Paris Attacked! [Archive]

Lima Juliet

14th Nov 2015, 01:14

Normally CM I have a large slice of agreement with your opinions, but on this matter I don't.

Open borders allow terrorists to roam freely and the EU has an open border policy - no disputing that. Goodness knows how many terrorists have snuck into the soft underbelly of the EU and have now quite freely wandered through Europe and wait for the next 'call' from their cause. Proper border controls make matters for people with nefarious plans a lot harder - yes, it's a nause for the rest of us, but I would rather avoid tragedies like tonight by having tough border controls. I note that Belgium have also just boosted their border controls at this time.

When is a good time to opine on such matters? I would suggest right now is as good as any. Let's get the elephant in the room out the way as well...let me guess what is behind all of this uneccessary suffering? Oh yes, some people trying to kill non-believers in the name of their imaginary friend. I am losing my tolerance for small minded people and delusional beliefs, the rest of us would like our planet back!

LJ

PS. I bet its a tense night in the Q-sheds tonight...

O-P

14th Nov 2015, 01:24

LJ,

100% Well said.

phil9560

14th Nov 2015, 01:43

Its wearing thin isn't it?

It'll be here soon.

Whenurhappy

14th Nov 2015, 03:05

France has been attacked. This should trigger the NATO charter Turkey getting in the fight. Turkish bases should be opened to receive the NATO troops, planes, and ships to support a mass Turkish lead operation. Turkey should also be strongly reminded the Kurds are US allies and will be defended against any attacker.

The Sultan

Well, NATO countries are participating in the fight but there will be many on this site who will remember the rules that Turkey imposed on Op Northern Watch missions. They seem to be doing the same now.

Kurds, now there's a tricky one. They are not monolithic and the PKK have killed a couple of hundred Turkish police and soldiers since June. Some groups are happy to fight ISIS but align themselves with the Assad regime and ethnic-cleanse the areas they occupy. Don't get taken in by the 'plucky Kurd' rhetoric.

Expect a large Turkish Air Force "anti ISIS" strike in Northern Syria today. Nothing to do with bonkers Erdoðan hosting the G20 on Sunday. Not at all...

Fonsini

14th Nov 2015, 03:36

While my thoughts and condolences are with the victims and their families, my main concern is with keeping everyone else alive.

I'm with Line Dog - there is never a wrong time to consider such things.

The Old Fat One

14th Nov 2015, 06:16

Anybody that thinks "open" or "closed" borders (whatever that means in globalised international society) will prevent, or even reduce, this form terrorism is clutching at straws.

This war kicked off around the time of the first crusade and it won't be done until the human race has gone.

It's part of our world and we have to live it, just as we have done for most of human history.

If you are looking for measures to better manage it, we had a bunch of those just last week over here - enhanced legislation to monitor communications of all kinds. Big brother is watching, because big brother has to. We have to tolerate intrusion into our private communications, because that is one of the only effective ways to catch these medieval retards before they commit their acts.

I feel for France today - I have many friends living there and it's a great place full of wonderful people.

Dougie M

14th Nov 2015, 06:42

Deep commiserations with France. Let's be on our guard. We have our own "home grown" murderous scum who are watching this outrage enviously.

dctyke

14th Nov 2015, 06:53

With linedog and lj 100%. Only last night in the pub I was reading an newspaper article with the writer saying he would never go on holiday to a Muslim country again due to the dangers, sound advice indeed.

anotherthing

14th Nov 2015, 07:04

Only last night in the pub I was reading an newspaper article with the writer saying he would never go on holiday to a Muslim country again due to the dangers, sound advice indeed.I disagree with this and think it is a load of hogwash. Sure, there are some countries I would not visit, but ANY Muslim country?

Paris has suffered an outrage - it wasn't that long ago they had the incident on a much smaller scale with terrorists targeting them... So is Paris on your 'no-go' list now? How about London, New York, Birmingham even... or any other city in the non-Muslim world? They are also high profile targets and although maybe not quite as high risk as some other countries, Muslim or otherwise, surely you must avoid them as well?

If you have that attitude, then the terrorists have already won. By all means be careful where you go, but to say you are never going to visit a Muslim country is short sighted...you may as well get your supplies in now and hunker down at home for the rest of your life. The threat is NOT specific to those countries and is possibly less in some of those countries than it is in France right now... at what point would you deem it safe to visit Paris?...

RIP all involved, such a wonderful city

al_renko

14th Nov 2015, 07:07

Hollande says"And our fight will be merciless".They will say these words for a few more days but in reality nothing will be done.Until they,that is the French,the US,the British,the Russians and whoever else put boots on the ground."ISIL", "ISIS", "Daesh", and "Islamic State group" or whatever and whoever they are will not be defeated.In the last couple of weeks they have killed hundreds in the Sinai,in Beirut and in Paris,and we are told they are a spent force,there days are numbered etc.The killing of Mohammed Emwazi is of course very good news,although the Corbins of this world don't believe in the Extrajudicial killings,well if the terrorists who committed these acts in Paris were dealt with in an extra-judicial manner beforehand Paris would be a lot happier place leading up to Christmas."And our fight will be merciless" Condolences to all those affected.

Trim Stab

14th Nov 2015, 07:25

The use of suicide belts suggests this was not home-grown terrorism, but an attack organised and orchestrated from outside Europe - almost without doubt from IS.

I think it inevitable that in the next few days France will retaliate heavily against IS with initially air-strikes. We and the US will also be involved. I think this will also lead to ground intervention.

Easy Street

14th Nov 2015, 07:43

This war kicked off around the time of the first crusade

I am getting almost as tired of self-hating westerners as I am of terrorists. Re-posting from the 'Bliar Revelations' thread:

Actually, I think you'll find the Umayyad caliphs kicked things off when they expanded their empire through then-Christian North Africa soon after Mohammad's death, crossed into the Iberian peninsula in 711 and fought their way up to Poitiers before being halted by Charles Martel. The Crusades were a response to that rapid expansion, by 1095 a second front of which posed a direct threat to the Christian heartland of antiquity (Byzantium, i.e. modern-day Turkey).

The Truth about the Crusades | Raymond Ibrahim (http://www.raymondibrahim.com/study-corner/the-truth-about-the-crusades/)

That is what gave birth to the Crusades. They were not the brainchild of an ambitious pope or rapacious knights but a response to more than four centuries of conquests in which Muslims had already captured two-thirds of the old Christian world. At some point, Christianity as a faith and a culture had to defend itself or be subsumed by Islam. The Crusades were that defense.

Unfortunately the modern western fashions for self-flagellation, virtue-signalling and "white man's guilt" cause too many of us to swallow revisionism of the sort that seeks to lay all blame for the woes of the Muslim world at our feet.

Karl Popper's 'paradox of tolerance (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Karl_Popper#The_paradox_of_tolerance)', published in 1945 before the question of immigration really troubled the public consciousness, bears some thought:

Unlimited tolerance must lead to the disappearance of tolerance. If we extend unlimited tolerance even to those who are intolerant, if we are not prepared to defend a tolerant society against the onslaught of the intolerant, then the tolerant will be destroyed, and tolerance with them. – In this formulation, I do not imply, for instance, that we should always suppress the utterance of intolerant philosophies; as long as we can counter them by rational argument and keep them in check by public opinion, suppression would certainly be most unwise. But we should claim the right to suppress them if necessary even by force; for it may easily turn out that they are not prepared to meet us on the level of rational argument, but begin by denouncing all argument; they may forbid their followers to listen to rational argument, because it is deceptive, and teach them to answer arguments by the use of their fists or pistols. We should therefore claim, in the name of tolerance, the right not to tolerate the intolerant.

Gulf Flyer

14th Nov 2015, 08:11

There are people who choose to live outside the company of civilised people - show those that do no compassion, they will show none to you, as was clearly demonstrated in Paris last night.

Is that clear enough for some?

Pontius Navigator

14th Nov 2015, 08:19

News suggests terrorists were trained and from outside Franch. They may have been French but had to cross a border to get to Paris. Open borders also facilitate easy availability if weapons.

In contrast, in July, out of Hull, our car was searched in a shed, then in the queue armed plain clothes police patrolled the park. At Rotterdam we were searched by Dutch police. That border was secure.

Skeleton

14th Nov 2015, 08:56

Border controls are one issue and this latest murdering spree will surely lead to the UK etc beefing up border security regardless of what the Libtards in Brussels demand, but the other elephant in the room, and one rarely mentioned by any Politician is the sticky subject of Muslim enclaves across the Euro Zone and especially France, where Muslims live parallel to society and which allows them to segregate themselves in areas where non Muslims are not welcome and where lawlessness prevails because the Police, ambulance crews etc will not enter for fear of attack. Multiculturalists and the PC brigade can deny they exist till the cows come home, and they will because their existence proves their policies are not working.
Surely now is the time to stop pussy footing around this issue, and to get into these areas and wrestle back control as it is apparent they are breeding grounds for Islamic radicalism.

My thoughts and prayers are with those that lost their lives in these attacks RIP.

VinRouge

14th Nov 2015, 14:37

TGV derailment being reported... 3 dead. Coincidence or another attack?

ORAC

14th Nov 2015, 15:30

ITV News: Suspected attacker passed through Greece last month (http://www.itv.com/news/update/2015-11-14/suspected-attacker-passed-through-greece-last-month/)

The owner of a Syrian passport found near the body of one of the Paris gunmen had passed through the Greek island of Leros last month, the Greek deputy police minister has said.

Gericault

14th Nov 2015, 15:33

Train was a prototype TGV that derailed. 7 dead and 7 injured. Coach fell off bridge into river. Too high a speed is being quoted by local officials. Unlikely to be connected to the Paris tragedy.

phil9560

14th Nov 2015, 15:35

Sky News now reporting one of the attackers had passed through Greece as a supposed refugee.

Wasn't this tactic mentioned ? Didn't the 'authorities' pay any heed ?

Melchett01

14th Nov 2015, 15:47

Sky News now reporting one of the attackers had passed through Greece as a supposed refugee.

Wasn't this tactic mentioned ? Didn't the 'authorities' pay any head

This tactic was mentioned. In fact it was openly stated by Da'esh earlier this year that they intended to put operatives into Europe using the Libyan refugee crisis as cover.

Unfortunately it was dismissed all too quickly and those that dared suggest it were often accused of racist hyperbole. Whilst a terrible, unspeakable and cowardly act against unarmed civilians, it shouldn't I fear, be seen as a surprise. There are always those ready to exploit others' suffering to their own ends.

Momoe

14th Nov 2015, 16:05

Precedent already set with Madrid bombings in 2004.

Net result being Spain pulled out of Iraq, I suspect the French are made of sterner stuff but this will undoubtedly shift the political spectrum towards the right.

Basil

14th Nov 2015, 16:20

What will those who supported the traitor, Edward Snowden, who tipped off the bad guys about surveillance techniques say now?
Perhaps the so called 'snoopers' charter' isn't such a bad idea after all.

JFZ90

14th Nov 2015, 16:38

^^

Yes, I wonder if Snowden feels guilty. He is no doubt in total denial as to the link between his actions and this, as I expect are his Guardian helpers Rushbridge & Greenwald.

Hawker 800

14th Nov 2015, 17:03

Paris terrorist was a Syrian refugee, says Greece government official | World | News | Daily Express (http://www.express.co.uk/news/world/619447/Paris-terrorist-Syrian-refugee-Greece-government-official)

Looks like one of the terrorists was a Syrian refugee. Close the damned borders now has my vote.

sidewayspeak

14th Nov 2015, 17:08

LJ LD - I agree. Close the borders. Stop the aid. Family first - rest of the world is not our problem.

Chinny Crewman

14th Nov 2015, 17:21

I think the whole "closed/secure border" argument is a complete nonsense. The UK is not part of Schengen so we have 'secure' borders apparently, yet we still have thousands of illegal immigrants who have crossed these secure borders! My understanding is the French tightened border control to prevent any accomplices escaping?
Of greater interest is that following the Russian Airliner tragedy, Beirut suicide bombings and now this maybe a consensus could be built to counter the IS threat. Some indiction on social media that the Russians, at G20, will suggest that we could put differences aside and agree a common policy to counter IS. Not sure the West is at the stage of accepting that Assad might have to stay at least short term and certainly can't see NATO boots on the ground yet. I suspect we will remain reactive and keep our fingers crossed!

Wander00

14th Nov 2015, 17:32

PN - yet a month ago whilst checked into UK (at Hull), going back to France through Ouistreham, the French authorities did not even get out of bed (it was 0700, and we all drove straight from the ferry to the motorway - no checks other than on arrival at Portsmouth the night before

brokenlink

14th Nov 2015, 17:39

CC, what I find bizarre is that following the CJD outbreak a few years ago, appropriate measure were put in place and the government know knows where every single bl@@dy cow is in this country, is there nothing we can learn and adapt from this process to ensure we are aware of where these people are?

Heartfelt condolences to all those affected by the horror in France, only been lucky to visit there a couple of times but enjoyed both visits.

mopardave

14th Nov 2015, 17:42

linedog and lj.....:ok:

when will we stop sleepwalking into catastrophe? The bleeding heart liberals have had too much influence.......the policy makers have to wake up.....now!!! :ugh:

My prayers are with the people of Paris tonight.

MD

Lyneham Lad

14th Nov 2015, 18:35

Paris is my favourite European city and we spend some weeks every year exploring and enjoying France, so my heart goes out to those affected by these multiple outrages. Having written such, shouldn't this thread be transferred to Jet Blast to join its brethren?

Trim Stab

14th Nov 2015, 19:00

Not sure the West is at the stage of accepting that Assad might have to stay at least short term

I am currently working in West Africa and have just returned from dinner with various Turkish and Lebanese business and diplomatic people - they were all adamant in blaming UK and France for the recent bombs in Lebanon because - according to them - UK, US and France are "supporting" IS because we are opposing Assad.

I think we are a step closer now to accepting that supporting Assad and Iran is the best solution to the crisis in Syria and Iraq.

Chinny Crewman

14th Nov 2015, 19:21

Brokenlink I think a system to monitor everyone in the country was mooted a few years back; cost and civil liberties put paid to it.
I think we need to decide if IS are the main threat to our country and stand shoulder to shoulder with whoever agrees. Maybe for once we will get clear political direction that the chiefs can translate into strategic direction that will be give the guys on the ground a chance. Sadly I'm not holding my breath!

Union Jack

14th Nov 2015, 20:03

Brokenlink, which would prefer, a plastic ear tag or an electronic chip? - PN

As CC seems to be suggesting, identity cards might go a long way towards indicating who should be in the UK and who shouldn't, given that this still would not cover the sleepers or the converts completely.

Jack

Bill Macgillivray

14th Nov 2015, 20:07

Chinny, I do think that you are being over-optimistic and agree with you, we need a leader(s), and I do not feel that we really have any capable of dealing with the problem. Fine talk, yes, but action?? (No!).
My thoughts and prayers go out to those caught up in this dreadful act in Paris.
(Please be on your guard over here!).

Bill.

al_renko

14th Nov 2015, 20:45

Lets turn it around a bit,Why don't the French whack Assad,that would change the dynamic a bit,we have had the same b/s with more or less the same players going on for five years now,it would shake it up a little,and as long as comrade Putin has his port in the eastern Med he couldn't give a toss about Assad.

Chinny Crewman

14th Nov 2015, 20:46

Yes I was alluding to an ID card system but as stated I don't think it would work.
Bill, optimistic maybe but we need an element of pragmatism lacking in today's politicians. Putin is overly aggressive, Assad is a thug but we all want IS shut down so.......

Union Jack

14th Nov 2015, 20:48

UJ, my response to BL was TiC as he mentioned cattle which are easier to record and have short lives. - PN

Yes, I think I got that, although the idea of ear tags might be quite appealing to some.:hmm:

An ID card system may take a few years to implement, unlike in WW 2, and take 10 years or more to become effective. - PN

I don't disagree, although I'd like to believe that it could be implemented quicker than that, once the inevitable shouting had died down that is.

Jack

strake

14th Nov 2015, 20:50

Not quite sure how we close 2000km of borders in mainland Europe.

I believe that Hollande is just the latest leader to declare 'war' on ISIL. Having not seen hundred's of thousands of Muslim's expressing their outrage at atrocities carried out in their name on the streets of Europe, perhaps targeted internment and an allied invasion on a massive scale in Syria would be a start as a response to this war..

al_renko

14th Nov 2015, 20:59

I am with you all the way "strake"

Melchett01

14th Nov 2015, 21:48

Right or wrong, a mass invasion won't happen and even if it did it wouldn't solve the problem - as much as lashing out would undoubtedly make us feel better and as though we were doing something.

