn’t mean you can’t fight them: they shoot at you, you can shoot back; they resist, you can run over them. In those circumstances, all bets really are off. But…just take a walk on the wild side and say that, because formal Western militaries are civilized, and their command and civilian mandated governments are also civilized, then is has to be accepted that the rules of engagement apply. Do you kill JJ? You can if he shoots at a soldier – that’s called combat. But if he makes snuff videos of him murdering hostages (BTW, not a single video that JJ has appeared in has shown him actually murdering anyone. The viewer sees only the aftermath, or someone else does the deed.) that’s not combat. Now, if you think that one atrocity is justification for another (or more) then go right ahead: nuke the whole Middle East and incinerate all the brown people. (Muslim, Christian, it doesn’t matter; they’re all brown.) Turn the soldiers loose so they can pillage and rape – it’s okay in your world. And if you think ethnic cleansing is a good idea, have at it. There cannot be enough atrocities, in your mind. But once everything is done, can you actually call yourself civilized again? No, you can’t.
commented 2015-11-18 08:25:40 -0500
I know there are laws in war you dipshit. When you drop a bomb on a target, you looking to kill the target, that is why they call it war. Once again you are twisting the point. But hey! If you want to try to capture a 100, 000 plus, terrorists go for it.
commented 2015-11-18 01:31:58 -0500

No laws in war? Well, actually there are lots of laws governing conduct on the battlefield. The Geneva Convention establishes pretty clearly what a combatant and a non-combatant is. And it also establishes what a war crime is, which was further by the events and the articles from the Nuremberg Trials. I guess you believe all those Nazis got a raw deal, huh? And there’s other laws and code that govern conduct on the battlefield. Now, unless you have some kind of lust for a orgy freakout of atrocities, you need some better hobbies.

And since you like going on (and one and on and on) about Omar Khadr, it’s agreed, by Canadian and US courts, that his matter has been settled. Besides, he got a raw deal, being indoctrinated by his nutty jihadi father and his cohorts. Or, do think all child soldiers are responsible for what they do? I know that Khadr is your favourite boogeyman, and you will not rest until he goes all jihadi and does some crazy jihadi shit. But what if Khadr decides, like any child soldier would, that he can change his life, associate with people who are positive and truly care about him, renounce violence, and integrate into society and live a peaceful and instructive life, then I guess he will be a huge disappointment to you.

Since you seem to have a lot of crazy and paranoid notions, that all seem to keep coming back to violence, conspiracies, and the usual New Order/Bilderbergs/Illuminati nonsense, maybe you really need to get a tension relieving jerk-off station for your mancave?
commented 2015-11-18 01:15:18 -0500

Wait…did you just say that? Our laws while not created by seculars? Wow. We live in a theocracy. Holy shit! What is in your bong, anyway?

Our laws are secular laws – look at any of them and find even one Biblical reference in any of them. Hmmm…I guess those laws protecting women from battery and assault have is all wrong, since …

“Let your women keep silence in the churches: for it is not permitted unto them to speak; but they are commanded to be under obedience, as also saith the law. And if they will learn any thing, let them ask their husbands at home: for it is a shame for women to speak in the church.” (I Corinthians 14:34-35)

“Wives, submit yourselves unto your own husbands, as unto the Lord. For the husband is the head of the wife, even as Christ is the head of the church: and he is the saviour of the body. Therefore as the church is subject unto Christ, so let the wives be to their own husbands in everything.” (Ephesians 5:22-24)

Wow. A Biblical reference that demands that women submit to the will and the power of their husbands. That must be some really good shit in that bong of yours.

As for the SCC, yeah I guess that Charter of Rights gets in the way of your theocratic fantasy planet.
commented 2015-11-17 23:33:23 -0500
Brad,Lol, it looks like I touched a nerve with you. Such harsh language…. When comes to war, there is no diplomacy. Dropping bombs on a enemy is not to bring them to trial if you figured it out yet. If some stroke of luck the military catches a bad guy, then the P.O.W. is given rights, but the sole purpose of military action is eliminate the enemy. So my point earlier was it is just better to eliminate the scums on the battlefield. Yes, I do not have much faith in the judicial systems, your boy Omar Khadr is the shining example of it. Also 5 terrorists were released from Gitmo Bay. So Brad, you can go back to your room and role play with your Ken and Barbie dolls and admire you Omar Khadr teen poster.
commented 2015-11-17 23:01:42 -0500
Brad what about the laws that were broken when a handicapped man could not move into subsidized housing because the Muslims did not want a non muslim? WHY WAS THAT FINE? And once more i ask why a law that applied to Hutterites does not apply to Muslim women? Still to cowardly to answer that eh?
commented 2015-11-17 22:59:20 -0500
Brad you mean like the law which said you have to show your face while taking the oath? OH YEAH idiots like you pick and choose which of those laws you claim to cherish matter and should be followed.
commented 2015-11-17 22:58:22 -0500
Brad sounds like the Supremes here in Canada they do not follow the law, they try to create them which is not legal.
commented 2015-11-17 22:57:34 -0500
Brad our laws were not created by seculars, and different laws apply in war in case yo didn’t notice. What about the laws for free speech in this country? of course you do not give a damn about those.
commented 2015-11-17 21:55:08 -0500

