Speechless -David Haines
Tiger G:
Under Saddam, this would not been allowed as he would have slaughtered the lot of them and their families using whatever means at his disposal. This situation is just an indication of the law of unintended consequences, remove one dictator who has his foot firmly on the throat of the population and this is what you get, Iraq and Saddam, Libya and Ghadaffi and Syria and Assad. The starting points of this was after Tito died in 1981 and we all know what happened in the FRY. Other states in eastern Europe broke up peacefully after the Wall came down as religion was not involved.
To think we got rid of CBUs and other area denial weapons due to the 'human rights' of murderous scum being paramount, which provided incomes for people like Shiner, Blair (female) and Starmer ( ex DPP under Blair soon to be a Labour MP).
Under Saddam, this would not been allowed as he would have slaughtered the lot of them and their families using whatever means at his disposal. This situation is just an indication of the law of unintended consequences, remove one dictator who has his foot firmly on the throat of the population and this is what you get, Iraq and Saddam, Libya and Ghadaffi and Syria and Assad. The starting points of this was after Tito died in 1981 and we all know what happened in the FRY. Other states in eastern Europe broke up peacefully after the Wall came down as religion was not involved.
To think we got rid of CBUs and other area denial weapons due to the 'human rights' of murderous scum being paramount, which provided incomes for people like Shiner, Blair (female) and Starmer ( ex DPP under Blair soon to be a Labour MP).
Join Date: Apr 1999
Location: Manchester, UK
Posts: 1,958
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Re. all the various "nuke the b*****d" posts, how exactly does the outrageous murder of an innocent person justify our killing hundreds of thousands of equally innocent persons in order to defeat IS.?
Join Date: Jul 2006
Location: bristol
Age: 56
Posts: 1,051
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Shot one
Just for the sake of answering your question.
Would it make more sense if the killing of sixty thousand (including thirty one thousand IS members) of which IS may go on to murder ten to fifteen thousand for their own bizarre reason could save two hundred thousand more from being murdered by IS. Could those numbers change the morality?
I have my own solutions in in mind, but just wanted to throw that in.
Just for the sake of answering your question.
Would it make more sense if the killing of sixty thousand (including thirty one thousand IS members) of which IS may go on to murder ten to fifteen thousand for their own bizarre reason could save two hundred thousand more from being murdered by IS. Could those numbers change the morality?
I have my own solutions in in mind, but just wanted to throw that in.
More like preventing 2,500,000 Japanese women being raped and murdered by Russian soldiers and a similar civilian numbers starving due a naval blockade-induced famine but anyways….
and a grossly dreadful photograph in the D Tel today.
Totally unnecessary.
May the wicked IS bastards suffer eternal damnation after swift extinction.
Totally unnecessary.
May the wicked IS bastards suffer eternal damnation after swift extinction.
Guest
Posts: n/a
Although the brutal murder of David Haines has aroused world-wide revulsion (and we must feel nothing but pity for him, and sympathy for his grieving family), I feel that there is a danger here that we may be playing into the hands of ISIS to some extent.
By definition, the aim of the terrorist is to excite the maximum of horror and terror with the minimum of effort and danger to himself. This has become immeasurably simpler and easier with the advent of modern information technology: and ISIS seems to be extremely skilful in exploiting this.
The plain fact is that we are at war with these people, and bad things happen in war. Consider the facts in this case. With just one victim at a time, they are able repeatedly to wring the hearts of the whole civilised world; Prime Ministers and Presidents plead in vain with these implacable murderers to show mercy. There was never any hope that he (or his unfortunate American predecessor, or the next hostage in their hands) will survive unless their Governments pay a colossal ransom for their release. Otherwise, they too must die horribly in order to squeeze the last possible drops of horror and disgust out of the viewers to their all too public murders.
Paying a ransom is itself a policy of despair: all it does is to self-select citizens of that particular state to be the victims of the next hostage-taking.
It may be a terrible thing to say, but we must steel ourselves not to react in this way (for that is precisely what these brutes intend that we should do). Behave as our fathers and grandfathers had to do in their wars. In WW1, 20,000 died in a single day on the Somme. Bomber Command could lose 400 men in a night in WW2. Every single man had a parent, maybe siblings or a wife and children to grieve over him as his family now grieve over David Haines.