However, western, and I say that in the sense of the first world, nations are inherently centrist as a whole and governed by Centre/Centre Left administrations. The days of Maggie and Ronnie flexing muscle and intervening on a mass scale are long gone; we do, or at least claim to do limited intervention to solve the short term problems and that's about it. But in carrying out these short term interventions we lack the strategic nouse to look beyond the headlines to the third and fourth order effects that may be 5, 10, 20 years down the line. Even if our leaders had such strategic vision, their Centrist/Centre Left leanings would never sanction such a move. Despite everything that's going on, countries, populations are weary of fighting - even if it is the right and tempting thing to do.

And even if we did have the political will to do it, do we have the military capability to do it? I'd wager not, certainly not on the scale you would need to do it. The RAF on its own is full of weary individuals, many looking to get out, and kit that is either old and falling apart or is new and bought for a very specific kind of warfare. Large scale general war just isn't on the cards at the moment - especially with a Ministry of Defence run by a dogmatic Chancellor keen to cut us back to the minimum required for a defence force. Furthermore a mass invasion still doesn't solve the problem of the threat already at home. Like a sting or a bite, the toxin of extremism is already in our nation's system; energising it through war will only lead to more damage.

This is a problem that needs to be treated with caution and intelligently; force alone will not solve this. We have to be smarter than the enemy and we have to think long term in our strategy. After all, this is a war of ideas and ideals and their strategy has been maturing since the 7th century; you don't get much more long term in your thinking than that and dropping a few bombs isn't going to solve this long term. Indeed, it will simply play into Da'esh's hands; as far as they are concerned, the final battle has been prophesied and Dabiq is the location and this is all part of getting us on to the battlefield. If force needs to be applied so be it, but apply it meaningfully and as part of a considered strategy.

dagenham

14th Nov 2015, 22:13

Melchett

Interesting pragmatic observations and find hard to disagree. Very interested to know your thoughts on solutions

tartare

14th Nov 2015, 22:18

Following appalling events like this - it is frustrating to think that from a purely technical point of view, if they had the political will, a Western Alliance could probably eliminate most of the core elements of ISIS in Syria and Iraq in a couple of months of a combined ground and air campaign... if not quicker (of course - it won't happen).
Would that address the problem of extremists already among us?
Personally I think it would.
Lance the boil and the rest of the infection clears up.
With all due respect to previous posters - I think we often over complicate the issue.
This is not part of the `great game' or some sort of geopolitical war of ideas that's been maturing since the 7th century in my view.
These people are lowbrow thugs - they are not masters of social media or clever strategists, or masters of asymetric warfare at all.
We give them too much credit.
I think the real dilemma for politicians is equally balanced between war weary electorates not having the stomach for another ground campaign, and the question of what would fill the vacuum were they removed?
Hollande's act of war statements are clearly telegraphing some significant escalation in Syria - intensifying air strikes - maybe increasing use of French special forces.

thunderbird7

14th Nov 2015, 22:59

Once Western leaders stop trying to impose the be-all and end-all of 'democracy' on Syria and let Assad get a grip of his country, then maybe there will be some stability in the Middle East. Ask the Israelis who they would rather have as their neighbour...

Brutal as he may have been and continue to be, what would we rather have? A stable, strong dictatorship or a bunch of fruitcakes intent on blowing up the world? (And I'm not referring to Reagan, Nixon, Brezhnev or Stalin... ;) )

MAINJAFAD

15th Nov 2015, 02:35

Melchett01

I think in most respects this local leader agrees with you.

Full interview with King Abdullah II of Jordan | euronews, the global conversation (http://www.euronews.com/2015/11/11/full-interview-with-king-abdullah-ii-of-jordan/)

Surplus

15th Nov 2015, 05:25

From the BBC:The Greek authorities say two people under investigation by the French police had registered in Greece as Syrian refugees. A Syrian passport was found near the body of one the attackers at the Stade de France.

glad rag

15th Nov 2015, 09:18

Our Home secretary does roll daish so perfectly off her tongue ........

..."we will learn lessons" etc, etc, etc..... :mad:

Jayand

15th Nov 2015, 11:56

Why on earth does anyone think there is a military solution to this? This is an incredibly complex problem with no, one single answer. Invading yet another Middle Eastern country with no strategy on what to do next is simple stupidity. These terrorists aren't all Syrian and will just melt away to start up again elsewhere. If you invade Syria are you going to commit troops to Iraq too (Again!! )
Or perhaps ramp up Afghanistan again whilst we're at it!!

Jayand

15th Nov 2015, 12:02

How many Allied troops would die on the ground invading these ****holes during another ultimately futile campaign? How many innocent civilians would die? Significantly more numbers than the terrorists are killing I'll wager. Look into the eyes of parents who lost kids in Iraq and Afghanistan and ask any of them if they believe they made any long term difference and was it worth it?

Heathrow Harry

15th Nov 2015, 13:12

JointShiteFighter

15th Nov 2015, 13:53

My thoughts go out to the victims and their families, and also our British citizens who were in the country at the time.

Courtney, et al... I hope you's and yours are all OK.

glad rag

15th Nov 2015, 14:45

NutLoose

15th Nov 2015, 16:39

An ID card system may take a few years to implement, unlike in WW 2, and take 10 years or more to become effective. - PN

Ahhh not that turkey again, utterly useless, once it's hacked or forged as ID's, social security numbers and passports already are, it gives those with something to hide legitimacy.
Let's not forget those involved in the London tube bombing and also one of the French involved in this incident would be legitimate legally entitled national identity card carriers., fat chance that the fact they hold a little piece of plastic would of had squat effect on them committing these crimes.
I also see Lord Carlisle is pushing his agenda in forcing through legislation on the back of this incident, not exactly democratic is it. I wouldn't mind, but during the TV interview he stated they already had the powers involved in it, so what is the point?

My condolences to those mixed up in these terrible events.

Rosevidney1

15th Nov 2015, 17:52

ID system? Forget plastic cards. My cat was found and returned because it had been injected with an ID code that was revealed after one pass with a hand held scanner. Every number is unique. What's the huge problem?

Hangarshuffle

15th Nov 2015, 18:16

Nothing you've thrown at them militarily to date has worked or prevented the many previous attacks or this latest one.
You kill them here-they don't care. Engage them on their land's on a large scale and they would love that even more because it means they kill more of us, or rather you military servers. Its exactly what they want.
And then they will retaliate even further, here.
Only key intelligence, interdiction, practical and intelligent screening and possibly some internment even may work but at massive cost to us in civil liberty, money and blood to stop further outrages.
I knew these days would come, and now they're here.
Self fulfilling, continually revolving cycle of violence.
I would go in the direct opposite of violence to meet ISIL.
Note to western peoples -on this issue think less with balls and use the brain more.

Two's in

15th Nov 2015, 18:22

This is a problem that needs to be treated with caution and intelligently; force alone will not solve this. We have to be smarter than the enemy and we have to think long term in our strategy.

My God! Thank you so much Melchett; just when I'm about to burn my internet connection to the ground when faced with the overwhelming stupidity of the reaction to all this (largely driven by the media who can't handle anything remotely complex), there appears a nugget of rational thought. If only the governments concerned weren't quite so stupid, there might be hope for all of us.

Hangarshuffle

15th Nov 2015, 18:27

..from my rambling tour of London last week I couldn't help but notice that many/strike that all the people who I spoke to/interacted with/relied upon for help or service who weren't white just happened to be spot on with me, and I be a white man, or pinkish/puce even. They numbered many. London being well on its way to being its own state or country anyway this is to be expected and is quietly being organized as such anyway-has been for many years.
All this bollocks about making people carry id cards, putting the screw on muslim followers would just be an utter, utter disaster and would alienate many people further. Not the world/UK I want to live in .
We are all presently far to under the yoke of state control and interference as it is, we need less-not more.
So get thinking.

Hangarshuffle

15th Nov 2015, 18:36

We didn't reduce to the level of the Japanese guards of WW2, or the SS or any other thug. We held above that low despicable behaviour and upheld ourselves at a certain level. British people aren't saints or angels and neither are the French. But we should maintain a standard.
Hands up who thinks killing Britain Jihadi John last week was a good idea, in the manner he died?
Well not me - count me out of that.
Making it up going along has got us here.
We need fair law, and standards above the level of ISIL to get through this.
We need intelligent leaders, an intelligent electorate within a correctly functioning democracy. Not easy and I wouldn't start from here but we need to do better than the instant military solution (not that that even remotely exists).

Hangarshuffle

15th Nov 2015, 18:42

Need a World Summit, now. Lock them in rooms until they come to an agreed decision. Or we fail here and now and many, many more worldwide will die.
Paris attack is nothing, we have seen nothing to what will and can occur in Europe unless we all wake up and begin dialogue and some sort of consensus.
Please no more talk of air strikes, drone attacks and limited ground wars. That's is the failed past.

Pontius Navigator

15th Nov 2015, 18:43

A problem with meeting is meeting with an empowered negotiating team with a defined set of aims and the flexibility to modify those aims.

We have a very tolerant multi-racial, sexually equal society.

They want sharia law, masculine led society with no alcohol and single religion.

Now negotiate.

No silver bullet, I have as few workable ideas as the next person.

PS, HS you posted while I was writing. ISIL has neither the organisation, franchise, or will. They have not articulated any terms or conditions.

ORAC

15th Nov 2015, 19:06

Only other time NATO has approved an Article 5 action was after 9/11. Won't force any other nation to participate - but will legally authorise military action by those who wish to do so.

Telegraph: NATO will Declare War on ISIL (http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/europe/france/11996678/Paris-terror-attacks-victims-isil-suspects-Syria-arrests-live.html)

A former Supreme Allied Commander for Nato has predicted the military alliance will declare war on Isil and send up to 15,000 combat troops, writes Ben Farmer, Defence Correspondent.

Adm James Stavridis forecast the attacks would prompt France to invoke the alliance's article 5 collective self defence clause, which states an attack on one member is an attack on all. The clause was used for the first and only time so far after the 9/11 attacks and led to the Nato military campaign in Afghanistan.

Adm Stavridis said: "I believe Nato should declare this article 5 and enter the fight." Military action would start with special forces raids and more air strikes, and include more training for Iraqi and Kurdish Peshmerga forces. He said faced with attacks on three fronts it would soon become clear that Isil "are not 10 feet tall. Nato can do this".

Most of the ground forces fighting Isil would be Iraqi and Kurdish, he predicted, but Nato troops would still be needed. He said: "I think this will be a mission of Nato boots on the ground in the range of 10,000 to 15,000."

Jayand

15th Nov 2015, 19:34

Article 5? Are they taking the piss? Where was NATO when the IRA were bombing london? You can't declare war against a group of homegrown, brainwashed, ideological maniacs! The first identified bomber from Paris was born in Belgium, what are we going to do roll the tanks into Brussels?

Jayand

15th Nov 2015, 19:36

Hangarshuffle, how would you have dealt with Jihadi John, sent a couple of plainclothed coppers in and asked him to come down to the station? Very Corbynesque.

BEagle

15th Nov 2015, 19:45

Other nations have a rather more robust, if perhaps primitive, way of dealing with terrorists:

Hezbollah kidnapped four Soviet diplomats from Beirut during the autumn of 1985. One they murdered straightaway, the others they held in captivity.

In response, the KGB seized the relative of a Hezbollah leader. As part of Moscow's anti-terrorism policy, the KGB castrated him, stuffed his testicles in his mouth, shot him in the head and sent the body back to Hezbollah. The KGB included a message that other members of the Party of God would die in a similar manner if the three Soviets were not released.

Shortly afterward, Hezbollah set free the three remaining Soviet hostages; Soviet interests in Lebanon were never similarly menaced again.

:hmm:

RAFEngO74to09

15th Nov 2015, 20:24

French air strikes on Raqqa, Syria. From the French Defense Ministry:

“The raid, including 10 fighter jets, was launched simultaneously from the United Arab Emirates and Jordan. Twenty bombs were dropped.”

The operation, carried out in coordination with U.S. forces, struck a command center, recruitment center for jihadists, a munitions depot and a training camp for fighters.

RileyDove

15th Nov 2015, 20:43

vernon99

15th Nov 2015, 21:20

The centre of ISIL is Raqqa. Whilst its unfortunate -it needs to become a place where life doesn't exist . So rather than small targetted strikes - its more a case for multiple B-52 strikes. We cannot remain in this dream that ISIL have any ideas of meeting at conferences or adopting standards .

If we do not deploy overwelming force - they will become a continual threat
to the Middle East and the West.

This is the best way to make it clear to any group that this sort of insurgency is futile. How can we sit at the negotiating table with people whose prime aim is to take over the world and impose their "backward ass" ideology. There simply is no room for negotiating. Firm action at an early stage may well be the best solution in the short term.

BUT what really needs looking at is who is funding and supporting these "terror" groups, that is where we need to focus our diplomatic efforts. Some think it is another Kingdom in the region, but as we still need oil there appears to be nothing we can do.....

Jayand

15th Nov 2015, 21:20

Yeah, I'm sure flattening the place and killing hundreds of innocent people is exactly what's needed! Just cut out the middle man and open up an IS recruitment office.

Pontius Navigator

15th Nov 2015, 21:28

OK, we don't bomb them.

We don't intern them.

We kiss and make up, is that for men or women?

European women to wear burqas.

Cut prison population. Impose flogging, stoning, beheading.

Will that appease them?

Jayand

15th Nov 2015, 21:43

Who's trying to appease them? But do you honestly believe carpet bombing Raqqa is the answer? Knee jerk, emotional responses make people feel a little better but seldom do anything of real value.
I seem to remember a gloating US president declaring victory against the Taliban a few months after 9-11. How did that work out?

Lima Juliet

15th Nov 2015, 21:50

vernon99

15th Nov 2015, 21:52

Yeah, I'm sure flattening the place and killing hundreds of innocent people is exactly what's needed! Just cut out the middle man and open up an IS recruitment office.

How many innocent people still live in places like Raqqa?

I am sure that as quick as people volunteer, if you strike them down, eventually the remaining people will get the message, but that is only a short term fix, you need to find out who is funding and supporting these "terror" groups and fix that politically.

Personally I feel we brought a lot of this upon ourselves by interfering and launching wars. That was done by certain politicians and they seem to be coated in teflon and can do no wrong. So if our politicians are corrupt how can we ask them to deal with the root causes when it suits their ambitions and aims to take us into conflict after conflict.

In the mean time we need to protect ourselves and if the best way to do that today is using force then apply it and plenty of it, make sure people get the message.

Pontius Navigator

15th Nov 2015, 21:53

Jayland, there may be vicarious pleasure in reducing Raqqa to a rubbish heap but morally that is not where we want to go.

Getting them to a negotiation table might be a laudable idea but they show no inclination to play by 20th Century rules.

This is asymmetric warfare on a regional scale. Pretty clearly there is State sponsorship but no one seems to want to name names.

What course do you suggest?

1.3VStall

15th Nov 2015, 21:56

Someone posted on Facebook earlier:

"I'm waiting for the first politician to say that Enoch Powell was right; unfortunately, I don't think I'll live that long".

'nuff said!

RileyDove

15th Nov 2015, 23:07

We are going to reduce Raqqa to a pile of rubble anyway ! We either do it slowly and let them regroup and reform as is happening or we do it quickly and take away the ability for them to adapt to the attack.

As we speak they are planning the next 'Paris' -the next airliner -I think people are in a dream if they think they are going to go away by tiny pin prick attacks.

As for morals - let the combatants wear a uniform and fight according to rules or understand that everyone in Raqqa including children is a potential suicide bomber - every doctor that left these shores is patching up ISIS fighters -we really need to grasp that we are never going to be on the same page with morals .

mikedreamer787

15th Nov 2015, 23:23

Until civilised countries realise the Daesh is the 'Fourth Reich' there will be nothing done of any real significance.

Roland Pulfrew

16th Nov 2015, 00:00

Neutron bomb anyone? :E

mikedreamer787

16th Nov 2015, 01:02

Will that appease them? When a viral representative of Ebola comes to the table and can be reasoned with, and an agreement reached where Ebola viruses will cease killing people as a normal practise, then I'll agree the Daesh can be appeased.

For a socialist left-leaning rag this isn't a bad burst:

http://www.theage.com.au/comment/paris-attacks-five-things-the-world-must-do-in-response-20151115-gkzjfp.html

Danny42C

16th Nov 2015, 01:29

I repeat below a Post I put in on 9th September this year. Comment would be superfluous:

Thread: Military Aviation, Paris Attacked. Page 5/#84

Turning the Other Cheek ?

Re: Bleeding Hearts for an ex-ISIL (Good Riddance, say I !)