Ok. So you don’t like the Rule of Law, which is the sort of thing that civilized states follow, because you are scared that all the courts are filled with liberals who will let JJ off. Tinfoil hat much?

The difference between the West and jihadis is that the West follows the rule of secular laws. You know the type, the ones that protect individual rights, that allow everyone a defence before a court, and a fair judgement?

Obviously, you don’t have a problem with assassinations by the state. I guess you have no problem with beheadings in the first place? After all, there’s no Rule of Law with ISIS, just the way you like it.

commented 2015-11-17 19:11:01 -0500
Another useless door knob living off of other peoples money.
commented 2015-11-17 19:06:33 -0500
«Labour Leader Jeremy Corbyn suggests he wouldn’t have Jihadi John killed»

It’s so kind of him to marginalize his party.
commented 2015-11-17 17:18:18 -0500
Brad, obviously you did not read what I posted carefully…What’s with the insults? Typical leftie, has to start throwing the insults when challenged. We cannot trust our liberal courts to hand out any justice anyway. JJ does not deserve any rights, for what he has done. Do you think he thought about the rights of all of his victims he executed? Try to tell it to the families of his victims he killed. Yes it would be a waste of time to put this animal on trial because he does not recognize the western judicial system anyway. Taking out the scumbags on the battlefield is the only way. Speaking of jerk offs, you are probably a Omar Khadr groupie who blows his load on the poster you have of him in your bedroom.
commented 2015-11-17 15:36:15 -0500
War against irregulars certainly has our “elites” confused, emotionally rushing to their aid while having no problem ignoring atrocities against Westerners, Christians, Jews and just about anyone else non-Muslim. Meanwhile the irregulars (terrorists) follow no morality at all and really do get away with murder.
commented 2015-11-17 15:11:38 -0500
Of course he stated the strike was illegal – he is a labour leader.

Lowest form of life in the western world after hussein Obama
commented 2015-11-17 14:58:49 -0500

So, the Rule of Law is a huge inconvenience for you?

Wow. Sounds like you spend way too much time at your Manacle’s Jerk-Off station.
commented 2015-11-17 14:57:14 -0500

Drone strikes are no used in combat operations. They are typically used in instances where the drone will not encounter AA or small arms fire. Drone are not fast moving aircraft and can be easily shot down, like the one over Iran in 2011. As a result, drones are used as a stealthy means of assassination, and are used against targets in civilian areas.

JJ was targeted and hit in a drone strike on Raqqa, while he was on the move. His vehicle was hit in traffic, killing JJ and his driver. And, in case you’re interested, because the Hellfire hit the vehicle in traffic, there was collateral damage – meaning other brown-colored people were killed, who didn’t even know JJ was there. And there’s also the practice of double-tap, meaning the initial Hellfire strike is followed by a second one five or ten minutes later. The second Hellfire gets EMS personnel, helpful civilians, curious onlookers – you know, more brown people.
commented 2015-11-17 14:37:54 -0500
Brad….where are you getting your info on the questions of drone strikes. By the way it’s combat……full stop
commented 2015-11-17 13:54:02 -0500
Arrest Jihadi John? First of all JJ does not recognize any Western democracy or legal system. It is just better to kill them on the battlefield. JJ gave up his rights when he joined the jihad. We do not need to waste time and money on trials when a judgement can be delivered with a bomb or a bullet. Enough said…
commented 2015-11-17 13:46:40 -0500
just wanted to be known with his stupid ideas. how come this person became a leader? i thought british are intellectual people…
commented 2015-11-17 12:41:00 -0500
Corbin asks a very good question, and one that frequently comes up when there is a specific target on a drone strike. Is it combat or is it an assassination? It’s assassination – full stop.

Arrest “Jihadi John” and bring him to trial for murder. That is how it should be done and must be done. Anything less make a mockery of the campaign.
commented 2015-11-17 12:14:44 -0500
What else would you expect, from this Dumb Arsed socialist idiot.