British ISIS have mapped out their fate

THOSE NOW CHALLENGING (including a former chief of the armed forces, for God's sake) the government's decision to target ISIS over Syria with a RAF drone operated 3,000 miles away that killed one time Cardiff schoolboy Reyaad Khan, now 21; were not right to do so. He took his chances on the dark side and paid the ultimate price for doing so: do we know how many people he killed? Do we know how many women and children this nasty piece of work killed because they belong to the Syrian Christian community?

                

                 Would Lord Dannatt and the Guardianista have criticised the government, if, for instance, 'Jihadi' John suffered Khan's fate?  Would they be questioning the legality of such an act? If it was illegal under international law then so must all such drone activity. In which case how do we defend ourselves against ISIS? But drone activity in itself is of course not illegal. Apparently the argument against the RAF action revolves around two facts; the first that the drone should not have taken to the air in the first place without consulting parliament who had previously voted down such intervention over Syria. Secondly, Khan was a British citizen who was killed by his own country; this caused the numerous and multifarious human rights groups to suggest this was an 'extra-judicial killing'.

                

                Welcome to the insane asylum that is the modern UK. Any British citizen who takes up arms against his country (like William Joyce, in the Second World War) deserves the fate they have navigated themselves toward; and the drone has always been waiting for those 'British' jihadists who loathed their country (although, as a patriot, I agree, sadly, there is much to loath).

               

                 ISIS's ultimate aim is a world caliphate, as, during the Cold War, communism's ambition was also to produce a secularist world caliphate under control of the state. Kahn believed in this just as any other 'British' Muslim, who goes to Syria does – they have therefore no legal or emotional claim on the country they now despise – therefore they have ostracised themselves from the society they left and now hate – they have abandoned their nationality status just as Burgess, Phillby, and McLean did during the Cold War.

                

                 Human rights are important. But the human rights lobby of activists and lawyers who think that our actions over Syria are illegal - they are not. If they believe them to be un-parliamentary, then they may be right. But in which case it would remain a political not a judicial issue. We have every right to track down in times of war and conflict those whom, be they British, who wish to seek to undermine and change our democracy for something infinitely worse. In the past it was communism, when no doubt many an un-judicial killing took place against soviet spies working to advance the communist world atheist caliphate.

THE DRONES ARE the only defence left to the West, as the West's political leaders posture Uriah Heap-like in their sweaty hand wringing; for fear of any of their acts result in the image of a young child washed up on a shoreline, dead; thus compromising their liberal guilt … a personal guilt among our political class that will surely bring us down as a nation in the end; as well as a whole continent; because of such like-minded politicians on the continent.

                

                The West has the military technology to destroy even ISIS; but our politicians refuse their military to use its full capacity short of, that is, its nuclear might. A 'minor' example of this kind of approach to modern warfare occurred when in Afghanistan; a British sniper targeted the Taliban laying improvised explosives. Explosives that were meant to bring about the deaths of British or other allied troops: the sniper was required to check (probably ordered by Lord Dannatt at the time) with a senior officer before he could kill those intending to kill us. What on earth is happening to our military when our soldiers have to defer to an officer before shooting the enemy? It is the morally vacuous times in which the military live in. Tepid and fretful politicians have brought about the censorship of military activity; thus prolonging any conflict our country engages itself with; and in doing so, will kill ever more people on our own side.

                

                No such boundary's existed during the Second World War when Western civilisation was at stake. We did what had to be done; which had always been the preceding formula for much of our history when our nation was at stake. But the trouble is that by such half-hearted responses that the liberal conscience is only prepared to contemplate and enforce when in power; they drag us deeper into conflicts that will ultimately cause more deaths than needed to have occurred, if our politicians used to their full extent the military equipment their taxpayers have paid for.

                

                 Drones have proven to have been more effective at killing the enemy than either boots on the ground or bombing from the air that creates the much hated collateral damage that drives the liberalista into Trafalgar Square on Saturday afternoon, to listen to lefties like Corbyn calling for Blair to be sent to The Hague as a war criminal.

                

               Those who, like the wretched Gerald Kaufman, have condemned the killing of Reyaad Khan  as murder are naive: a psychological condition Kaufman has never displayed in the past. Most of us begin our early lives from say, arbitrarily speaking, our mid- teens to mid-twenties, as naive idealists - that is if we have a love of politics and believing in its power to make the world a better place than our ancestors bequeathed us. I am 65-years-old and have been engaged in politics since the age of 16. In all that time Kaufman has never been anything more than a realist. It was he, you may remember who described Labour's 1983 manifesto as 'the longest suicide not in history'.

                

                Now it seems that this realist, in walking the final few yards left to him before he has to pay the ferryman, has reverted to the same condition that I would have had in my teens and early twenties.

               

                Gerald; anyone, no matter what their ethnicity or religion who set themselves against the state that succoured them and gave them citizenship; has to take their chances: if a drone targets them and kills them it has everything to do with war; not human rights. What would you do? Ask ISIS to paint a union jack on any vehicle carrying British jihadists so that they can escape targeting by the drones? - Ridiculous.

                

                 The drones, whether used in Afghanistan or Syria, have proven their worth in terms of the killing of Taliban and ISIS VIPS. The drone technology may prove to be the pivotal means by which we can actually target and kill individuals without the collateral damage to citizens that manned aircraft cannot avoid – yet Kaufman, who should know better, and has seen and been part of the generation that lived through the Nazi era and the bombings of Dresden and other German cities with the hundreds of thousands of deaths this inflicted, can now call the killing of home grown jihadists who would have, given the chance, blown up, indiscriminately, parts of his own constituency of Manchester Gorton.

                

                 The drones are here to stay thank god. If they had had them in the Second World War to target individual Nazis, would Kaufman have described these as murders? We must pursue any British jihadist to their death and if Kaufman in his elderly retreat from his earlier reason, back into the naivety of youth in his 85^th year then he is more to be pitied and sympathised with.