Seems that today's RAF is not immune from this egregious notion. My eye was caught by this link (copied from another of my Posts, about January on another Thread: it was an extract from the D.Tel. 9.1.15). "Combat Report" (Bold Text mine):

"The pair have said that one of their proudest moments to date involved helping to foil a rocket" (RPG ?) "attack on their base at Kandahar airfield in 2010. There was a high threat and the base was expecting an imminent attack after some men were spotted in a nearby ditch, setting up to fire a rocket at their accommodation block. They took the aircraft out to 15 miles from their position in the ditch and came down to low level, approaching at more than 500mph and as close to the Operational Low Flying minimum of 100 feet as possible, passing directly over them before heading into a steep climb. The rocket crew immediately scarpered in a truck and the pair felt they had made a tangible difference to protect their colleagues.

The intention is to always use the minimum force required to provide the effect needed by the guys on the ground".

Am I missing something here ? This was in 2010, and there was a war going on in Afghanistan (as we have 453 good reasons to remember). This is the enemy, and he is making ready to kill you (or some of your comrades) if he can. You are airborne in one of the RAF's most powerful weapons. You have a 27mm cannon.

You buzz him off (as I used to shift a flock of goats off my strip before landing). So that he can come back later and try again ? (Better luck next time ?)

Danny42C.

Words fail me. Danny42C.

Surplus

16th Nov 2015, 07:34

Reading the comments on here remind me of my favourite Red Dwarf episode where they debate what to do about a monster on their ship - the pacifist is absolutely brilliant!

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5WgUktfdDy4

LJ, The major leaflet campaign has been replaced by overlaying your Facebook profile with the French flag.

PPRuNeUser0139

16th Nov 2015, 07:45

For those who don't remember Enoch Powell's prescient speech that he made in April '68 (and the furore it made) the full text of it is here (http://www.telegraph.co.uk/comment/3643823/Enoch-Powells-Rivers-of-Blood-speech.html).
The opening sentence is worth quoting:
The supreme function of statesmanship is to provide against preventable evils.
It's worth bearing in mind that he made this speech prior to the UK joining the EEC (as was).

Pontius Navigator

16th Nov 2015, 07:46

I see our friend who is not in to appeasement but negotiations has not the foggiest idea how to get the terrorists to the negotiations table.

One US President had the right idea, if you've got them by the balls, their hearts and minds will follow.

Regardless of daesh fighting like guerrillas or irregular militia there is one principle of warfare they cannot avoid - Administration.

They need lines of communication to pass people in and out. They need weapons; they need ammunition; they need food and water. Supplies siezed from Assad forces and Iraq are not inexhaustible. Resupply has to come from another State. The traditional suppliers, Russia and Iran are on the other side.

A few weeks ago i saw a territory map with LOC, quite narrow LOC stretching to Syria's borders. That I submit it their weak point. Consider the onion concept again. Peel the layers from outside to centre or attempt a coup de main. These both risk heavy casualties which is one of the Western countries weak points - public opinion.

How about a different approach: interdiction? Drop a force across the LOC and fight away from the centre. Find the elephant in the room. Let daesh run out of supplies, draw them out, fix them and destroy them.

mikedreamer787

16th Nov 2015, 09:35

Same theme as the rabid dog. The DWB and WHO didn't try to negotiate with Ebola viruses - they didn't arrest them or give them a fair trial or try to negotiate nor attempt any rehabilitation nor appeasement. They simply exterminated the deadly menace without mercy.

What is needed both militarily and as a civilian mindset is a concerted effort by Europe Russia Oz and the US to eradicate Daesh leaders and blast away at the ranks (whether refilled with fresh recruits or not) until there are no more ranks to blast away at. A white flag from an outgunned Daesh squad should be regarded as an upcoming target practice session. No POW Conventions, no bull**** EU Courts, no "UN rights", no nothing. It'll take a while - but your average dumb uneducated radical loonies will eventually cotton on that joining Daesh or Al Craeppa will lead to 100% certain death in a very very short time.

I admit though the biggest weakness in the West is these miserable bleeding heart Human Rights groups who unfortunately have considerable political power. These groups, like pacifists, are eventually silenced once blood is spilled on their own soil, but thousands of innocents have to be slaughtered first before they're finally shut the f****d up.

Also...I object to these murdering Daesh thugs being called "fighters" - they are gutless yellow-bellied subhuman maniacs utilising a weapon of war called religion to achieve obvious political aims.

Nuff said on my part.

Avitor

16th Nov 2015, 10:10

Attempting to reason with them is taken as surrender. Agreed, protocol should be thrown out of the window and replaced with the bullet, until they are all dead and with Allah.
Big problem with that......their leaders are almost certainly clerics and they will stay in the background.

glad rag

16th Nov 2015, 10:18

If the European political "leaders" ..

[yes I don’t know who they really are either, Camermong et al, are nothing but powerless figureheads of the Great Scheme]

..actually want to stop these attacks DEAD in their tracks then the answer is to make European citizens responsible for their own safety and security and EQUIP THEM THUS.

But that wont happen as that would mean empowering the citizens and that means those European leaders would absolve their control over said populace.

dctyke

16th Nov 2015, 11:37

Lonewolf_50

16th Nov 2015, 12:24

A Greek colleague of mine who does a lot of work in the Middle East was chatting on Wednesday and musing on the fact that we think nothing of shipping ten thousand people a day to/from Sharm el Sheikh for their hols, that you can get anywhere in the world in 48 hours and with modern comms & media the whole world can listen to Western music, see western fashion, watch western TV & movies...

and then we're really surprised/astounded/appalled when they all turn up on the doorstep or when their problems become ours :(:(Iindeed. It's related to one of the old "Murphy's Laws of Combat" which is "tracers work both ways."
Article 5? Are they taking the piss? Where was NATO when the IRA were bombing london? The British Government didn't ask for Art 5, as they felt it was an internal problem and that they'd sort it out. Also, during the Cold War it was a different political climate in general.

Pontius Navigator has a better take on this than most:

This is asymmetric warfare on a regional scale. Pretty clearly there is State ssponsorship but no one seems to want to name names.
They need lines of communication to pass people in and out. They need weapons; they need ammunition; they need food and water. Supplies siezed from Assad forces and Iraq are not inexhaustible. Resupply has to come from another State. The traditional suppliers, Russia and Iran are on the other side.
find out who is funding them and apply the squeeze. Also, EXPOSE them, even if they are an ally or trading partner.

As Pontius points out, this is war of a kind a great many people really don't understand.

Basil

16th Nov 2015, 12:32

There are postcodes in West Yorkshire where the police don't go
Where's Lt Col Colin Campbell Mitchell when you need him?

skua

16th Nov 2015, 13:14

We also need a little more honesty from our political leaders re our relationship with the Saudis. They buy our London real estate (& some of our defence equipment), tool around Knightsbridge in fast cars, and all the while fund Daesh (allegedly).

One of the main ways of bringing these heathens to heel will be by strangling their funding. Clearly their hold over some oil supplies is a factor here, but the Saudi aspect needs addressing.

Easy Street

16th Nov 2015, 13:27

For a socialist left-leaning rag this isn't a bad burst:

http://www.theage.com.au/comment/paris-attacks-five-things-the-world-must-do-in-response-20151115-gkzjfp.html

It is bad. How can you tell? Two tell-tale signs:

1) It denies any link between Islam and the activities of the extremists. Wrong. At the root of this 40-year problem is that both the peaceful majority and the extremist minority think that they are acting in accordance with "the true Islam".

2) It advocates that English speakers cease using the names "ISIS", "ISIL" or "IS" and instead use the name "Daesh" because it is neither "Islamic" nor a "State". This is total bunkum - "Daesh" is simply the anglicised form of the abbreviation in Arabic of "Islamic State of Iraq and al-Shaam". It is true that the term is disrespectful in Arabic, mainly because it sounds something like a term of abuse. See here (https://www.freewordcentre.com%2Fblog%2F2015%2F02%2Fdaesh-isis-media-alice-guthrie%2F&usg=AFQjCNFF7gv8vzmy2Sgp8R63GKUTRETBpg&bvm=bv.107467506,d.d24) for more. But this applies only in Arabic. To my mind, those who advocate the use of "Daesh" among English-speakers do so principally because they want to break the connection in our minds between Islam and the extremists - presumably because they think we are bigoted fools who will go on Islamophobic rampages unless shielded from the truth, and because we are unlikely to know that "Daesh" and "ISIS" are word-for-word the same.

Awareness of both of these points is important because the self-censoring aspect of Western debate is a real issue. We need to find a long-term solution to the problem of Islamist extremism, which has been with us in its modern form since the 1970s. We can apply temporary solutions by force or internal security measures, but the only one that will stick is a definitive, pan-sectarian, scholarly delegitimisation of the ideology espoused by ISIL and other salafi jihadist groups. Such a solution can ONLY be delivered by Muslims; anything delivered from outside the religion will not have the required credibility. Diverting our attention from this fact, whether through the devices used in the liberal media or by movements such as #NotInMyName, stops us from properly analysing the problem. Without taking steps to encourage the resolution of the ideological battle, we are condemned to endless repetition of costly and futile military interventions.

Thanks to our cultural heritage, we can intuitively identify extremism that claims to represent Christianity, and ostracise its members without regard to political correctness. It is totally unthinkable, for example, that the BBC would allow a Ku Klux Klan sympathiser to espouse political views on Newsnight or similar (at least, without being overtly labelled and challenged by all other panellists and the presenter). But we do not have sufficient societal knowledge of Islam to do the same with its extremists. For years, Muslim leaders have complained over the tolerance we extend to extremist clerics in "Londonistan", and just last week the BBC provided links to CAGE from its story on the killing of 'Jihadi John'. After Paris, we need to have a debate over this tolerance. Should we ban the Muslim Brotherhood, as some Gulf leaders have recommended? Should we exercise more control over extremist activity on the internet? Do we get enough economic benefit from our relationship with the Saudis to compensate for the moral effects and physical consequences of the bile spewing from clerics tolerated by the royal family as a condition of its power?

Denying any link between Islam and the actions of extremists stops this vital debate before it has even begun. Perniciously, warnings like "talking of Islam in this way risks provoking the far right and must be avoided" are just plain wrong - if mainstream politicians don't start to grapple with these issues in public, the far right will begin to gain support from people who see their concerns being ignored. Witness the resurgence of the National Front in France. Certainly, don't tar all Muslims with the same brush, and it is a debate in which careful wording is vital - but don't avoid the issue. Doing so is counterproductive on many levels.

Pontius Navigator

16th Nov 2015, 15:06

A report today says British families should befriend an immigrant family and mentor them. What no one has said is that only Muslim British are able to befriend immigrants.

Back in the 70s Mrs PN befriended a Glaswegian whose children went to the same school as mine. She used to accompany her while she practised driving.

Her Pakistani husband did not approve. She could not go in to our house as we had dogs. She could never meet me. In short, white British cannot befriend Middle Eastern families.

OTOH we hosted a female Uganda Muslim whose husband was also nothing who was back in Uganda. Apart from colour she was fully British and was happy eating bacon and pork.

Similarly at Nav School we had two Sudanese. By some alchemy they could change pork to beef and de-alcholise beer. In Tehran Iranians used to drink beer, only spirits was deemed to be alcohol.

Now look where we are.

engineer(retard)

16th Nov 2015, 15:22

Warning, a long article that may be a bit educational:

What ISIS Really Wants - The Atlantic (http://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/2015/03/what-isis-really-wants/384980/)

mopardave

16th Nov 2015, 16:51

There are postcodes in West Yorkshire where the police don't go, sharia law is carried out, women are second class citizens and girls are forced into marriage. The culture and values of Great Britain simply do not exist and although most of the people living there are good people, the zealots thrive. I fear things are going to get a whole lot worse with no solutions on the horizon, Pandora's box is well and truly opened.

spot on dctyke........I have FIRST HAND experience of the powder keg here in west yorks......certain towns here are "lost" and the politicians and police know it. Certain sections of the community have absolutely no intention of assimilating, or even "tolerating" our western values! The bleeding heart liberals have had their say......the experiment in social engineering didn't work.....accept it! If anyone is in need of further clarity, pm me and I'll take you back to the city of my birth......if you don't mind, we'll use your car!!!! Solution, hmmmmm....either pull up the draw bridge or get heavy.......really heavy! Apeasement doesn't work!!!! :ugh:

I'm off to don my tin hat now!
MD

NutLoose

16th Nov 2015, 16:53

I see it is being reported Corbyn is now saying even if the police or armed services happen upon a terrorist attack taking place in the UK, he is against them killing on sight those terrorist, he is against a shot to kill policy to take out terrorist launching an attack in the UK...

The man is a buffoon.

O-P

16th Nov 2015, 17:48

For those interested in learning a little more about ISIS, its origins and beliefs. Here is an article that might help. It's a bit long winded, but worth sticking with.

What ISIS Really Wants - The Atlantic (http://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/2015/03/what-isis-really-wants/384980/)

Sorry engineer, didn't notice you'd already posted the link!!

Rosevidney1

16th Nov 2015, 17:50

I must protest. That is a dreadful slur against buffoons!

Romeo Oscar Golf

16th Nov 2015, 18:04

Warning, a long article that may be a bit educational:

Yes and yes Engineer but well worth the effort of reading.

Graeme Wood
Graeme Wood is the Edward R. Murrow Press Fellow at the Council on Foreign Relations.
He is also a lecturer in political science at Yale University, a contributing editor to The Atlantic and The New Republic, and books editor of Pacific Standard.
He was a reporter at The Cambodia Daily in Phnom Penh in 1999, then lived and wrote in the Middle East from 2002 to 2006. He has received fellowships from the Social Sciences Research Council (2002-2003), the South Asian Journalists Association (2009), the East-West Center (2009-2010), and the U.S. Holocaust Memorial Museum’s Center for the Prevention of Genocide (2013-2014). He has appeared many times on television and radio (CNN, ABC, BBC, MSNBC, et al.), was the screenwriter of a Sundance Official Selection (2010, short film), and led a Nazi-hunting expedition to Paraguay for a History Channel special in 2009.
Graeme attended Deep Springs College, Harvard, Indiana University, and the American University in Cairo.

Out Of Trim

16th Nov 2015, 19:39

I vote, that Corbyn be sent to Syria to negotiate.. :E

Well at least he has a beard!

ShotOne

17th Nov 2015, 08:22

"Shoot to kill", if required by the situation, has always been amongst the options open to the authorities. But if, as some here intend, it's to mean on-street executions then no, that's not right, it's not what we do and it's not even a militarily advantageous course of action.

Why not? Firstly it's exactly what our enemies want. They yearn for martyrdom and wish to be viewed as warriors rather than the low-life criminals they are. But mainly because that's not how we've chosen to run our society. We have decided that even the most wicked criminals are, if possible, committed to trial then locked up, until they're forgotten, shuffling and incontinent. If our view changes on that, let it be because of reasoned debate and consideration. Not because some bearded nut-job with an AK47 wants us to.

NutLoose

17th Nov 2015, 08:58

"Shoot to kill", if required by the situation, has always been amongst the options open to the authorities. But if, as some here intend, it's to mean on-street executions then no, that's not right, it's not what we do and it's not even a militarily advantageous course of action.

Not because some bearded nut-job with an AK47 wants us to.

But that's not what the other bearded nut-job was saying, he was more or less saying he wants it revoking and that sets a dangerous precedent in what would be a situation of high stress and where a snap decision is needed, you would find yourself having to second guess your decision and the implications of opening fire, something that could cost lives.
The ROE were clear when I was serving and I doubt they have changed much in the meantime.
The sooner they get shot of him the better.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-34840708

charliegolf

17th Nov 2015, 09:00

We have had shoot to kill for decades in accordance with the ROE.

And to follow up- the teaching has always been to deliver a fatal shot. ROMF ended the second the decision to shoot was taken. The nonsense that the phrase 'shoot to kill' introduced into the mix, was that one might shoot to 'wing' the opponent a la Roy Rogers.

CG

Just This Once...

17th Nov 2015, 09:10

France has around 220,000 armed police officers and is currently augmenting them with additional units from their armed forces.

The UK has less than 7,000 police officers trained (but not necessarily equipped) to carry firearms.

I wonder if the UK position will change at all?

jolihokistix

17th Nov 2015, 09:59

If you were sitting outside a restaurant one pleasant evening and a black hatchback drove past with four humourless youths inside, two firing aK-47s, what would be your immediate reaction?

Throw something at them? Duck? Get a shot of the numberplate? Call for armed protection?

ORAC

17th Nov 2015, 10:07

France is demanding security aid and assistance from the European Union in the wake of the Paris attacks and has triggered a never-before-used article in the EU's treaties to secure it.

EU foreign policy chief Federica Mogherini said Tuesday that member states had indicated their "full support and readiness to provide all the aid and assistance needed."

Article 42.7 of the EU's Lisbon Treaty states that if a member country "is the victim of armed aggression on its territory," other member states have an obligation of aid and assistance..........

