How ?...

[bazwillrun]

"as human rights groups demand to see evidence that justifies their deaths."

Would we have won WWII or probably any other war if these clowns had been around ?....

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/syria-drone-strike-was-probably-legal-but-the-public-will-never-know-experts-say-10491623.html

[Quizproquo]

Ahem *scum* (I'm surprised THAT got through the filter :) )

[Baldric]

Despite its many (many) variations, this is the actual quote:

Those who would give up essential Liberty, to purchase a little temporary Safety, deserve neither Liberty nor Safety.

According to Wittes, the words appear in a letter widely presumed to be written by Franklin in 1755 on behalf of the Pennsylvania Assembly to the colonial governor. “The letter was a salvo in a power struggle between the governor and the assembly over funding for security on the frontier, one in which the assembly wished to tax the lands of the Penn family,” he explains.
The letter wasn’t about liberty but about taxes and the ability to “raise money for defense against French and Indian attacks. The governor kept vetoing the assembly’s efforts at the behest of the family, which had appointed him.”

[Baldric]

http://techcrunch.com/2014/02/14/how-the-world-butchered-benjamin-franklins-quote-on-liberty-vs-security/

[Quizproquo]

I think the sentiment still applies baldric

[Quizproquo]

The point being you give up temporary wins for long term loss.

[Togo]

Nice article Baldric. It goes to show how the verbose and tricky do so twist a phrase to suit their own agenda. Like the word Contextomy.

“‘Contextomy’ refers to the selective excerpting of words from their original linguistic context in a way that distorts the source’s intended meaning, a practice commonly referred to as ‘quoting out of context’. Contextomy is employed in contemporary mass media to promote products, defame public figures and misappropriate rhetoric. A contextomized quotation not only prompts audiences to form a false impression of the source’s intentions, but can contaminate subsequent interpretation of the quote when it is restored to its original context. …”

That’s about right.

[Ellipsis]

Why do you think the UK Gov would take the time and trouble to target these two fairly low-key individuals with drones in Syria, if those individuals did not represent an imminent threat to the UK?

When you think of all the people they could have taken out, over many months, the fact that these two were top of the list and the only two to have been taken out to date says something.

[vulcan42]

The problem with that quote is you are assuming that if you have a temporary win you automatically have a long term loss. One doesn't necessarily follow the other.

[youngmafbog]

We are at war with ISIS - they declared a Jihad.

But once again the usual friends of ISIS are up in arms because two scumbags have been removed.

[andy-hughes]

YMB - "But once again the usual friends of ISIS are up in arms because two scumbags have been removed."

Where are the 'usual friends of ISIS'?

[douglas9401]

They're behind you!

[anotheoldgit]

Plenty more where they came from,

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-3227041/Ten-UK-jihadis-drone-kill-list-ISIS-fanatics-targeted-unmanned-RAF-raids-Syria.html

Imagine the outcries if and when this darling creature gets her comeuppance?

/// Khadija Dare, 22, was the first woman to behead a westerner and has been described as 'a top priority' ///

[bazwillrun]

" the fact that these two were top of the list and the only two to have been taken out to date says something."

yes..it says we have specifically identified two enemy combatant targets and their exact location...Kaboooom..Game over..nil points

[jourdain2]

People saying things like that were probably around in 1939. The difference is that most people did not hear them and those that did, ignored them (quite properly).