Do not give these vile people the opportunity to "lead us round by the nose" in this way. Ignore the killings (however hard that may be or however callous it may sound). Instead let it inspire us to seek means to defeat these killers in the field, then remorselessly to track down the "executioners" among the fugitives, then extend to those found that mercy (or lack of it) they showed their helpless victims.
(I remember a photograph seen in India during the war: a captured British airman kneels in silent resignation, his arms bound and eyes blindfolded. Behind him a Japanese officer with drawn sword carefully "measures up" for the blow which will decapitate the prisoner. It could only have been taken by the Japanese themselves. There is no reason to doubt its authenticity; the Japanese would not hesitate to do such a thing. The curious thing is to how and why it came into into Allied hands. The intention is clearly the same as in the David Haines case).
D.
By definition, the aim of the terrorist is to excite the maximum of horror and terror with the minimum of effort and danger to himself. This has become immeasurably simpler and easier with the advent of modern information technology: and ISIS seems to be extremely skilful in exploiting this.
The plain fact is that we are at war with these people, and bad things happen in war. Consider the facts in this case. With just one victim at a time, they are able repeatedly to wring the hearts of the whole civilised world; Prime Ministers and Presidents plead in vain with these implacable murderers to show mercy. There was never any hope that he (or his unfortunate American predecessor, or the next hostage in their hands) will survive unless their Governments pay a colossal ransom for their release. Otherwise, they too must die horribly in order to squeeze the last possible drops of horror and disgust out of the viewers to their all too public murders.
Paying a ransom is itself a policy of despair: all it does is to self-select citizens of that particular state to be the victims of the next hostage-taking.
It may be a terrible thing to say, but we must steel ourselves not to react in this way (for that is precisely what these brutes intend that we should do). Behave as our fathers and grandfathers had to do in their wars. In WW1, 20,000 died in a single day on the Somme. Bomber Command could lose 400 men in a night in WW2. Every single man had a parent, maybe siblings or a wife and children to grieve over him as his family now grieve over David Haines.
Do not give these vile people the opportunity to "lead us round by the nose" in this way. Ignore the killings (however hard that may be or however callous it may sound). Instead let it inspire us to seek means to defeat these killers in the field, then remorselessly to track down the "executioners" among the fugitives, then extend to those found that mercy (or lack of it) they showed their helpless victims.
(I remember a photograph seen in India during the war: a captured British airman kneels in silent resignation, his arms bound and eyes blindfolded. Behind him a Japanese officer with drawn sword carefully "measures up" for the blow which will decapitate the prisoner. It could only have been taken by the Japanese themselves. There is no reason to doubt its authenticity; the Japanese would not hesitate to do such a thing. The curious thing is to how and why it came into into Allied hands. The intention is clearly the same as in the David Haines case).
D.
Last edited by Danny42C; 16th Sep 2014 at 00:17. Reason: Typo.
Good job for ISIS it's not Russian hostages that they have, Putin would have dealt with the situation in the normal Russian manner, as in Beirut in 82 ish and some Somalian pirates recently.
Any of those "fighters" who return to the UK should be met at the airport,handed over to one of Herefords finest and never heard from again. They would soon get the hint.
Air pig,
Are you referring to the video of the pirate boat being blown up off Somalia by the Russian Navy back in 2010? The video was doing the rounds for some time with various dodgy claims that the pirates were still handcuffed on the ship when it was sunk.
In reality all those people captured on board the pirate vessel were returned to their respective countries (Iran and Pakistan). The video was misleading as people assumed that the pirates were still on board the vessel as it was being destroyed.
In the original video the Russians can be heard asking the crew who is Pakistani and later on asking for Iranians.
See following video for Russian news item.
From
Somali Piracy: Suspected Pirates are Also from Iran and Pakistan
Russia was considering trying those detained.
Somali pirates could face trial in Russia
Somali pirates could face trial in Russia | Russia | RIA Novosti
In the end the Pakistanis and Iranians were returned to their respective countries.
Russia hands over Somali pirates to Middle East states ? RT News
Are you referring to the video of the pirate boat being blown up off Somalia by the Russian Navy back in 2010? The video was doing the rounds for some time with various dodgy claims that the pirates were still handcuffed on the ship when it was sunk.