Lisbon Treaty Article 42:

1. The common security and defence policy shall be an integral part of the common foreign and security policy. It shall provide the Union with an operational capacity drawing on civilian and military assets. The Union may use them on missions outside the Union for peace-keeping, conflict prevention and strengthening international security in accordance with the principles of the United Nations Charter. The performance of these tasks shall be undertaken using capabilities provided by the Member States.

2. The common security and defence policy shall include the progressive framing of a common Union defence policy. This will lead to a common defence, when the European Council, acting unanimously, so decides. It shall in that case recommend to the Member States the adoption of such a decision in accordance with their respective constitutional requirements.

The policy of the Union in accordance with this Section shall not prejudice the specific character of the security and defence policy of certain Member States and shall respect the obligations of certain Member States, which see their common defence realised in the North Atlantic Treaty Organisation (NATO), under the North Atlantic Treaty and be compatible with the common security and defence policy established within that framework.

3. Member States shall make civilian and military capabilities available to the Union for the implementation of the common security and defence policy, to contribute to the objectives defined by the Council. Those Member States which together establish multinational forces may also make them available to the common security and defence policy.

Member States shall undertake progressively to improve their military capabilities. The Agency in the field of defence capabilities development, research, acquisition and armaments (hereinafter referred to as “the European Defence Agency”) shall identify operational requirements, shall promote measures to satisfy those requirements, shall contribute to identifying and, where appropriate, implementing any measure needed to strengthen the industrial and technological base of the defence sector, shall participate in defining a European capabilities and armaments policy, and shall assist the Council in evaluating the improvement of military capabilities.

4. Decisions relating to the common security and defence policy, including those initiating a mission as referred to in this Article, shall be adopted by the Council acting unanimously on a proposal from the High Representative of the Union for Foreign Affairs and Security Policy or an initiative from a Member State. The High Representative may propose the use of both national resources and Union instruments, together with the Commission where appropriate.

5. The Council may entrust the execution of a task, within the Union framework, to a group of Member States in order to protect the Union's values and serve its interests. The execution of such a task shall be governed by Article 44.

6. Those Member States whose military capabilities fulfil higher criteria and which have made more binding commitments to one another in this area with a view to the most demanding missions shall establish permanent structured cooperation within the Union framework. Such cooperation shall be governed by Article 46. It shall not affect the provisions of Article 43.

7. If a Member State is the victim of armed aggression on its territory, the other Member States shall have towards it an obligation of aid and assistance by all the means in their power, in accordance with Article 51 of the United Nations Charter. This shall not prejudice the specific character of the security and defence policy of certain Member States.

Commitments and cooperation in this area shall be consistent with commitments under the North Atlantic Treaty Organisation, which, for those States which are members of it, remains the foundation of their collective defence and the forum for its implementation.

Not_a_boffin

17th Nov 2015, 11:14

BEagle

17th Nov 2015, 11:57

Good for Hollande! 115000 seriously pi$$ed-off and extremely tough, professional, well-trained French rozzers will do an excellent job of excising the cancer of these fundamentalist salopards.

A few interrogations in the style of The Day of the Jackal will hopefully lead to some valuable intelligence.

No feeble, hand-wringing champagne socialists bleating about human rights either. To have human rights, it is necessary to be human. The creatures being hunted down by the French and the Russians are neither human nor worthy of any consideration other than eradication.

just another jocky

17th Nov 2015, 12:13

Warning, a long article that may be a bit educational:

What ISIS Really Wants - The Atlantic (http://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/2015/03/what-isis-really-wants/384980/)

Great link, thanks.

Buster15

17th Nov 2015, 12:31

we had better make up our minds pretty quickly as the only aircraft we have capable of attacking in Syria will be retired from service by 2019. The GR4 is currently doing a stirling job over Iraq but is not permitted to do precisely the same thing a few meters over an imaginary border. The GR4 along with its reconnaissance capability and Paveway/Brimstone is ideally suited to this type of mission.
I have written to my MP on more than 1 occasion highlighting the lunacy of retiring the dependable GR4 without true operational capability and fully proven transfer to Typhoon. I am told that retiring the GR4 and replacing it with the 'F35 which is at the forefront of avaiation technology' is a pragmatic solution' Somehow I do not believe this.............

PPRuNeUser0139

17th Nov 2015, 12:31

Allez la France!
Yes, a welcome move but one that's long overdue.
Scroll down to see the number of terrorist killings in France during the past 3 years (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_terrorist_incidents_in_France).
Hollande was forced to abandon his default 'denial' mode - he had to act this time..

Wokkafans

17th Nov 2015, 12:55

Currently doing the rounds on various sites:

A briefing document on Syria…...

President Assad (who is bad) is a nasty guy who got so nasty his people rebelled and the Rebels (who are good) started winning.

But then some of the rebels turned a bit nasty and are now called Islamic State (who are definitely bad) and some continued to support democracy (who are still good).

So the Americans (who are good) started bombing Islamic State (who are bad) and giving arms to the Syrian Rebels (who are good) so they could fight Assad (who is still bad) which was good.

By the way, there is a breakaway state in the north run by the Kurds who want to fight IS (which is a good thing) but the Turkish authorities think they are bad, so we have to say they are bad whilst secretly thinking they're good and giving them guns to fight IS (which is good) but that is another matter.

Getting back to Syria. President Putin (bad, as he invaded Crimea and the Ukraine and killed lots of folks including that nice Russian man in London with polonium) has decided to back Assad (who is still bad) by attacking IS (who are also bad) which is sort of a good thing?

But Putin (still bad) thinks the Syrian Rebels (who are good) are also bad, and so he bombs them too, much to the annoyance of the Americans (who are good) who are busy backing and arming the rebels (who are also good).

Now Iran (who used to be bad, but now they have agreed not to build any nuclear weapons and bomb Israel are now good) are going to provide ground troops to support Assad (still bad) as are the Russians (bad) who now have ground troops and aircraft in Syria.

So a Coalition of Assad (still bad) Putin (extra bad) and the Iranians (good, but in a bad sort of way) are going to attack IS (who are bad) which is a good thing, but also the Syrian Rebels (who are good) which is bad.

Now the British (obviously good, except Corbyn who is probably bad) and the Americans (also good) cannot attack Assad (still bad) for fear of upsetting Putin (bad) and Iran (good / bad) and now they have to accept that Assad might not be that bad after all compared to IS (who are super bad).

So Assad (bad) is now probably good, being better than IS (no real choice there) and since Putin and Iran are also fighting IS that may now make them good. America (still good) will find it hard to arm a group of rebels being attacked by the Russians for fear of upsetting Mr Putin (now good) and that mad ayatollah in Iran (also good) and so they may be forced to say that the Rebels are now bad, or at the very least abandon them to their fate. This will lead most of them to flee to Turkey and on to Europe or join IS (still the only constantly bad group).

To Sunni Muslims, an attack by Shia Muslims (Assad and Iran) backed by Russians will be seen as something of a Holy War, and the ranks of IS will now be seen by the Sunnis as the only Jihadis fighting in the Holy War and hence many Muslims will now see IS as good (doh!).

Sunni Muslims will also see the lack of action by Britain and America in
support of their Sunni rebel brothers as something of a betrayal (might have a point) and hence we will be seen as bad.

So now we have America (now bad) and Britain (also bad) providing limited support to Sunni Rebels (bad) many of whom are looking to IS (good / bad) for support against Assad (now good) who, along with Iran (also good) and Putin (also, now, unbelievably, good ) are attempting to retake the country Assad used to run before all this started?

I hope that this clears it all up for you.

CoffmanStarter

17th Nov 2015, 13:32

There also seems to be a bit of a 'Flap On' at the MOD, given the recent French Air Strikes, to get 'something' in front of British Public ...

Presumably the PR Bod that chose this pic thought the engine nacelles on the 146 were very big bombs :ugh::ugh::ugh::ugh:

http://i1004.photobucket.com/albums/af162/CoffmanStarter/FullSizeRender_zps9udcttxt.jpg

Image Credit : MOD

Here is the full brief ...

https://www.gov.uk/government/news/update-air-strikes-in-iraq

sitigeltfel

17th Nov 2015, 13:49

Good for Hollande! 115000 seriously pi$$ed-off and extremely tough, professional, well-trained French rozzers will do an excellent job of excising the cancer of these fundamentalist salopards.

Be careful what you wish for........

The massacre appears to have been intentional, as has been demonstrated by historian Jean-Luc Einaudi, who won a trial against Maurice Papon (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Maurice_Papon) in 1999 – the latter was convicted in 1998 on charges of crimes against humanity (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Crimes_against_humanity) for his role under the Vichy collaborationist regime (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vichy_France) during World War II (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/World_War_II). Official documentation and eyewitnesses within the Paris police department indeed suggest that the massacre was directed by Papon. Police records show that Papon called for officers in one station to be "subversive" in quelling the demonstrations, and assured them protection from prosecution if they participated.[2] (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paris_massacre_of_1961#cite_note-Bataille-2) Many demonstrators died when they were violently herded by police into the River Seine (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/River_Seine), with some thrown from bridges after being beaten unconscious. Other demonstrators were killed within the courtyard of the Paris police headquarters after being arrested and delivered there in police buses. Officers who participated in the courtyard killings took the precaution of removing identification numbers from their uniforms, while senior officers ignored pleas by other policemen who were shocked when witnessing the brutality. Silence about the events within the police headquarters was further enforced by threats of reprisals from participating officers.https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paris_massacre_of_1961

SPIT

17th Nov 2015, 16:56

Never to dine in Liverpool again......

TO NOT A BOFFIN
We would not invite total idiots anyway so you need not worry :mad::mad:

Easy Street

17th Nov 2015, 17:28

Wokkafans,

Thank you for posting that 'briefing note', I enjoyed it! It demonstrates very well the murky nature of geopolitics - especially the total lack of absolutes. This is something that the bleeding heart brigade fail to appreciate when they take their "something must be done" or "there is no military solution" stances. But, sadly, it is also something that Obama, Cameron, Sarkozy et al failed to appreciate back in 2011 when they started declaring that certain leaders, Assad included, were "on the wrong side of history".

I wonder why the note made no reference to the Saudis? The conflict of interests in our relations with them is just about the thorniest geopolitical problem facing our leaders, IMHO!

Lonewolf_50

17th Nov 2015, 17:41

But, sadly, it is also something that Obama, Cameron, Sarkozy et al failed to appreciate back in 2011 when they started declaring that certain leaders, Assad included, were "on the wrong side of history".
I wonder why the note made no reference to the Saudis?
Both points well played.

Hangarshuffle

17th Nov 2015, 18:15

Sorry about the late return, fellows. Been looking at buying either a decent posh shed, or a "Zen 1 or Zen 2 log cabin" for my new garden -got to get events in perspective at times.
Also, I e-mailed by executive boss telling her I no longer want to be routed to travel through either London underground or any London railway station when I go on my sorties forth. She is yet to reply.
Responses like mine will wipe million's from London's cash/tourist intake, but that is to be expected. But possibly even planned in by our recently arrived new enemy?
Am I cowardly? Or more pragmatic? I feel I'm simply taking some responsibility for myself. But stand accused, I suppose, of treachery>.
Met Police cant defend London faced with mass attack teams using assault rifles, I would think. Someone knowledgeable said as such today in the Mail. Our ARV cops carry a version of the AR15 I think, and the G86, but with limited single shot/smaller calibre/smaller quantities of ammunition (15 round magazines)!! They've got no chance against heavily armed AK47 wielding fast firers with larger rounds (7.62 x 39mm x 60 rounds). And therefore neither would I, if caught out and relying on the Met, I decided.

* Thought about firepower - if the RM and British Army infantry used to go out on patrol against PIRA in urban and rural NI armed with a variety of arms but including SLR (and GPMG) firing 7.62mm x 51mm x 20 NATO rounds, and with the capability of calling up even further weaponry if needed, why are UK police (where armed even) still persisting with their relative pop guns at this time?
Should the UK military now intervene on the Police's behalf and save their red faces?

Its clear the tactics European based ISIS are now using. AK47 with multiple full magazines set on automatic. Maximum firepower.
Are our police behind the curve so to speak, when facing them?
HS.

RAFEngO74to09

17th Nov 2015, 18:38

Russian Backfires + cruise missiles used in latest attacks on Syria.

http://theaviationist.com/2015/11/17/russian-tu-22s-joined-the-syria-air-war/

Hangarshuffle

17th Nov 2015, 18:40

Yes a good reply to me. How would I deal with Jihadi John? And the Right Hon. Mr Corbyn always has to be brought in along as well. I cant answer for him I'm afraid. However as a paid up member of the awkward squad he hasn't half been consistently right about so many matters in the MENA areas in the last, oh 15 odd years. But then again, later on when you look back so many of his beardy corduroy type usually, later on seem...very prescient.

But back to John. What on earth do we do about the 1000* odd British blokes like him also. (Johns now dead it rather happily seems).
You see, forget John really - its the principle. We have here a UK citizen who has now been killed by the state, our UK state seemingly, without trial or fair hearing. To me, its now a dark reality that upon order of a UK politician, our unseen and unknown spooky drone operators can snuff out a UK civvy without fear of challenge or rebuke. Whoever happened to reason this is actually good, without recourse to a debate in the HoC, let alone the UK's own citizens, has much to explain.
Put it another way Jayand. In tens years time Corbyn might be PM, and he might think you pose a challenge or threat to him - so presumably when you are sunning it on your holidays abroad, he can authorise your good self to be snuffed out by lightening bolt also? That's fair, right?
Thin end of a wedge.

* Not sure about that number - no one is, but probably between 1 and 10,000 anyway.

RAFEngO74to09

17th Nov 2015, 18:53

Hannover Chief of Police: "There was a device intended to be detonated inside the stadium".

GSG9 being deployed.

Hangarshuffle

17th Nov 2015, 18:58

Before I close down, my final thought - should the UK not be looking at securing the actual safety of its own citizens within its own coastline first?
I mean before it again begins very expensive and much limited-use Air Expeditionary Warfare over Syria?
If we attempted to train up 20,000 military personnel in using automatic weapons against the current threat and then stationed them throughout the UK's centres of population, and as a last line of defence? As back up to the Police? Who are stretched, generally unarmed and also on the downhill side of Govt.budget cuts?
Ideal candidates would be NCO/former NCOs of all 3 services who could meet the mental and other demands this would bring?
Just a musing. Its not all about London, despite the political bias displayed so far. ISIS will soon twig where we are weak at home.
PM Cameron seems determined to start our own air war, but that is occurring already against ISIL from better equipped and sited Air Forces than ours anyway.
Priority wrong? Who knows, or even cares until it happens. Goodnight and stay safe people.

Xenophon

17th Nov 2015, 19:31

Above The Clouds

17th Nov 2015, 19:43

Before I close down, my final thought - should the UK not be looking at securing the actual safety of its own citizens within its own coastline first?
I mean before it again begins very expensive and much limited-use Air Expeditionary Warfare over Syria?

How about heavily investing in a robust airborne and maritime coast guard to patrol our borders and coastlines, working with the police, customs and armed forces to protect our citizens and country.

Mach Two

17th Nov 2015, 19:52

Hangarshuffle,

I'm curious about your position here. You seem to be very concerned that a UK civilian (who has effectively given up his civilian status by becoming a terrorist operative in a self-declared foreign "state") can be taken out by some spooky drone driver at the will of a politician, yet you are happy to put the Army on the streets of the U.K. to do domestic security instead of properly resourcing the Police.

Can you see any dangers in the Army doing policing? It's certainly not something my Army colleagues think they should be doing.

Lonewolf_50

17th Nov 2015, 19:53

Being an armed (with gun) police officer really must be a bit of a dodgy occupation.
Not only do you run the risk of being killed (occupational hazard ?) but you also face the certainty that, if you so much as fire your weapon never mind waste a malefactor , a horde of parasitic lawyers will descend on you like the hounds of hell and have your job and probably your liberty as well. Lovely.
My bother in law has been a cop for 20 years. He has put up with that for most of that time, and the points you raise about the Monday Morning Quarterbacks he is most familiar with. (He's now a Lieutenant, so he has to worry about his patrolmen using theirs as well).

He also has never had to fire his weapon once in the line of duty. (In point of fact, most officers in this county have not ever used their weapon other than at the range).

RileyDove

17th Nov 2015, 20:08

'You see, forget John really - its the principle. We have here a UK citizen who has now been killed by the state, our UK state seemingly, without trial or fair hearing. To me, its now a dark reality that upon order of a UK politician, our unseen and unknown spooky drone operators can snuff out a UK civvy without fear of challenge or rebuke. Whoever happened to reason this is actually good, without recourse to a debate in the HoC, let alone the UK's own citizens, has much to explain'

'Jihadi John' had clearly murdered British citizens and posed a clear danger to others held hostage . As a British citizen he also signs up to abiding by the law of the U.K and whatever country he is in . It was not realistic to believe he could be apprehended without risk to life . So its exactly the same senario if you come out of a house in the U.K and point a gun at someone -your likely to die -being in Syria -being armed and being a threat to British people puts you in exactly the same postion.

