45 2 mins 8 yrs

_77052638_023560278-1

So, Islamists cut the head off another American journalist – this time James Foley.

The White House has confirmed that a jihadist video showing the beheading of American journalist James Foley is authentic. The Islamic State (IS) group released the video on Tuesday, saying Foley’s killing was revenge for US air strikes on its fighters in Iraq. The US, UK and France have expressed abhorrence at the video. Foley’s mother Diane said he “gave his life trying to expose the world to the suffering of the Syrian people.” President Barack Obama is due to give a statement later.

I have a few points to make;

1. WHY is anyone surprised at this? Time after time Islamic extremists demonstrate their savagery. They keep saying how they love death and yet some call them the religion of peace.

2. IS claim to have ANOTHER US journalist in captivity. Steven Sotloff has been threatened with the same fate UNLESS Obama changes his tact. What will he do now?

3. Prevarication has allowed IS to grow. The US attacks them (finally) and in a limited way in Iraq but the US stands back and lets them prosper in Syria. There is no strategy – just reacting.

It is hard to conceive what sort of person could cut the head of a fellow human being BUT those who do this betray their lack of humanity and as such have no place on this Planet. IS need confronted everywhere and pulverised. Talking won’t do it, diplomacy has no role, only massive high power military might can destroy them.

Click to rate this post!
[Total: 0 Average: 0]

45 thoughts on “SAVAGE IS AS SAVAGE DOES…

  1. I can’t actually disagree with the sentiments above.

    The problem is who is going to do anything? ISIS are the ultimate warning of what can emerge in a failed state (or in this case 2 failed states).

  2. Nothing to argue with there DV.

    But what is sickening everyone is the use of the political term “execution”, as if somehow it legitimises the act and makes it more ‘State-sanctioned’, which is laughable because ISIS is nothing more that roving bands of Sunni desert killers with no State or even a headquarters.

  3. I am surprised there is no comment about the reported British accent on the part of the killer or his accomplice holding the camera?

    The act, however unspeakable, will not be the last.

    There are grave dangers, within.

  4. //I am surprised there is no comment about the reported British accent on the part of the killer//

    I also thought it deserved special mention. His accent was regional; maybe some of our English colleagues can tell us where this wretch started his wretched life.

    Another particularly bad part of this slaughter was that he was forced to blame the US for his execution, i.e. even though he knew his head was just about to be cut off, he was so in fear of his murderers that he allowed himself be used for their propaganda.

  5. The killer’s accent wasn’t regional, ie. the northern counties, so I would guess he’s from London. Luton or thereabouts.

  6. Words of condemnation aren’t enough. Certainly in the case of the UK the govt. should make it absolutely clear that any British resident who goes out there to assist ‘Islamic State’ in any way will have their passports cancelled and their citizenship revoked permanently. They will never be allowed to reside back in the UK ever. If they are caught trying to return to the UK they will immediately be flown back into the hands of the official Iraqi forces, with absolutely no ‘Human Rights’ challenges permitted against the deportations.

  7. I am surprised there is no comment about the reported British accent on the part of the killer or his accomplice holding the camera?

    There is from here. I have no idea what the accent is. I haven’t the slightest interest in watching these things.

    The government tells us that hundreds of “British” muslims have joined ISIS, and they are a danger to Britain and yada yada. Over the last 15 years or so, thousands of “British” muslims must have gone some sandpit between the Med and the Khyber Pass to fight and kill.

    Which completely vindicates conservative, anti-immigration/racist throwbacks like me.

    We’re vindicated because these are “British-born” and raised, and yet the central point of their existence remains Islamic religious fervour. Being soaked in fish and chips and Beefeaters and all that hasn’t knocked jihad from these muslims one bit.

    So we were right all along. Being born here will not change them. They are what they are regardless, and the it’s time the pro-immigrationists admitted to the catastrophe they caused.

  8. By the way, it’s not only prevarication which has allowed ISIS to grow, the arms they were given by you-know-who when they were Syrian “freedom frighters” set them up nicely.

    Now London and Washington are contemplating allying with Iran, and there was talk on Radio 4 this morning about going easy on Assad now twe see what he’s been battling.