In reality all those people captured on board the pirate vessel were returned to their respective countries (Iran and Pakistan). The video was misleading as people assumed that the pirates were still on board the vessel as it was being destroyed.
In the original video the Russians can be heard asking the crew who is Pakistani and later on asking for Iranians.
See following video for Russian news item.
Investigation has revealed that all the suspected pirates are not from Somalia and some are fishermen from Iran and Pakistan. It is not clear whether Iranian and Pakistani fishermen are working as navigators for Somali pirates for monetary gains.
Also Russia is not able to decide, where and how to proceed with these suspected pirates.
Update: May 05
Russian missile destroyer Admiral Panteleyev has freed eight Iranians who were part of the 29 suspected pirates. It is reported that Iranians were kept as hostages by the suspected Somali pirates for more than three months.
Also Russia is not able to decide, where and how to proceed with these suspected pirates.
Update: May 05
Russian missile destroyer Admiral Panteleyev has freed eight Iranians who were part of the 29 suspected pirates. It is reported that Iranians were kept as hostages by the suspected Somali pirates for more than three months.
Somali Piracy: Suspected Pirates are Also from Iran and Pakistan
Russia was considering trying those detained.
Somali pirates could face trial in Russia
Somali pirates could face trial in Russia | Russia | RIA Novosti
In the end the Pakistanis and Iranians were returned to their respective countries.
Russia hands over Somali pirates to Middle East states ? RT News
Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: @exRAF_Al
Posts: 3,297
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The danger is, we get sucked in reactively. The reality is, our strategy is to bury our heads in the sand until COBRA is convened. The terrorists simply want us to turn against moderate Muslims and everytime we say "nuke the lot of 'em", we are playing into their hands. We could have gone off on one in NI, but we didn't. I do wonder though, how much of the inertia is caused by lack of capability and how much of the initiative is lost to political insecurity and sheer inability. This is depraved, barbaric and medieval madness intended to repulse and shock. And it has done. But let's accept that and let's not add to the problem by doing what we are intended to do. I'm sure that matters are quietly being addressed. Well, I hope they are.
Join Date: Nov 2004
Location: japan
Age: 72
Posts: 30
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Political crap so far
I agree with you on this, nothing much has been done bar 160 odd US airstrikes. Meanwhile the murder on camera of the three non combatants was carried out.
The UK went into Africa some time back and well and truly snotted the west side boys, another gang of evil nutters. No quarter was given with special forces and the green eyed boys being choppered in to do the deed.
Bringing to justice ? no, why spend the money, shoot to kill. The fact that they are in the area is guilt enough. No need to worry about the need to cancel passports ect.
Instant sunshine,,,,,,,hmmm a thought.
The UK went into Africa some time back and well and truly snotted the west side boys, another gang of evil nutters. No quarter was given with special forces and the green eyed boys being choppered in to do the deed.
Bringing to justice ? no, why spend the money, shoot to kill. The fact that they are in the area is guilt enough. No need to worry about the need to cancel passports ect.
Instant sunshine,,,,,,,hmmm a thought.
Join Date: Jun 2008
Location: London
Posts: 54
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Danny42c - I am afraid your figures are wrong. On the first day when the butcher Haig sent in the troops on the Somme - 60,000 died. A huge loss of life when one thinks that a General can use men as cannon fodder. Few people have ever justified ANY reason he gave and, in my view, it was slaughter of a magnitude never before seen. Sadly it happened again but NOT in one day in WW2.
Indeed. I cannot believe that Hammond and his predecessor did not see this coming. It wasn't that difficult, with all that has been going on with us allowing these radical fanatics to preach and tell how Islam must rule.
However, I hold the view that these vile and abhorrent individuals actually enjoy murdering and slaughtering people. The Nazis did too - all too often.
Its a terrible world we live in now and I fear for my grandchildren and it is a fact that we must, and all the other 29 countries who met yesterday also, take action in whatever form it requires.
One bomb seen taking out ONE vehicle with maybe three or people in is NOT the way.
I suspect that there is a lot of special forces already on the ground in Syria, Iraq et al and they KNOW where these people are. On the intelligence that is being gathered it should be a priority to deal with IS. But what do we know? It is the heads of state and the generals who dictate and it is time that they did just that.
Meanwhile British defence cuts continue apace...