So in essence - if you travel to Syria -murder people and make propaganda films about that you have decided that you wish to live outside the rules of
society -no need for the House of Commons to debate anything .

Pontius Navigator

17th Nov 2015, 20:34

Is there really a difference between ordering a crew to drop a dumb bomb at X,Y that may or may not kill a combatant and equally may have collateral deaths too and authorising a smart bomb that will kill a combatant and will not have any collateral casualties?

Pontius Navigator

17th Nov 2015, 20:59

I said deash weak link had to be logistics and lo and behold:
US A-10 Attack Planes Hit ISIS Oil Convoy to Crimp Terror Funding | Military.com (http://m.military.com/daily-news/2015/11/16/us-a10-attack-planes-hit-isis-oil-convoy-crimp-terror-funding.html)

But before we say they got it right, look at this,

Back in Aug 2014
US Squadron of AC- 130 ' could end ISIS in few months time., page 1 (http://www.abovetopsecret.com/forum/thread1026217/pg1)

troppo

17th Nov 2015, 21:14

As a question...why does Russia use long range bombers to launch cruise missiles? Couldn't they be fired from submarines or warships in the area?

Pontius Navigator

17th Nov 2015, 21:24

Troppo, it doesn't follow that they have either ships or missiles in place. Their at sea replenishment may be more difficult than for USN. As for submarines, launching a missile reveals its position; they may wish their submarines to remain covert.

That of course presumes they have the right assets in place. Remember the last time they used ship borne cruise missiles they experienced some unwanted publicity.

troppo

17th Nov 2015, 22:17

Thanks PN.

Troppo, it doesn't follow that they have either ships or missiles in place. Their at sea replenishment may be more difficult than for USN. As for submarines, launching a missile reveals its position; they may wish their submarines to remain covert.

That of course presumes they have the right assets in place. Remember the last time they used ship borne cruise missiles they experienced some unwanted publicity.

Hawker 800

18th Nov 2015, 07:02

I believe that they are.

https://www.rt.com/news/322413-russia-missiles-raqqa-mediterranean/

ORAC

18th Nov 2015, 07:37

They got complaints from Iran when, reportedly, 4 of the SSM fired from the Caspian crashed on their territory en-route. Not sure what route the bombers flew or their launch points. Any reports/supposition?

The Aviationist: (http://theaviationist.com/2015/11/17/russian-tu-22s-joined-the-syria-air-war/)

As initially reported by Reuters, a US official has confirmed that Moscow has conducted a significant number of strikes in Syria using both sea-launched cruise missiles and long-range bombers.

The Russian MoD said 25 long-range bombers took part in the raid: 5 x Tu-160s, 6 x Tu-95MS and 14 x Tu-22M3.

According to one our sources who wishes to remain anonymous, the long-range bombers the Russian Air Force has used against ground targets in Syria early in the morning on Nov. 17 were Tu-22M Backfire strategic bombers.

The aircraft were allegedly launched from Mozdok airbase, in Ossetia, where as many as 6 Tu-22s were spotted on a recent deployment.

Remains of a KH-555 missile wreck were found in Syria: considered that this type of air-launched missile is mainly carried by Tu-95 Bear and Tu-160 Blackjack bombers (Tu-22s have been tested with the KH-555 but full integration is not completed or at least unknown), the long-range bombers that launched the attack on ground targets using those missiles may have been the Tu-95s or Tu-160s flying alongside the Backfires.

Easy Street

18th Nov 2015, 09:55

Dear Regressive Left,

Riddle me this - if terror attacks in the West are a consequence of our record of intolerance, military intervention and interference in the Islamic world, how do you explain the reported threats to stage attacks in Germany (http://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/0/football/34849263), which has pointedly refused to take part in any of said interventions and controversially opened its doors (if only briefly) to unfettered migration?

Yours sincerely,

Me.

Jayand

18th Nov 2015, 10:13

"Put it another way Jayand. In tens years time Corbyn might be PM"
:D
Hangarshuffle, that really is the funniest thing I've heard in a very long time.
You raise a serious point however about state sponsored assination and it's important that our government is responsible, however a large dose of reality is needed here.
This terrorism is a messy business and it requires tough responses, responses that are often reactive, real time intelligence gave the security forces an opportunity to take out a known terrorist, a terrorist guilty of heinious crimes that nobody could deny.
To allow him to walk away to again commit or plan acts when they had a clear chance would be an outrage! To attempt some sort of special forces detention would of risked dozens more lives and likely have failed in such a built up heavily defended area.
It's the same idea as the shoot to kill policy authorised to police for use when terrorists are attacking, It's ludicrous to suggest the police should consider first non lethal methods during an attack!, The ROE has for years been very clear, deadly force is authorised if you or others lives are at risk and there is no other way to prevent it.
How else exactly do you propose stopping an AK47 Shooting, suicide vest wearing religious nutter?

ORAC

18th Nov 2015, 10:15

Dan Hodges in the Torygraph: David Cameron should unilaterally order air strikes on Syria after the Paris attacks (http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/middleeast/syria/12000707/David-Cameron-should-unilaterally-order-air-strikes-on-Syria-after-the-Paris-attacks.html)

So now there is no longer any dispute or debate – not that there ever really was. Jeremy Corbyn is neither willing nor able to keep the people of this country safe from terrorist attack. The idea of him actually securing the office to which he nominally aspires – prime minister of the United Kingdom – would be laughable, were it not so terrifying. But the fact he doesn’t hold that position doesn’t mean he is without influence.

Yesterday, David Cameron was asked about the possibility of authorising UK airstrikes on Isil in Syria, in the wake of the Paris attacks. In response he trotted out what has no become his standard line. "I have always said I think that it is sensible that we should: Isil don't recognise a border between Iraq and Syria and neither should we but I need to build the argument, I need to take it to parliament, I need to convince more people. We won’t hold that vote unless we can see that parliament would endorse action because to fail on this would be damaging. It is not a question of damaging the government it is a question of not damaging our country and its reputation in the world”.

In other words, “I’d like to act, but my hands are tied”. Up until Friday I had some sympathy with the prime minister on this. He tried to do the decent thing in Syria in 2013, but was undermined by the duplicity of Ed Miliband, who gave him assurances of Labour support, then reneged. But Paris has changed all that. The person binding David Cameron’s hands now is David Cameron himself. And the time has come for him to demonstrate the leadership and the political courage to break free.

The prime minister has told the country we need to conduct air strikes on Isil to keep people safe on the streets of Britain. Some people may question that judgement, but it is the view David Cameron holds, and has publicly articulated. And therefore he must now follow through on it.

Given the immediacy of the threat revealed by the Paris attacks, Cameron should unilaterally order air strikes on Isil in Syria. He should not place that decision in the hands of the House of Commons, and he does not need to place that decision in the hands of the House of Commons. He is the prime minister, and as a result, the ultimate authority to deploy Britain’s Armed Forces and security services rests with him, and him alone. He claims he has identified a clear and present danger to our nation’s security, so he a has duty to act on it. He cannot allow the House of Commons to second guess him. He certainly cannot allow the current leader of the opposition to second guess him.

Inevitably, such a decision by the prime minister would provoke a political backlash. Fine. He should confront it. He should challenge the Labour Party to table a motion opposing his actions. He should also challenge the rebels on his own side of the House to vote against their own government on the issue. And he should explain to them this. "If you defeat me I will immediately table a motion of confidence in this administration. I will link it directly to action against Isil in Syria. If you, as a Conservative MP, wish to bring down your own government over an issue of national security, that is your choice."

Then he should address Labour MPs. And he should say this. "If you wish to vote against this confidence motion, you go right ahead. If you defeat that motion, I will resign, and call an immediate general election. It will be an election held on the issue of which party the British people most trust to protect themselves, their families and their communities from the threat of terror. Your candidate in that election – the candidate you will have to endorse on the doorsteps, and argue should replace me in Downing Street – will be Jeremy Corbyn."

The Prime Minister is right when he says the failure of the House of Commons to endorse his stance on Syria would be damaging for Britain’s reputation abroad. But we currently have a situation where David Cameron is saying he wishes to act on a matter of urgent national security, but cannot, because he has insufficient parliamentary authority. That is of itself deeply damaging to our international reputation. It is also a morally abhorrent position to hold, given we are effectively asking our closest allies to risk the lives of their serviceman to keep our streets safe, when we will not.

And it sends another signal. For all the talk of our resolution and reach, the terrorists are now presented with the spectacle of a British prime minister openly admitting he wishes to strike at them, but can’t. We are communicating impotence and irresolution at a time when we should be communicating determination and strength.

David Cameron says we need to launch air-strikes on Isil in Syria to keep this country safe. And if he allows Jeremy Corbyn to exercise a veto over that policy, then it raises this question – if David Cameron won’t stand up to Jeremy Corbyn, who will he stand up to?

ShotOne

18th Nov 2015, 10:50

While there's cross-party agreement on how lamentable Mr Corbyn's performance has been, this isn't about him. We still need a credible plan to defeat IS. If there is one, I've not heard it yet. And ORAC, you need to explain why in 2013 you regarded an air assault on President Assad as "trying to do the decent thing" yet now insist we attack his enemies.

Lonewolf_50

18th Nov 2015, 13:09

And ORAC, you need to explain why in 2013 you regarded an air assault on President Assad as "trying to do the decent thing" yet now insist we attack his enemies.
Thos are not ORAC's words, those are the words of the article he cited in the link at the top. ORAC chooses not to put other people's quotes in a quote block, which can at times be confusing in re what he has to say and what others have to say. I doubt you'll get that explanation, but you might get one from Dan Hodges, the author, if you contact him.

ORAC

18th Nov 2015, 13:43

As L50 says, they are Dan Hodges words, not mine. But on the subject and the question...

In 2013, when Assad was using chemical weapons against his own people, and there was an international push for no-fly zones and air strikes to stop him, I was in favour. In the current situation with the Russians, USA and others attacking various factions, and having already lost the vote in 2013 parliament against further action*, I could see little point in him pressing the point again.

However, if he truly considers it necessary to prevent a direct threat to the UK then, then as Hodges states, he has no option but to act. Further, since France has invoked the Lisbon Treaty asking for support, and are considering invoking NATO article 5, he has a moral and legal basis to do so.

The current position of offering to send a RN destroyer to provide AD cover to the Charles de Gaulle, against an enemy without an offensive air capability, is a craven token gesture to save face whilst proving no real support.

*Note that both Tories and Labour put forward motions to do something about Assad, it was a political battle, not an ethical - and most Labour supporters were as embarrassed at Cameron afterwards, and shocked he just walked away.

The Vote of Shame (http://www.economist.com/blogs/blighty/2013/08/britain-and-syria)

Heathrow Harry

18th Nov 2015, 13:55

"I will resign, and call an immediate general election. It will be an election held on the issue of which party the British people most trust to protect themselves",

historically doing that sort of thing often rebounds and the voters decide they really don't like you - remember Ted Heath and the "Who governs Britain" election ?? That was clearly about the UK and the electorate voted him out

the probelm is YOU think you can control the debate but you can't - it is liable to spiral off in all directions - such as all those people who face losing some of their benifits under Osborn......

and an election would be a month away at least - and a week is a long time in politics...

and under the Fixed term Act they can vote against action in Iraq but refuse to allow a snap election - it needs a specific majority to call an election not the old "Vote of Confidence" and turkeys do not vote for Christmas

He'd have to resign and HMQ then could as Boris to form another Tory Govt .....

Easy Street

18th Nov 2015, 14:13

Far from a "Vote of Shame", Parliament got it right in 2013. The proposed action was utterly pointless. As Lord Richards wisely stated on Today this morning, the only force on the ground in Syria that is sufficiently large and disciplined to defeat the extremists is Assad's army. That much was blindingly obvious two years ago, probably even (privately) to those who had to stick publicly to their governmental lines on training of "moderate" rebels. The doggedness with which the US and UK governments stick to the Saudi line on Assad appals me.

I think the country, and most likely Parliament, would be behind Cameron if he softened his stance on Assad and made ISIL the clear focus of any new vote on Syria.

Pontius Navigator

18th Nov 2015, 14:27

ES, quite, a sovereign force on its own territory and internal lines of communication against rag tag rebels reliant on capricious foreign support.

ORAC

18th Nov 2015, 14:36

ES, quite, a sovereign force on its own territory and internal lines of communication In truth, however, apart from the coastal plain around Latakia and a strip down to Damascus, the Syrian army doesn't hold a lot of ground these days.

Map of Syrian Civil war/ Global conflict in Syria - liveuamap.com (http://syria.liveuamap.com/)

Easy Street

18th Nov 2015, 14:47

Yes ORAC, that is true today, but it wasn't the case when the "Vote of Shame" was taken. I give Lord Richards great credit on this - as CDS he advised Cameron that supporting "moderates" was not a credible or moral course of action, seeing as how it would prolong civil conflict and increase the number of casualties, but he was overruled by other members of the NSC. Those in the region, and increasingly those outside it, are experiencing the consequences of Western leaders' woolly thinking during the first two years of the so-called "Arab Spring".

Given the irredeemable fragmentation of the non-ISIL opposition, I can't see how anything short of a externally-supported resurgence by Assad's forces can possibly re-establish control on the ground. Western armies are not the answer; that is one lesson we definitely have learned over the last 15 years. If there is an alternative, partition into a Shia-Druze-Christian state under Assad (with a Mediterranean base for Putin) and a Sunni-only state under a puppet of Riyadh would appear to offer the best chance of stability - but what a terrible message that would send about the ability of Middle Eastern peoples to live together in harmony. Ahem.

Lonewolf_50

18th Nov 2015, 15:02

The current position of offering to send a RN destroyer to provide AD cover to the Charles de Gaulle, against an enemy without an offensive air capability, is a craven token gesture to save face whilst proving no real support.FWIW, having the destroyer there provides a bit more than just AD for the de Gaulle. The simple for the media to digest sound byte barely covers what putting forces in the area can achieve or abet.

As to moderate freedom fighters ... can whomever the Saudis send money to really be moderate? :confused:

Pontius Navigator

18th Nov 2015, 15:32

In truth, however, apart from the coastal plain around Latakia and a strip down to Damascus, the Syrian army doesn't hold a lot of ground these days.

Map of Syrian Civil war/ Global conflict in Syria - liveuamap.com (http://syria.liveuamap.com/)

Given a free choice, would you prefer to hold a coastal strip, a port and a capital, or the hinterland and no obvious LOC?

If I read the map correctly Syrian Army, Red, holds the high value cards.

ORAC

18th Nov 2015, 15:44

Given a free choice, would you prefer to hold a coastal strip, a port and a capital, or the hinterland and no obvious LOC? If I read the map correctly Syrian Army, Red, holds the high value cards. The only thing of value that the Syrian government earned foreign currency from was oil. And ISIS hold all of them.....

There is always a buyer, and a lot of the air effort is going into shutting down the export routes - not with a great deal of excess.

http://news.bbcimg.co.uk/media/images/77819000/gif/_77819496_iraq_syria_oil_624.gif

Who Is Buying The Islamic State’s Illegal Oil? (http://oilprice.com/Energy/Crude-Oil/Who-Is-Buying-The-Islamic-States-Illegal-Oil.html)

...........The size of the group’s bank account has now risen to an estimated $2 billion dollars, thanks in part to revenues from ransom paid for kidnapped foreigners and more pillaging. However, oil remains the group’s primary source of income.

The 11 oil fields that IS controls in Iraq and Syria have made it a largely independent financial machine. Reports show that IS-controlled fields in Iraq produce between 25,000 and 40,000 barrels of oil per day, at an estimated value of approximately $1.2 million, before being smuggled out to Iran, Kurdistan, Turkey and Syria........

What’s more, now that it controls fertile provinces in western Iraq, such as Anbar and Nineveh, the group also now sits on 40 percent of Iraq’s wheat crop, and can force farmers to deal only with them, sometimes for no pay......