    It’s a funny old world.

  9. Colm –

    Your proposal would make human rights lawyers very rich. There’s no way the courts would allow it. The Human RIghts Act would have to be repealed before it could happen, and that ain’t going to happen.

  10. Pete

    The government can perfectly legally use opts out which are contained in the Humans Rights Act on grounds of national security or even use the existing and long standing procedures of ‘Orders in Council’ to override court decisions. They just need to have the backbone to tell the courts that when it comes to the primary role of government to protect the security of the UK the courts will not be permitted to intervene.

  11. Colm –

    And the courts can, and have, struck down orders in council.

    No minister would attempt it anyway. There’s an election coming and a move like this would guarantee years of courts cases and round the clock grillings from the Today Programme to Newsnight. Ministers are trying to get up the greasy pole, they’re not in politics to make rods for their own backs.

    Look at how long it took to get shot of Captain Hook, and he wasn’t born here.

  12. I agree with, Colm. There is provision within the Human Rights Act for Nations to opt-out. Also, for people to use the Human Rights Act, they must have a declared nation. So to be declared ‘Stateless’ means that you are not covered by the Human Rights.

    I think that is the line a lot of countries use. It certainly was the line the US used when dealing with prisoners at Gito. They were not fighting people with a state, therefore, they were neither soldiers or citizens.

  13. Colm’s proposal is worthless. There is no way any British government can defy constitutional tradition and strip a British subject of his nationality or bar him from entering the country. You can stop foreigners becoming British if you want, but once a subject, always a subject. The govt can no more send a British national back to Iraq than it can send the Queen back to Hanover.

  14. Pete

    The European Court recently issued a final ruling that the blanket denial of voting rights to prisoners was an abuse of Human Rights but in a rare flash of backbone our govt. and Parliament voted decisively to reject their ruling and continue to assert current policy. The courts effectively backed down when they announced no compensation would be awarded to the aggrieved prisoners. It is perfectly possible for the govt. to determine a security policy and to make clear the limits by which ‘Human Rights’ will be allowed to hamper that policy.

  15. Noel

    Is it actually physically impossible to hand over prisoners to the Iraqi authorities ?

  16. Of course it isn’t physically impossible. But I thought (but may be wrong) that you were proposing that British subjects who go on a jihad tour of the east be stripped of their citizenship on return to the UK and sent back to Iraq.

    Short of a military dictatorship, that would in fact even be physically impossible, as the authorities who take instruction from various sources would rightly refuse to comply and no politician would be strong enough to force them.

  17. Noel

    You are not wrong. That is exactly what I am suggesting and I don’t see what on earth is wrong with it. These individuals have made a choice. They are being returned to the lawful authorities of the country they chose to enter and commit crimes in. I don’t see why the respective authorities in the UK and Iraq would refuse to comply.

  18. If you – and we – play by Marquis de Queensbury OJ rules with these animals, we are placing ourselves in the place that this fine young man was in the other day.

    The situation has changed, and the old rules cannot possibly deal with any part of the new reality.

    I will not get into nuts and bolts now, but everyone by now knows that this is true.

  19. These savages want a martyr’s death. I think we should oblige as many of them as possible. There must be napalm in Uncle Sam’s arsenal, why let it go to waste?

    As to the citizenship thing, any “UK national” of Indian sub-continent or Somali origin who “returns” on a flight from Turkey should be automatically detained at Heathrow for 30 days for forensic testing and debriefing. And if the HRA gets in the way, suspend the necessary sections. Perhaps fellow-NATO member Turkey could help to detect these scum as they pass through its territory.

  20. There it is – the iconic image.

    If you don’t allow us to do what we have to do, you could end up like the guy in the orange jumpsuit – The State Department.

  21. The rag tag nature of Islamic terrorists makes traditional military options ineffective. And we have been fighting one for or another for centuries.

  22. Traditional dictators such as Assad and Saddam Hussein are looking better every day.

    Better for the people in those lands, better for us.

    Is it time to consider giving military aid to Assad in Syria? Because it sure as hell looks like the only opposition that fights over there are the extreme jihadis – a point that the Russians had been making two years ago.