Indeed. I cannot believe that Hammond and his predecessor did not see this coming. It wasn't that difficult, with all that has been going on with us allowing these radical fanatics to preach and tell how Islam must rule.
However, I hold the view that these vile and abhorrent individuals actually enjoy murdering and slaughtering people. The Nazis did too - all too often.
Its a terrible world we live in now and I fear for my grandchildren and it is a fact that we must, and all the other 29 countries who met yesterday also, take action in whatever form it requires.
One bomb seen taking out ONE vehicle with maybe three or people in is NOT the way.
I suspect that there is a lot of special forces already on the ground in Syria, Iraq et al and they KNOW where these people are. On the intelligence that is being gathered it should be a priority to deal with IS. But what do we know? It is the heads of state and the generals who dictate and it is time that they did just that.
Danny is correct - there were just under 60,000 casualties on the first day of the Somme, with just under 20,000 of these being killed.
The CWGC gives figures of 19,240 killed and 57,470 casualties in total.
The CWGC gives figures of 19,240 killed and 57,470 casualties in total.
Surrey Towers
I would suggest you actually read some decent books about the BEF in WW1 (and land warfare in general) before making stupid comments about Haig. Yes everything went wrong in the northern sector of the Somme on 1st July, but that wasn't due to any lack of trying to pound two shades of poo out of the German defences first with artillery (in the southern sector, the battle did go quite well for the BEF with most objectives gained with acceptable losses). As for the men walking across no mans land, there was a reason for it. Command and Control. You may be able to make a civiee into a good private infantrymen in 6 to 12 months, making the NCO's and JO's required takes a lot longer and that was what most of the Pals battalions were, very inexperienced soldiers, led by very inexperienced NCO's and JO's. They didn't know skirmishing or the finer arts of assaulting a defended position. Plus they had to carry a lot of kit as they had to immediately reinforce the objectives they captured as it was almost granted that the Germans would launch an immediate counter attack (which was their doctrine and they were unfortunately very good at). Haig didn't try the same thing before instigating a rapid training program put in place to improve his men's chances before his next major assault on 14 July, which was more successful. Why did he keep the Somme battle going as long as he did. Simple, because he had to keep the Germans from reinforcing their attack at Verdun. As soon as he heard about Tanks, he wanted them and used them (getting the tactics right did take some time though) and he switched the battle off as soon as the Germans stopped their offensive at Verdun. 3rd Ypres in 1917, same reason for starting it and not switching it off when the weather turned against him. He had to keep the Germans occupied while the French deal with the fallout of a major mutiny, plus try to capture enough of the Belgium coast to stop U-boats from operating from there and push the Gotha bombers out of the range of London. As soon as the French had got themselves sorted out, he switched the offensive off. The 1918 German offensive wouldn't have had such an effect had the British Government listened to Haig as the 6 divisions that were taken from him to support the Italians in late 1917 / early 1918 may have helped stop the Micheal offensive earlier than it was (But Lloyd George, like Churchill was always trying to win the war by indirect attack on the junior partner of the main enemy which had no real effect on the major battlespace, i.e. France and Belgium). Haig's last offensives in the 100 Days, a text book case in all arms combat, plus as soon as units in the front were fought out, he switched the battle of in that area and attacked somewhere else (he even disobeyed Foch (the overall Allied commander in 1918) when he was ordered to keep the first battle of the 100 days going, His troops in that sector could do no more without taking massive losses, so he switched that battle off).
WWI was very much a coalition war and the UK were not the major partner in the Allied side or had a big chunk of their territory occupied!!!
Haig's 1919 report about the conduct of the war makes very interesting reading, in it he says that in every battle he fought bar the last 100 days, had he been able to do anything else, he would have done it, but his hands were tied by the lack of anyway to outflank the German lines or breakout once he had punched through the defensive line (the only thing that was fast enough was Calvary and one man with a machine gun could stop them in their tracks. None of the tanks were fast or reliable enough, nor was any of the wheeled MT. Plus of course, poor communications (the radio equipment of the era were not up to the job) and the German's habit of instant counter attack didn't help.
As for Haig being a butcher, I think the overall casualty rates v troops deployed when compared to casualty rates for everybody else show that Haig was far from it, however in any major war, the only way you win is by getting the PBI to get out of the trench/truck/APC/Helicopter and advance to fight the enemy in their defensive position, then hold and control that ground when it has been captured.