Lonewolf_50

18th Nov 2015, 15:52

The only thing of value that the Syrian government earned foreign currency from was oil. And ISIS hold all of them ... There is always a buyer, and a lot of the air effort is going into shutting down the export routes - not with a great deal of excess.
Did you mean "not with a great deal of success?"
The size of the group’s bank account has now risen to an estimated $2 billion dollars, thanks in part to revenues from ransom paid for kidnapped foreigners and more pillaging. However, oil remains the group’s primary source of income. The oil part of it should be traceable.
The 11 oil fields that IS controls in Iraq and Syria have made it a largely
independent financial machine. Only if they can keep getting it to market and keep production running. Identify, publicly out, and apply pressure to the customers of this illicit oil trade ... hmmm, good luck with that, as I recall Saddam getting around the oil export embargo without that much trouble during the 90's, albeit at reduced volumes.
Reports show that IS-controlled fields in Iraq produce between 25,000 and 40,000
barrels of oil per day, at an estimated value of approximately $1.2 million, before being smuggled out to Iran, Kurdistan, Turkey and Syria. But it has to be refined. IS that not a logistic choke point that can be exploited?
What’s more, now that it controls fertile provinces in western Iraq, such as Anbar and Nineveh, the group also now sits on 40 percent of Iraq’s wheat crop, and can force farmers to deal only with them, sometimes for no pay...... A non trivial problem, to be sure.

Questions:
How does Syrian government retake the Deir Al Zour region?
How do they keep it?
For that matter

How does Mosul get retaken in Iraq?
Who runs it?

Answering those four questions seems to be the first answer to getting Daesh out of their position. Note, it took just over a year of fighting to get ISIS/Daesh out of Baiji.
On 23 October {2015} Iraqi Prime Minister Haider al-Abadi visited the city of Baiji, declaring that Baiji was finally free from ISIL militants (http://rudaw.net/english/middleeast/iraq/241020151), and that the anti-ISIL forces had won a "valuable victory." Al-Abadi also stated that the battle proved the capabilities of the Iraqi forces, and a Shi'ite commander stated that his forces were removing the IEDs and landmines left behind by ISIL in the city.

larssnowpharter

18th Nov 2015, 16:52

One imagines many people in Whitehall working on Cameron's briefing paper on air strikes in Syria that he promises to deliver to Parliament in the next few days.

I would love to see two things:

a. A clearly stated military objective.

b. A clearly stated political objective.

I don't think I will hold my breath though.

Lonewolf_50

18th Nov 2015, 17:04

The Islamic State raises millions of dollars a week (http://www.nbcnews.com/storyline/isis-terror/u-s-allies-struggle-cut-out-isis-diverse-financial-roots-n465046) ...
... from "taxation" and outright extortion of businesses and local government and civilian workers, according to Howard Shatz, a senior economist at the Rand Corp. "ISIS raises much of its money just as a well-organized criminal gang would do; it smuggles, it extorts, it skims, it fences, it kidnaps and it shakes down," he wrote in a blog post.

Last year, ISIS raised ~ $20 million from kidnapping alone, according to US Treasury Department. (Not sure how they figured this out ...)

As of last year, ISIS controlled as much as 350,000 barrels per day production capacity in Iraq and Syria, but was only able to produce 50,000 to 60,000 barrels a day, according to estimates from IHS.
The oil is sold on the black market, mostly via trucks smuggling it over the border to Turkey, a route first established more than a decade ago by former Iraqi dictator Saddam Hussein, who used the black market to evade sanctions on oil sales.
That supply chain, created to evade the U.N.'s oil-for-food program, still provides a ready market for oil and diesel fuel produced at facilities seized by ISIS.
The group has set up what amounts to its own oil company, recruiting trained engineers and managers through a human resources department and offering competitive salaries; some formerly worked at the oilfields now under ISIS control, according to the Financial Times.
ISIS made more smuggling oil than first estimated (http://www.nbcnews.com/storyline/isis-terror/isis-makes-three-times-much-oil-smuggling-previously-thought-officials-n397836).

(Bullet points, summary from the source)
... the amount of money ISIS can earn from selling and smuggling oil and gas is roughly to $8 to $10 million a month.
Oil smuggling, much of it to Turkey, is a key source of income for ISIS.
The group uses the money in part to pay its fighters monthly salaries and provide stipends to their families. Foreign fighters (highest paid)earn up to $1,000 a month, per Syrian sources.
ISIS sells oil and gas everywhere. It sells within Syria, and to the Syrian regime. It sells in Iraq. It is a more extensive and complex market than we assumed," a senior counter-terrorism official said.

@lars: if you want to see a clearly defined and executed strategy that might work, check any history web site and look at Winfield Scott's Anaconda Plan (http://www.civilwaracademy.com/anaconda-plan.html) that was the initial plan to defeating the CSA. It wasn't all that popular since it would not put down the rebellion quickly. It's ideological child, born a couple of years later, more or less worked as Grant and then Sherman put into place the plan that shut down the South's economic engines one at a time, while the battles in Virginia went back and forth. People are currently calling such an approach to Daesh "the long squeeze" in some of the commentary I've seen, but that's talking heads.

What a government leader will "sell" to the legislature or the public is quite another matter.

Hangarshuffle

18th Nov 2015, 17:24

Thing is we don't have the death penalty for murder in the UK. I don't even think we even really have the law to enforce XPD (Expedient Demise) as Len Deighton wrote in the brilliant book (STBC here).
Why the death penalty applicable abroad then? That the state can kill its own citizen without recourse to a judge or a jury? We are not in a declared state of war. ISIS has made our own elected Govt. put us into a very dark place with this. ISIS have reduced us to this self-enforced low level with a few simple barbaric acts. Sorry Riley, we agree to disagree. Our elected MPs have to my knowledge never debated and decided upon this drastic course of state action. Forget John - it's the ground-stone basic principals of our British law and the role of the state which we seem to be dramatically abandoning very (far too) quickly.

Mach I think multiple issues are rapidly evolving. I don't think our UK mainland Police once a force, now a service (see that?) can presently even remotely cope with the present high threat if it becomes actual.
Forcibly very evident how well the rich and powerful in this country are guarding themselves at present. Cenotaph on RS; a ring of police/security around HM Queen, her subs and members of HM Govt. 6 hours later, I'm still in the pub, the Police have gone and we are truly on our own.
The media debate is very selfishly focused on guarding the capital and those most powerful who reside and work within it. What exactly about the other 50 odd million who reside here on the same islands? The runes don't read well.
One UK Police force in recent history couldn't even react correctly when 1 mad taxi driver went on the gun rampage in west Cumbria.
My local force have very few ARV, would take many minutes to form up and react to an Mumbai/Paris type incident.
I would seriously back well trained, experienced UK troops in an urban situation, because it's all we really have.
The authorities in the UK have had decades to come to some sensible arrangements, but seem to have achieved very little.
Concede it's a massive political loss of face to have to use military for domestic security and there we have the answer to the question.

* Apologies - been trying to post this back all day. But was blocked out from doing so by my companies own internet policy. I work alongside hundreds of French er workers, many with loved ones, friends etc in Paris... they bore up well - live news feeds must be torture.

Hangarshuffle

18th Nov 2015, 17:37

Got to disagree ORAC. Think the vote really failed because the UK public have lost faith with UK military ability in these situations. And that reflected onto all MPs who give a damn. I personally e-mailed my MP and told him what to do ie vote against it). He didn't give a damn what I thought. And is no longer an MP (funny that, he lost his seat).
Cameron is desperate to join in. He is so strange, such a strange beast. Reduce the military capability, but look for war. How quickly he must have ripped that poppy off last Sunday.
How much does 1 x smart bomb cost?* (23,000 USD = 1 x GBU 10 whatever that is, according to google, just now - about the same as a Private or Corporal in the Army gets?). Why not save buying them, spend the money on a real defence force for within the UK's own islands?
* That French assault this morning expended 5000 rounds fired, BBC World are reporting!! I doubt the whole on-duty UK police force has that number of bullets available altogether at any given minute. (standfast PSNI)?

Pontius Navigator

18th Nov 2015, 18:29

I hear daesh has been subject to a cyber attack and had its Twitter accounts taken down

Lonewolf_50

18th Nov 2015, 18:33

I hear daesh has been subject to a cyber attack and had its Twitter accounts taken down How is that harmful? :8:}

MAINJAFAD

18th Nov 2015, 19:18

How is that harmful?

Rule number 2 of Principles of war - Maintenance of Morale (Joke doing the rounds on Facebook).

I heard that the Cyber hacker Group Anonymous, has declared war on ISIS and Al-quada.

Seems ironic that the 72 virgins are now attacking the terrorists.

Hangarshuffle

18th Nov 2015, 19:57

David Cameron: I will push ahead with Syrian air strikes - Telegraph (http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/politics/conservative/12004110/David-Cameron-I-will-push-ahead-with-Syrian-air-strikes.html)

They are telling it loud as they can, possibly shouting down anyone who disagrees.
I find this a little disturbing. Why are these air raids going to be so important to the nation? Most of the UK public would be hard put to agree with any of points for attacking ISIS by air/missile/drone. They (our public) will have noted that:
1. Everyone who has taken on ISIS recently has suffered very quick terrorist attacks in response involving mass casualties and terror. Even Russia.
2. We are probably as a country incapable of defending ourselves on our own turf even as well as the French, if ISIS can penetrate past our pretty brilliant secret services/ code breakers/undercover agents and the like. We have been very fortunate to have these good people looking after to us for now, but will the extra element of luck hold?
WTF is it with the Daily Telegraph these days? I find it almost bloody unrecognisable as a newspaper. Politically I'm miles away from it, and now never more so, but I always used (up to a point) actually trust some of its reporting. Its coverage is biased and shrieking, horrible.

* RAF historians lurking here, out of interest to me alone can anyone point to me when an air attack, an air raid has made a profound input/difference to a war or battle. Real strategic impact. As PM Dave C. seems to be weighing up here?
Am I right in thinking two - the "Dam Buster" raids as one, and the operation on the night of the 17th/18th August 1943 against the research/testing centres for the V weapons program? What else? Amiens Prison?
Will this coming RAF v.ISIS attack be comparable?
If I don't reply in thanks, don't worry, I can still read yours - my replies are regularly blatted out by "company internet rules" dark forces.

RileyDove

18th Nov 2015, 20:00

Dropping two atomic weapons on Japan seemed to make them have a head scratch moment and decide to surrender.

Is that a significant moment in aerial bombardment ? Seemed to work for the Americans !

'I find this a little disturbing. Why are these air raids going to be so important to the nation? Most of the UK public would be hard put to agree with any of points for attacking ISIS by air/missile/drone'

Would they ? Have you carried out an idependent poll ? Most people realise that their holidays to Egypt or that nice romantic break to Paris is going to be a bit difficult now -certainly added queues at Dover ! Plus the RAF has large stocks of weapons -all of these bombs have expiry dates -its costs tax payer money to dispose of them . Exploding them reduces environmental issues in this country and onerous paperwork trails for civil servants.

'Everyone who has taken on ISIS recently has suffered very quick terrorist attacks in response involving mass casualties and terror. Even Russia'

Indeed I have come to the conclusion from all you have written that they are really not very nice people -infact the wife was discussing earlier who we should miss off the Christmas card list this year and at the moment they are top (ISIS) followed in close second by that relative who received a card last year and didnt return the guesture!

Lonewolf_50

18th Nov 2015, 20:02

David Cameron: I will push ahead with Syrian air strikes - Telegraph (http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/politics/conservative/12004110/David-Cameron-I-will-push-ahead-with-Syrian-air-strikes.html)

* RAF historians lurking here, out of interest to me alone can anyone point to me when an air attack, an air raid has made a profound input/difference to a war or battle. Real strategic impact. As PM Dave C. seems to be weighing up here?
The USAF sometimes claimed to have won the war over Serbia in 70 days of bombing. :p
Air attacks in the six weeks leading up to Desert Storm going live in the ground op set up the battle field pretty well. Not sure if that is what you were looking for.
How many raids are you looking for as a criterion?
The Apache and SEAD/Wild Weasel ops before Desert Storm opened the door for that air campaign.
Taranto: significant impact on the freedom of the seas for Royal Navy in the Med.
Pearl Harbor: significant impact on US strategy in Pacific, which had knock on effect strategically on how much aid/materiel could be sent to Europe in the infamous "Europe First" decision. (You'll want to read up on Admiral King, USN, and his sometimes contentious relationship with the opposite numbers among the Brits on the combined staff ...)

Also, just because ISIS/Daesh will strike back is no reason not to strike. For the UK, are the reasons to date sufficient? Not sure, not my country, and out of my lane.

AreOut

18th Nov 2015, 20:05

certainly it is, and they were also very fanatic and going kamikaze

war in Syria has produced hundreds of thousands of dead people, millions of refugees and billions of damage

couple of nukes at the beginning would likely make 1/10th of that damage and the war would be over

Lonewolf_50

18th Nov 2015, 20:07

RileyDove

18th Nov 2015, 20:30

RileyDove

18th Nov 2015, 20:32

Vinrouge - I think most people will be thinking that!

mopardave

18th Nov 2015, 21:27

Is it me.......but when is camaroon going to grow a pair and start talking like a world leader? I'm sick of his grovelling justification for the limited involvement we have here.
Right or wrong......Hollande has gone right up in my estimation. He said it was an act of war and he responded accordingly......can anyone imagine Camaroon having the back bone to do something like that? Nah.......I certainly can't! Hollande has now said (I'm paraphrasing here) "that the security of France is more important than EU rules".....respect!!!
Camaroon........:ugh:

mopardave

18th Nov 2015, 21:29

Couldnt happen to a nicer bunch of mass raping and murdering scumbags.

:ok:ok::ok:

Pontius Navigator

18th Nov 2015, 21:33

Didn't I say go for the logistics tail?

RileyDove

18th Nov 2015, 21:46

Reports from Syria are that ISIS leadership figures have started to move out of Raqqa to Mosul . Be nice to have all the dirty linen in one basket!

Easy Street

18th Nov 2015, 23:48

Hangarshuffle,

The air campaign in Libya was the decisive factor in the west's achievement of its military objectives. There was one British casualty: in a road accident in Europe. The ability to wield such influence at low political risk is a decisive advantage for air power. The fact that the Libyan state disintegrated two years later is beside the point. That speaks to a poor political strategy; the military strategy was perfect. The presence of western troops wouldn't have stopped the breakdown in relations between the leading factions.

The "accidental" bombing of Berlin in 1940 had a famously strategic effect.

The Black Buck raid is assessed to have forced the Argies to move their Mirages north to defend Buenos Aires, meaning they could not threaten our Harriers.

The Israelis' pre-emptive destruction of the Egyptian air force on the ground in 1967.

Shall we keep going?

ORAC

19th Nov 2015, 06:18

Hiroshima and Nagasaki might be considered significant at the end of WWII, but Pearl Harbor was a perhaps equally profound input at the other end........

thunderbird7

19th Nov 2015, 06:42

John Eacott

19th Nov 2015, 06:44

* RAF historians lurking here, out of interest to me alone can anyone point to me when an air attack, an air raid has made a profound input/difference to a war or battle. Real strategic impact. As PM Dave C. seems to be weighing up here?
Am I right in thinking two - the "Dam Buster" raids as one, and the operation on the night of the 17th/18th August 1943 against the research/testing centres for the V weapons program? What else? Amiens Prison?
Will this coming RAF v.ISIS attack be comparable?
If I don't reply in thanks, don't worry, I can still read yours - my replies are regularly blatted out by "company internet rules" dark forces.

There are also Naval historians here; the Battle of the Coral Sea where neither side's ships sighted nor fired directly on each other, with all sinkings of capital ships carried out by air strikes. A turning point in the Pacific theatre.

AreOut

19th Nov 2015, 08:01

Dropped where?

Somewhere around border with S. Arabia that started all of this?

Above The Clouds

19th Nov 2015, 08:19

Hangarshuffle
RAF historians lurking here, out of interest to me alone can anyone point to me when an air attack, an air raid has made a profound input/difference to a war or battle. Real strategic impact.

A large bucket of sunshine dropped on Japan pretty much brought an end to their involvement in WWII and the war itself.

Easy Street

19th Nov 2015, 09:18

Stating that the bombing of Libya won the campaign on its own or that the bombing of Iraq helped win the ground war are both mis-understanding the definition of 'win'. Look at the state of both countries now. No bombing campaign in isolation can win anything - it is simply a step on the way to further action be it boots on the ground or diplomatic to force change on a nation. You can bomb them back to the stone age but unless you come up with long term viable alternative solutions for people on the ground, you will breed festering bitterness and resentment that will manifest itself in years to come.... as we see now.

"Boots on the ground" are no more capable of delivering long-term solutions than air power, unless they stay there forever as an army of occupation. An equally true statement for you:

"Stating that a ground force won a war on its own is mis-understanding the definition of 'win'. No military campaign in isolation can win anything - it is simply a step on the way to further action to force change on a nation. You can occupy them until the end of time but unless you come up with long term viable alternative solutions for people on the ground, you will breed festering bitterness and resentment that will manifest itself in years to come.... as we saw in pretty much every western land operation in the Middle East or Asia since WW2."