  23. Peter, on August 20th, 2014 at 11:26 PM Said:

    These savages want a martyr’s death. I think we should oblige as many of them as possible. There must be napalm in Uncle Sam’s arsenal, why let it go to waste?

    Oh I love the silence. Someone can call for people to be Napalmed and not a peep. You people swim in your hypocrisy.

  24. Troll

    Oh I love the silence. Someone can call for people to be Napalmed and not a peep. You people swim in your hypocrisy.

    I think indiscriminately napalming people is a bad thing Troll.

  25. ‘Oh I love the silence,’

    I bet you do! – does it give you a feeling of ‘mission accomplished’?

  26. “Is it time to consider giving military aid to Assad in Syria? Because it sure as hell looks like the only opposition that fights over there are the extreme jihadis – a point that the Russians had been making two years ago” (Phantom)

    Absolutely no argument with that, Phantom.

  27. The brutal reality is that the winners in Syria will be either Assad or Isis.

    I’m making my choice right now.

    Let the lesser devil win.

  28. Let the record show that I was on Assad’s side when London and Washington were desperately trying to invent a casus belli against him.

  29. I would like to see any US or British politician have the balls to take a pro Assad side now. Not that he is good, but because he is much less bad than any alternative.

  30. The adolescents in London and Washington genuinely have no idea what they’re doing. Iraq and Afghanistan speak for themselves, Libya is a catastrophe, Syria Came within an ace of falling to ISIS thanks to Cameron, Hague, Obama, Kerry and McCain, and now still they’re provoking Russia.

    While everyone’s eyes are turned to the Middle East, Ukraine is sinking fast. That’s the place to watch. The economy’s a disaster, the Kiev coup government is becoming ever more repressive, the military’s taking a beating and Transnistria might be a region everyone hears of very soon.

  31. The Russians were right ( when Lavrov said that the Syria opposition were completely dominated religious fanatic terorrists )

    and

    The French were right ( when they vehemently opposed the Iraq War saying that it would open a Pandora’s Box of evils that could not be imagined )

    Hard truths, that I do not see in my media, or any media or from any politician.

    No one is right all the time but those guys were dead right on those occasions.

  32. There was a decent Syrian resistance to Assad. But the west hung them out to dry. Now it’s the islamist butchers making the running. But the west could still cut off their funding if it imposed the same sanctions on Quatar and Saudi that have been imposed on Iran. But it won’t, because it needs their fossil fuels to stop the lights going out.

  33. It is late in the day

    Very late in the day

    Syria has had a history of violent Muslim rebellion and no real history of any other type of rebellion

    So a war weary west is supposed to give aid to a group that is supposed to now crush not just Assad but the Islamic murder machine also?

    Petition signers get nowhere in the Arab world. Its not Switzerland. I wish it was. In the meantime, the least bad choice must ne accepted, or at least considered.

    Cut a deal with Assad. There are no other options here in the world.

  34. It is late in the day

    Very late in the day

    Syria has had a history of violent Muslim rebellion and no real history of any other type of rebellion

    So a war weary west is supposed to give aid to a group that is supposed to now crush not just Assad but the Islamic murder machine also?

    Petition signers get nowhere in the Arab world. Its not Switzerland. I wish it was. In the meantime, the least bad choice must ne accepted, or at least considered.

    Cut a deal with Assad. There are no other options here in the world.

  35. here is a good question

    So Then What About Bowe Bergdahl?

    By: Erick Erickson (Diary)
    The ISIS/ISIL nuts are not above trading a hostage for American dollars to later use against us. They made a ransom demand to the United States. CNN’s Crossfire tweeted out the response from the spokesman for President Obama’s National Security Council.

    “[The U.S.] does not grant concessions to hostage takers…. Doing so would only put more Americans at risk of being taken captive,” said the spokesman.

    So then why did we trade several terrorists from GTMO for Bowe Bergdahl? Speaking of Bergdahl, “the nonpartisan Government Accountability Office says the Defense Department’s failure to notify the relevant congressional committees at least 30 days in advance of the exchange broke the law.”

    Not only was Obama willing to swap terrorists for Bergdahl, but he was willing to break the law doing so. RIP James Foley.

Comments are closed.