I would suggest you actually read some decent books about the BEF in WW1 (and land warfare in general) before making stupid comments about Haig. Yes everything went wrong in the northern sector of the Somme on 1st July, but that wasn't due to any lack of trying to pound two shades of poo out of the German defences first with artillery (in the southern sector, the battle did go quite well for the BEF with most objectives gained with acceptable losses). As for the men walking across no mans land, there was a reason for it. Command and Control. You may be able to make a civiee into a good private infantrymen in 6 to 12 months, making the NCO's and JO's required takes a lot longer and that was what most of the Pals battalions were, very inexperienced soldiers, led by very inexperienced NCO's and JO's. They didn't know skirmishing or the finer arts of assaulting a defended position. Plus they had to carry a lot of kit as they had to immediately reinforce the objectives they captured as it was almost granted that the Germans would launch an immediate counter attack (which was their doctrine and they were unfortunately very good at). Haig didn't try the same thing before instigating a rapid training program put in place to improve his men's chances before his next major assault on 14 July, which was more successful. Why did he keep the Somme battle going as long as he did. Simple, because he had to keep the Germans from reinforcing their attack at Verdun. As soon as he heard about Tanks, he wanted them and used them (getting the tactics right did take some time though) and he switched the battle off as soon as the Germans stopped their offensive at Verdun. 3rd Ypres in 1917, same reason for starting it and not switching it off when the weather turned against him. He had to keep the Germans occupied while the French deal with the fallout of a major mutiny, plus try to capture enough of the Belgium coast to stop U-boats from operating from there and push the Gotha bombers out of the range of London. As soon as the French had got themselves sorted out, he switched the offensive off. The 1918 German offensive wouldn't have had such an effect had the British Government listened to Haig as the 6 divisions that were taken from him to support the Italians in late 1917 / early 1918 may have helped stop the Micheal offensive earlier than it was (But Lloyd George, like Churchill was always trying to win the war by indirect attack on the junior partner of the main enemy which had no real effect on the major battlespace, i.e. France and Belgium). Haig's last offensives in the 100 Days, a text book case in all arms combat, plus as soon as units in the front were fought out, he switched the battle of in that area and attacked somewhere else (he even disobeyed Foch (the overall Allied commander in 1918) when he was ordered to keep the first battle of the 100 days going, His troops in that sector could do no more without taking massive losses, so he switched that battle off).
WWI was very much a coalition war and the UK were not the major partner in the Allied side or had a big chunk of their territory occupied!!!
Haig's 1919 report about the conduct of the war makes very interesting reading, in it he says that in every battle he fought bar the last 100 days, had he been able to do anything else, he would have done it, but his hands were tied by the lack of anyway to outflank the German lines or breakout once he had punched through the defensive line (the only thing that was fast enough was Calvary and one man with a machine gun could stop them in their tracks. None of the tanks were fast or reliable enough, nor was any of the wheeled MT. Plus of course, poor communications (the radio equipment of the era were not up to the job) and the German's habit of instant counter attack didn't help.
As for Haig being a butcher, I think the overall casualty rates v troops deployed when compared to casualty rates for everybody else show that Haig was far from it, however in any major war, the only way you win is by getting the PBI to get out of the trench/truck/APC/Helicopter and advance to fight the enemy in their defensive position, then hold and control that ground when it has been captured.
Now Al-Qaeda is on our side!
Al-Qaeda approached IS in an attempt to negotiate the release of British hostage Alan Henning - who was taken just minutes after arriving in Syria - because the kidnapping was 'wrong under Islamic law' and 'counter-productive', it has been revealed.
Read more: Hostage Alan Henning was kidnapped by IS just 30mins after entering Syria thanks to a tip-off from a corrupt official... then incredibly terrorist group Al-Qaeda tried to get him released on the grounds that taking him was 'unIslamic' | Mail Online
Follow us: @MailOnline on Twitter | DailyMail on Facebook
Read more: Hostage Alan Henning was kidnapped by IS just 30mins after entering Syria thanks to a tip-off from a corrupt official... then incredibly terrorist group Al-Qaeda tried to get him released on the grounds that taking him was 'unIslamic' | Mail Online
Follow us: @MailOnline on Twitter | DailyMail on Facebook