Even the great land campaign that finished WW2 in Europe did not deliver a "long term viable alternative solution" on its own; such matters as the Marshall Plan, the Nuremberg Trials and de-Nazification must be considered as parts of the long-term Allied victory. It's facile to refer to 'people on the ground' as a way of intimating that only action 'on the ground' can have decisive effect. We all live on the ground, so of course that is where the ultimate political effects of military action are felt. But decisive military effects can be delivered from any environment, for example by naval blockade.

Air power achieved the west's military goals in Libya, by tipping the balance decisively in favour of the local ground forces we wanted to win. Do you think that if we had used western land forces instead, the eventual political outcome would have been any different? Remember that initially the political settlement looked good - it was only THREE YEARS later than it broke down after a disputed second election. The only way land forces could have made any difference to that is if they had stayed in Libya for that entire period to disarm the militias and provide internal security until an army acceptable to all the tribes could have been formed. I think that is in the realm of fantasy, both practically and politically. That does bring into question whether we should have intervened at all, but it doesn't change the substance of my point that decisive military effect can be delivered from any of the environments, air included.

MAINJAFAD

19th Nov 2015, 09:20

'RAF historians lurking here, out of interest to me alone can anyone point to me when an air attack, an air raid has made a profound input/difference to a war or battle. Real strategic impact

Two cases in 1944/45 as regards the assault on Germany. The campaign against oil targets from June 1944 onwards and the Transportation plan which was originally aimed at supporting the effort for Overlord, but was continued right to the end of the war (attacks on rail, canal and road infrastructure). The infamous Dresden raid very much fell in the latter. The Germans basically ran out of oil and the poor communications made the bringing together of components for weapons very difficult (as well as moving those weapons and the forces using them from a to b) in any good weather. It was Harris's refusal to put as much effort into the two plans in late 1944 that almost resulted in Portal sacking him (though in the end, Bomber Command dropped more tonnage on oil targets than the USAAF did).

Hit those two targets in the ISIS areas without mercy (kill anything that moves between the towns and cities) and they will be in serious trouble as PN has correctly observed.

Danny42C

19th Nov 2015, 09:20

John (your #175),

All true, but I think that the turning point in the Japanese war was rather Midway. That removed all seaborne threat to the W.Coast cities of the US, and more importantly broke the back of Japanese naval air power in the Pacific. From then on the war in that theatre could only go one way: there was no way back for Japan, as the American yards could out-build them three to one.

The Dams raid, although it was a partial success in its stated objective, had an enormous "unintended consequence". The Germans rebuilt the Dams in a few months, but at a fatal cost - the diversion of civil engineering resources from other tasks - among them from finishing off the Normandy section of Hitler's "West Wall". The next year we went ashore there, and "the rest is history".

Of course, the prime example has to be the Hiroshima bomb. "People say", declared Air Marshal Harris in 1942 (?), "that aerial bombing alone can never win a war. I would say that it has not been tried yet, and we shall see"......Three years later we saw. I have a particular interest in this, I was out there at the time, we all knew that the final stage of the land/sea war would have to be an invasion of the Japanese homeland, and that was a fearsome prospect. It was conservatively estimated that it would cost a million Allied lives (very possibly including yours truly !) to subjugate Japan.

Pontius Navigator (#170) is on the button. On another Thread somewhere a few days ago was an account of the US using the "obsolete" Giant Warthogs to take out a convoy of ISIS oil tankers on their way to market. Now there's a really good idea ! I assume that there isn't a pipeline they can use (or the stuff would never be on the road), and a camel can't shift much.

Danny.

ORAC

19th Nov 2015, 10:01

Returning to the origin subject and Paris - it would seem the latest cell were caught by the usual achilles heel - their phones. Link below and a rough translation from Bing.

Attentats : les terroristes trahis par leurs téléphones (http://tempsreel.nouvelobs.com/attentats-terroristes-a-paris/20151118.OBS9750/attentats-les-terroristes-trahis-par-leurs-telephones.html)

Attacks: terrorists betrayed by their phones

A laptop containing a plan of the Bataclan and a text message found near the location of the attack helped to trace the apartments as well as monitoring of the cousin of Abaaoud phone.

Tuesday, Mediapart can reveal the existence of the first clue: a phone found in a trash can near the Bataclan, containing a detailed plan of the concert hall and an SMS written at 9:42 pm Friday night, revealed by an informant as saying:

"It is gone. It begins."

This phone, according to the information of the informant, enabled the location one of the terrorist "hideouts". Searching through the phone geolocation data, investigators discover that the terrorists passed through Alfortville (Val-de-Marne) just before the attack. Salah Abdeslam, for whom they were already searching, was found to have rented two bedrooms in the Hotel Alfortville.

Investigators have not established the identity of the recipient of the SMS or what terrorist of the Bataclan attack owned the phone. But this SMS confirmed coordination of the attack wit an outsider. A restaurant client told the "Figaro" that the assailants Polo was parked on the street near Bataclan, prior to the attack and that at least one of them was using a Smartphone:

"I saw the face of the driver and the passenger as they began to tap on the smartphone, making it light up their faces. It was the passenger who was to using his mobile phone."

Saint-Denis hideout found thanks to the "telephony"

Since Friday, the mobile phones of terrorists were at the center of the investigation and the Paris Prosecutor hinted Wednesday morning that telephone tapping had identified Saint-Denis as the possible hideout and base of Belgian jihadist Abdelhamid Abaaoud, the alleged attack's sponsor.

"In this investigation, much work was carried out and allowed to obtain, by telephony, surveillance and testimony, which could suggest that the named [AAA] Abaaoud could be found in a conspirators apartment in Saint-Denis", said François Molins after the end of the police assault launched in the early morning.

The weak point of the terrorists? According to our information, Abaaoud's own cousin, a young Frenchwoman of Moroccan origin who was, as explained by Itele, triply monitored by the judicial services (Sdat), police and intelligence. It was she who died Wednesday morning in the explosion of her explosive vest, within the first minutes of the assault.

Not without, as TF1 has learned from a source close to the investigation, making a final phone call... possibly to "warn accomplices", that investigators have yet to identify.

ExRAFRadar

19th Nov 2015, 10:13

A large bucket of sunshine dropped on Japan pretty much brought an end to their involvement in WWII and the war itself.

Let's not forget that when that was dropped no one else in the entire world had Nukes.

I know ISIS do not have them.

But let's get specific instead of just writing 'Nuke them'

Come on Armchair strategists, give me your targeting lists, yield and delivery systems.

Raqqa and Mosul I assume? 1, 5 or 10 Kiloton? 2 or 3 warheads to spread the damage or one big **** off 1 Megaton weapon.

What about fallout patterns? Any analysis done as to where this stuff is going to come down?

Can we confirm all the leaders of ISIS are within the blast radius of the weapons? Or is this simply a demonstration of mass firepower and wanton destruction?

And just suppose that we do employ nuclear weapons and then another Paris type outrage happens anyway. We have used our weapons of last resort and failed. What then?

Start expanding the target list to countries that support ISIS with logistical and financial support?

I look forward to your planning documents.

ShotOne

19th Nov 2015, 11:18

"You can bomb them back to the Stone Age..." Which, unfortunately, is exactly where IS want to be!

The "let's bomb"/"don't bomb" argument is all very well but what's missing so far is a coherent plan as to how extending the air assault will achieve victory. Or even agreement as to what would constitute victory.

ORAC

19th Nov 2015, 11:31

Worth reading.

As everyone else was hoisting the French flag on Facebook, a Dutch student named Hanna gave her profile picture the colors of the Syrian flag. The act led to a spirited chat on WhatsApp with her dad, who runs out of comebacks as their conversation goes on. Meanwhile, Hanna shares insights quite a few government leaders could learn from.

WhatsApp after Paris: 18-year-old Hanna teaches her dad a thing or two (https://decorrespondent.nl/3650/WhatsApp-after-Paris-18-year-old-Hanna-teaches-her-dad-a-thing-or-two-/83427444100-bb761593)

Eighteen-year-old Hanna Nijenhuis wrote her final term paper at her Dutch high school on why the United States managed to win two world wars yet has failed in smaller conflicts. These days, Hanna studies German in Berlin. Her father, Hans Nijenhuis, is opinion editor of the respected Dutch daily newspaper NRC Handelsblad. Last Monday night, they had the following chat on WhatsApp.

cats_five

19th Nov 2015, 11:59

Not quite sure how we close 2000km of borders in mainland Europe.

<snip>

Many years ago I went on holiday to the Pyrenees, staying in Lescun. There was the day I was dropped off to walk up one of the gorges. I popped out at the top, over into Spain, with not another person in sight. I could have easily carried on to Madrid, given enough time and a credit card or two.

I've also scrambled up to and along the French-Swiss border and walked from there down to a Swiss hut.

You are quite right, whatever border controls are in place there are many places where at the right time of year it's ever so easy to walk from one country to another.

ExRAFRadar

19th Nov 2015, 12:05

who runs out of comebacks as their conversation goes onI have a 17 year old daughter and that is a common occurrence. Does not mean she is always right.

Evening Standard had a piece in it last night as to why the deaths in places like Africa do not get as much column inches as the events that happened in France. Cannot find a link but it basically said 'the further the distance, the less they can sell it'. Harsh but true.

And as her father I would have had some serious words with her, and a very, very one sided conversation about her personal security if she displayed a Syrian flag at this time on her Farcebook page.

Out of interest what was her profile picture before the attacks in Paris?

One of those soft lighted 3/4 turn to the camera shots that make the user look good?

Edit to add: Yes I know Syria is not ISIS. But lunatics on the net are not known for their ability to discriminate or for their sense of reason.

Lonewolf_50

19th Nov 2015, 13:54

I look forward to your planning documents. I don't think anyone was or is advocating the use of nukes, but were responding to "when did air power/airstrike" do something decisive?"

Completely agree with your point on what has to be considered if nukes are even on the table, which I am pretty sure they are NOT in either political or military leadership circles.

ExRAFRadar

19th Nov 2015, 14:05

I agree Lonewolf, I assume they are not being considered but the military would be remiss if they are not at least gaming out some scenario that involves the application of E=MC2

My main 'annoyance' I guess is the word I am looking for is the

"when did air power/airstrike" do something decisive?"bit and people using WW2 as the example.

As I said, no one had nuclear weapons when that happened except the people using them.

To infer the events in August 1945 have any bearing on the multi-polar and heavily nuclear armed world of today is completely false.

Lonewolf_50

19th Nov 2015, 14:10

I agree Lonewolf, I assume they are not being considered but the military would be remiss if they are not at least gaming out some scenario that involves the application of E=MC2 With respect, I disagree. Unless there is political direction to begin that planning process, there is no reason to waste the time on that. (I think we've both been staff officers?) I helped to retire some Op Plans using tactical nukes when I worked in NATO. (Yay, never was a burn bag better used, IMO). The general stepping back from the assumed use of tactical nukes when the Wall came down, and for that matter the negotiations in the 80's with that objective in mind, has not been reversed at the political level. I'll suggest quite the opposite.
To infer the events in August 1945 have any bearing on the multi-polar and heavily nuclear armed world of today is completely false.
Agreed completely. Each situation is evaluated on its own merits and demerits -- there is no cookie cutter (I can still hear our instructor at the Staff College stamping his feet each time he said that :hmm:).

Above The Clouds

19th Nov 2015, 14:22

ExRafRadar
But let's get specific instead of just writing 'Nuke them'I look forward to your planning documents.

My quote reference a large bucket of sunshine was not a strategic targeting plan or reference to wanton destruction. It was an answer to a direct question from Hangarshuffle, which clearly had a direct impact on ending WWII.

Hangarshuffle
RAF historians lurking here, out of interest to me alone can anyone point to me when an air attack, an air raid has made a profound input/difference to a war or battle. Real strategic impact.

A large bucket of sunshine dropped on Japan pretty much brought an end to their involvement in WWII and the war itself.

ExRAFRadar

19th Nov 2015, 14:26

Unless there is political direction to begin that planning process, there is no reason to waste the time on that.

Lonewolf you are quite correct, think I fell into my own trap. Remember that horrible old saying about West German towns being 10 Kilotons apart?

Staff Officer - Never sir, Other Rank myself. I used to work for a living.:ok:

ExRAFRadar

19th Nov 2015, 14:28

ATC - apologies. I took it out of context and did my own inferring.

I think I was getting this thread and the one in JB a bit mixed up.

Lonewolf_50

19th Nov 2015, 14:36

Lonewolf you are quite correct, think I fell into my own trap. Remember that horrible old saying about West German towns being 10 Kilotons apart? Heh, that takes me back to my misspent youth ...
Staff Officer - Never sir, Other Rank myself. I used to work for a living.:ok: Sorry, bad guess on my part, and thanks for all of that work! :ok:

Above The Clouds

19th Nov 2015, 14:47

ExRafRadarATC - apologies.
I took it out of context and did my own inferring.

I think I was getting this thread and the one in JB a bit mixed up.

It happens to us all eventually :confused: but don't worry I have re-alligned my armchair position for a better key board aiming strategy :)

glad rag

19th Nov 2015, 14:49

Basil

19th Nov 2015, 15:05

From the Hanna exchange: Two days before Paris, a bunch of people died in attacks in Beirut. But I’m not seeing Lebanese flags anywhere.

Beirut, once 'the Paris of the Middle East'.

Pontius Navigator

19th Nov 2015, 15:12

The "accidental" bombing of Berlin in 1940 had a famously strategic effect.
There was an earlier accidental bombing that was later used to justify bombing of cities. Arguably this too had a most significant effect though in tit end the opposite of what was intended.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bombing_of_Freiburg_on_10_May_1940

Same again

19th Nov 2015, 17:36

Nigeria's Dasuki 'stole $2bn' from anti-Boko Haram fight - BBC News (http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-africa-34855695)

Might go some way to explain why the Nigerian problem has not been solved.

Hangarshuffle

19th Nov 2015, 18:04

Yes some good answers, missions and events that I must have once read about but had also now forgotten about.
I'm agreeing with Shot One. We can be involved in bombing somewhere yet again, but that alone wont ever end the cycle of violence...is our involvement going to be even worth it?
I would simply like to keep the foreign war money and transfer it to home defence in its very various meanings and ways. Preferably, a last line of defence - armed troops to guard major conurbations, towns, our transport systems. To shoot back at them, if it has to come to that, to take them down. Its a sobering thought and hardly an ideal strategy, really.
The defence of the UK seems to be entirely focused around London, but the attacks could come anywhere, when they come, and they probably will if we start bombing...Glasgow Airport attack hardly anyone ever seems to mention.
* I got the nod from my boss to write off London as a traffic/transit hub if I wish... no more tube or train from now on in or out of the city. It will probably cost us slightly more money as a company. All this hardly makes me proud of myself or feel clever about it... reduce the risk ALARP.
HS.

Pontius Navigator

19th Nov 2015, 18:48

On the bucket of sunshine issue, I wonder if a low yield, airburst in a low population area or even a depopulated area after warning, might have had a salutary effect by showing resolve.

I am not limiting this to the current situation but say Korea, Vietnam, Iran, Iraq, Libya etc. May just one bomb in previous situations might have worked for years after and saved lots of lives.

Or would the Genie have been let loose?

Back in 1964 the sudden appearance of four Vulcans sitting at Khormaksar apparently coincided with a drop in activity. Deployment of Valiants might ha bbc e had a similar effect with Kuwait in 61.

Lonewolf_50

19th Nov 2015, 18:50

Or would the Genie have been let loose? When one makes a demonstration, the enemy is not required to react as one hopes or expects. With that in mind, I suggest that the idea
a low yield, airburst in a low population area or even a depopulated area after warning,
isn't a very good one.

I think that the collateral political damage/downside would be non trivial, and the political push back from players and parties all over the globe non-linear as compared to the input: the proposed demonstration.

Let's park that one in the "can't sell it" box and look for some other ideas.

Pontius Navigator

19th Nov 2015, 18:56

Just speculating; it did work once.

Personally I think it is too late now. It is morally indefensible now but had it been used in Korea, thus demonstrating willingness, it might have stopped other conflicts dead from a deterrence perspective.

ORAC

19th Nov 2015, 19:57

Let the Bastards Be Scared (http://takimag.com/article/let_the_bastards_be_scared_david_cole/print)

ORAC

19th Nov 2015, 20:21

AFPThursday, 19 November 2015

France urged the U.N. Security Council on Thursday to authorize countries to “take all necessary measures” to fight ISIS after the jihadists claimed responsibility for the Paris attacks. A draft resolution presented to the 15-member council called on U.N. member states to “redouble and coordinate their efforts to prevent and suppress terrorist acts committed specifically by ISIL” and groups linked to Al-Qaeda......

“The exceptional and unprecedented threat posed by this group to the entire international community requires a strong, united and unambiguous response from the Security Council,” French Ambassador Francois Delattre said. “This is the goal of our draft resolution, which calls on all member states to take all necessary measures to fight Daesh (ISIS).”

Delattre said he was seeking rapid approval of the draft resolution that was “put in blue” -- a U.N. term designating that a final version is ready for a vote at the Security Council.

France’s bid for U.N. backing came after Russia submitted a revised text of a separate draft resolution that calls for fighting the ISIS group with Syria’s consent. That draft has been rejected by the United States, Britain and France, which are refusing to cooperate with President Bashar al-Assad’s regime, whom they accuse of fomenting extremism by resorting to brutality.

The French draft resolution does not provide any legal basis for military action and does not invoke chapter seven of the U.N. charter that authorizes the use of force. French diplomats maintain though that it will provide important international political support to the anti-ISIS campaign that has been ramped up since the attacks in Paris on Friday that left 129 dead.

The French draft text describes ISIS as a “global and unprecedented threat to international peace and security” and said sanctions would soon be imposed against ISIS leaders and supporters. The text “unequivocally condemns in the strongest terms the horrifying terrorist attacks” by ISIS in Paris and Beirut, and also mentions violence in Tunisia, Turkey and Egypt this year.........

Whenurhappy

19th Nov 2015, 20:55

There was an earlier accidental bombing that was later used to justify bombing of cities. Arguably this too had a most significant effect though in tit end the opposite of what was intended.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bombing_of_Freiburg_on_10_May_1940

We forget that the has been numerous hit and run raids against purely civilian targets in England by the Luftwaffe before the raid on Berlin; they were just not as concentrated and therefore garner little attention. In other words "they started it". See Richard Overy's BoB pocket book. A damn good read.

al_renko

19th Nov 2015, 20:58

No surprise to me they were rounded up quickly,correct me if I am wrong but what we seemed to have here are a bunch of drug taking,Internet junkies,mobile phone ranters who think they are geniuses for crossing open bordered countries.Anyways The House of Saud are the ones pulling the strings.
Al.

Pontius Navigator

19th Nov 2015, 21:00

Wuh, do you have a date? Sources suggest Jul 40 ie after Freiburg.

Found this

The attacks by the Royal Air Force (RAF) on German cities began with the attack on Wilhelmshaven on 5 September 1939.

On 11 May the British Cabinet decided to unleash the Bomber Command on the air war against the German hinterland. The following night British planes aimlessly dropped bombs for the first time on residential areas of Mönchengladbach-Rheydt. And from then on made such attacks on cities in the Ruhr area night after night. Up to 13 May 1940, i.e. two days later,the German side registered a total of 51 British air attacks on non-military targets plus 14 attacks on military targets such as bridges, railway tracks, defense and industrial plants. The first carpet bombing of a German city was in the night from 15 to 16 May 1940 in Duisburg. After that the RAF committed repeated air attacks on German cities. The night of 24th August 1940 - bombs meant to be dropped on the Thames haven oil storage depot and on the Short's factory at Rochester, by mistake or simply because they were randomly unloaded in order to escape fighters, fell on the City of London and nine other districts inside the Greater London limit. Incendiaries lit fires in Bethnal Green, and St Giles' Church in Cripplegate was damaged. Oxford Street department storeswere damaged. Nine people were killed and 58 injured.

http://fr.scribd.com/doc/87187334/Churc ... ties-FirstHis

NutLoose

19th Nov 2015, 21:02

Nuke them?
Do you know how much paperwork that would raise, the risk assessment and health and safety protocols alone would make the Encyclopedia Brittanica look like a short story.

27mm

20th Nov 2015, 06:09

A better option could be to deploy the French Foreign Legion......or the Gurkhas....

charliegolf

20th Nov 2015, 09:45

Obviously no nukes... What about dropping a fuel air bomb on them, and immediately (all governments) spinning reports from Syria that a massive suicide bomb has exploded possibly whilst being assembled for road transport? Works for me.

CG

Hangarshuffle

20th Nov 2015, 16:36

In mathematics (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mathematics), a spiral is a curve (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Curve) which emanates from a central point, getting progressively farther away as it revolves around the point. (wiki)

In my mind recently I've been comparing ideas about a theory I have about warfare, fighting.
That it is incredibly difficult to finalize, to halt -rather like the spiral (but it can be done). And it can extend and grow like a logarithm spiral in proportion to the time it evolves through. Spirals seem common in nature, much more than I ever realized.

In some of your feedback I wonder if the start of a particular (air) battle evolves in the same way? The 1940 RAF Berlin air raid being relatively very small, but it then led directly to the Blitz, which led to Cologne in 1942, Hamburg in 1943 and Dresden in 1945 (with more bombs dropped in year 1945 than all the previous together).

Or Taranto in 1940, to the Afrika Korp involvement in 1941, Malta and Pedestal in 1942, American involvement in late 1942 with (El Alamein) again generally increasing.

I could go on a little more but wont. Its only a theory. I'm sure you are familiar with it.

Where are we now, in November 2015, in the battle against ISIS? Don't say you are lost with my theory.
With Cameron I would say absolutely desperate to involve the RAF, with Russian involvement and their destroyed airliner, a massive Paris massacre, a Mali potential massacre today but with heavy loss of life, from my selfish western view, are we in a spiral of violence? To me, it seems clear that we are (compared to other on-going conflicts in the world today).
How will air warfare end it, this war? Can it be ended as suddenly as say, WW2 (both theatres)? Many wars do seem to end suddenly and dramatically after a prolonged and violent spiral. A violent, horrendously destructive collapse suffered by one side.
But where will we, the UK that is,enter the spiral and what will be the outcome of that?
HS.

Biggus

20th Nov 2015, 18:34

PN,

Since when did the Germans need a justification to bomb cities in the 30s/40s?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bombing_of_Guernica

and

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rotterdam_Blitz

Pontius Navigator

20th Nov 2015, 20:36

Biggus, different war, different rules, and they did use Freiburg as a casus belli.

Biggus

20th Nov 2015, 21:00

Rotterdam wasn't a different war.

This was also well before Freiburg,

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bombing_of_Warsaw_in_World_War_II

ORAC

20th Nov 2015, 22:26

Not an authorisation, as such, but with the governments in Baghdad and Damascus approving, it gives all the authorisation and international approval needed....

UN Approves Resolution Urging Action Against Islamic State (http://abcnews.go.com/US/wireStory/vote-resolution-condemning-islamic-state-attacks-35325923)

The U.N. Security Council unanimously approved a French-sponsored resolution Friday calling on all nations to redouble and coordinate action to prevent further attacks by Islamic State terrorists and other extremist groups. The resolution says the Islamic State group "constitutes a global and unprecedented threat to international peace and security" and expresses the council's determination "to combat by all means this unprecedented threat."

The measure is the 14th terrorism-related resolution adopted by the U.N.'s most powerful body since 1999. It was adopted a week after violent extremists launched a coordinated gun and bomb assault that killed 130 people in Paris which the Islamic State claims it carried out. It also comes eight days after twin suicide bombings in Beirut killed 43 people, and three weeks after a Russian airliner crashed over Egypt's Sinai peninsula killing all 224 people on board — both attacks also claimed by IS.

The resolution "unequivocally condemns in the strongest terms" these and earlier "horrifying terrorist attacks" carried out by the Islamic State this year in Sousse, Tunisia and Ankara, Turkey. The resolution calls on U.N. member states "that have the capacity to do so to take all necessary measures" against the Islamic State group and all other violent extremist groups "to eradicate the safe haven they have established over significant parts of Iraq and Syria."

This does not constitute an authorization for military action, however, because the resolution is not drafted under Chapter 7 of the U.N. Charter which is the only way the United Nations can give a green light to the use of force...............

Britain poised for Syria air strikes after Labour revolt against Jeremy Corbyn (http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/politics/Jeremy_Corbyn/12008993/Britain-poised-for-Syria-air-strikes-after-Labour-revolt-against-Jeremy-Corbyn.html)

Up to 60 Labour MPs could back military intervention in Syria in defiance of Jeremy Corbyn on the basis of a UN resolution calling for "combat by all means" to be used to wipe out Isil

Britain is poised to join air strikes against Isil in Syria after senior Labour MPs publicly defied Jeremy Corbyn and pledged cross-party support for international action in the wake of the Paris terrorist attacks.

Hilary Benn, the shadow foreign secretary, welcomed a UN security council resolution - poised to be passed tonight- calling for "combat by all means" to be used to wipe out Isil.

Labour insiders said that the resolution is likely to be enough to convince as many as 60 Labour MPs of the need to extend RAF air strikes to Syria - something which would boost David Cameron's chances of passing a vote in the Commons. Shadow cabinet ministers say that military intervention is even more likely after the party's own legal advice suggested that there is a "sound basis" for air strikes even without the UN approval..........

Pontius Navigator

21st Nov 2015, 09:30

I have Freiburg 10 May, 12 May Bomber Command, Rotterdam 14th.

But we digress.

ORAC

22nd Nov 2015, 08:39

Sweden and Belgium: Silencing and Denial (http://www.nationalreview.com/corner/427465/sweden-and-belgium-silencing-and-denial-andrew-stuttaford)

ShotOne

22nd Nov 2015, 11:13

Clearly you feel strongly that we should be bombing Syria, ORAC, and believe we should have done so in 2013, although this time against the other side. There's been a lot of bombing on both sides of the Syria/Iraq border for some time without it dealing a knockout blow to IS. You make the valid point that it's illogical to bomb just one side of a border not recognised by our enemy. But even the most optimistic judgement of the effect of the Commons vote you want so badly hardly leads to a decisive victory. There's been little word from our leaders on how this will be achieved. Perhaps you'd share your thoughts?

AtomKraft

22nd Nov 2015, 11:38

ORAC.
I remember you were a passionate advocate of the invasion of Iraq, at the time when many were agin it.

These things are easier to start, than they are to finish.

Easier to get into, than they are to get out of.

Still, I know you believe a terrorist is a someone with a bomb, but without an Air Force.

ORAC

22nd Nov 2015, 13:51

Clearly you feel strongly that we should be bombing Syria, ORAC I'm actually agnostic on it, if that's an appropriate term. It just seems farcical that we are bombing ISIS on one side of a line we originally drew in the sand but can't bomb on the other - even if the putative national government concurs.

The Americans, Russians and French seem more than capable and the additional effort we could supply seems nugatory.

ORAC

22nd Nov 2015, 14:20

Being slightly cynical, I doubt wether they were given any options, and the grenades may have been delivered. More the Russians doing some house cleaning and sealing their southern border.

IIRC the area has been a regular supply and transit route for those wishing to join any of the various islamic military groups. I think they'll now find the door hermetically sealed.....

Sky News: IS-Linked Militants 'Neutralised' In Russia
Russia's counter-terrorism agency reportedly kills 11 extremists as Moscow calls for greater co-operation in the fight against IS.
11:56, UK, Sunday 22 November 2015

Eleven militants who had sworn allegiance to Islamic State have been "neutralised" in a special operation in a southern Russian republic, according to reports.

The operation took place in a wooded area outside the city of Nalchik in the Kabardino-Balkaria region, which lies within Russia's volatile North Caucuses region, the news agency AFP reported, citing the TASS news agency.

The fighters opened fire on law enforcement officials and threw grenades after they were cornered, TASS quoted a statement from Russia's national anti-terrorism committee as saying.

"They were all members of armed groups that had sworn allegiance to the international terrorist organisation ISIL," the committee said.

Islamists in the predominately Muslim North Caucuses have been flocking to join Islamic State since it declared a wilayaat, or province, in the region.......

ShotOne

22nd Nov 2015, 15:02

"Agnostic on the subject.." Well put ORAC; that exactly expresses my feelings too, in which case I was wrong to direct my question personally to you. But it would be nice to hear from the "lets bomb" lobby about what exactly they'd bomb and how it would lead to victory. There's just a hint that some here just want to hear a lot of bangs going off!

mahogany bob

23rd Nov 2015, 13:47

How to defeat IsIs

Answers have divided roughly in to 2 distinct camps.

Firstly those (experts) who support a military solution and secondly those (experts) who say that this will play in to the hands of the baddies and suggest a long term hearts and minds campaign.

The second solution,whilst of laudable intent will just take too long. How many more atrocities could the West take without actually be seen to do something?

My solution is to do both at the same time and both with maximum effort.

Militarily assemble a Russian,American,NATO alliance teamed up with with as many Arab nations as possible and attack the main bases and supply lines with maximum strength.Surely the ISIS main power bases could be defeated in days rather than weeks?

As part of the bargain Russia should force Assad to stand down in a sensible time scale and allow safe havens,no fly zones and refugee areas to be constructed. Hopefully the millions of refugees in Europe would then have somewhere reasonable to return to and restart their lives at home.

Before standing down this force should deploy to other 'trouble' areas i/e Yeman.

Who knows a spinoff might be a new 'entente cordiale 'with Russia which could lead to solutions in the Ukraine and elsewhere??

At the same time the hearts and minds campaign should be pursued with maximum effort with moderate Muslims taking a leading conciliatory role.This would require a worldwide fund of billions and endless talks - America taking a more balanced stance on The Israel , Palestine situation would certainly help.

Sent from my iPad

Hangarshuffle

23rd Nov 2015, 17:54

This thread has ran out of steam now. Its only 10 days ago. Horrific to think about. I think the French people have been very dignified in their response, and brave as well. Not crushed either. I always liked the French, deep down. Diffident and cool but also thoughtful,kind and engaging people.
And so the world spins on to the next event.

Chugalug2

24th Nov 2015, 06:49

Whether the thread has run out of steam or not, the events that Paris triggered have only just begun. Call me Dave thinks that the answer is to turn the Tornados loose in Syria, job done.

Paddy Ashdown was on R4 this morning and suggested that our attention be diverted to the Gulf States and in particular Saudi Arabia, and that it would be more appropriate to encourage/oblige them to take the above action and also to stop financing international jihadism. I hate to suggest it, but he has a point, hasn't he?

Easy Street

24th Nov 2015, 09:27

He absolutely has a point. This comes back to the question of economics versus morals - the economic benefits of our relations with Saudi Arabia versus the moral costs of tolerating the message of intolerance that emerges from within it. The response to the SU-24 shoot-down this morning will be very interesting as you can argue that Erdogan's Turkey is another side of the same coin. I am probably not alone in thinking that our long-term interests align better with Russia than with the Sunni Muslim states - but admitting so would pose terribly difficult questions over Ukraine, etc, and would require tacit acceptance that Wahhabi Islam was at the root of the problem. Not very PC.

When you consider the complexity of the dilemma, you begin to see that the expedient solution is to bomb ISIL in to non-existence and defer the long-term resolution of the salafi-jihadist problem for another few years...

Heathrow Harry

24th Nov 2015, 10:26

The whole business of Saudi/UAE support for jihadists is straight politics - they're s*** scared of Iran and their own Sunni popluation

Just why we intend to get into a snake pit where everyone else has a dozen agendas is beyond me...................

Easy Street

24th Nov 2015, 11:35

HH,

Just to correct you slightly, the UAE government does not support jihadists, or indeed Islamists of any flavour. Even the Muslim Brotherhood is banned there; it is one of the most aggressively secular governments in the region. I think I read somewhere that the UAE government has been piling pressure on the UK to publish last year's Jenkins Report into the activities of the Muslim Brotherhood in the West.

A good case study of the 'sides' we are dealing with is Libya, where Egypt and the UAE are backing secular forces while Qatar and Turkey back the Islamists. Picking out the Saudi involvement can be tricky because their government line can stray towards the secular, even while the private money and clerical hierarchy backs the religious.

It is indeed a snake pit! I think you can simplify matters when you reflect on who our traditional allies in the region are - Kuwait, Bahrain, UAE, Oman. Funnily enough, the ones that enjoyed British protection after the fall of the Ottoman Empire. Anyone who thinks the Saudis are our allies does not know their history.

Chugalug2

25th Nov 2015, 14:39

HH:-
Just why we intend to get into a snake pit where everyone else has a dozen agendas is beyond me...And me too, if it's of any consolation. All these heavily armed jihadist outfits; Al Qaeda, Boko Haram, ISIS, and half a hundred others, are all proxies of those in Saudi Arabia and certain other Gulf countries that are united in their religious fanaticism and hatred of the unbelievers.

If we are prepared to attempt to interdict the ISIS income stream, be they fuel convoys or whatever, wouldn't it be more logical to go to the root of those streams, ie the wealth of the Gulf States which is oil based? Unless and until we are prepared to do that (via a UN authorised trade embargo?) we are merely sniping at the edges, and there will be even more attacks on cities, air transport, and anything else that they choose. The governments of these states might well be held in thrall to these extremists, but they should be forced to choose between responsible governance or overseeing a rogue state. If the latter they should be isolated like N Korea, South Africa (as was) and Myanmar (as was), until they in turn become an (as was)..

Filling up at the pumps may seem cheaper than it was, but in reality the cost is becoming totally unacceptable.