Paris Attacked!
Join Date: Feb 2006
Location: Hanging off the end of a thread
Posts: 32,975
Received 2,882 Likes
on
1,231 Posts
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.
The man is a buffoon.
Join Date: Aug 2008
Location: Virginia
Posts: 192
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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
Sorry engineer, didn't notice you'd already posted the link!!
What ISIS Really Wants - The Atlantic
Sorry engineer, didn't notice you'd already posted the link!!
Last edited by O-P; 16th Nov 2015 at 18:11.
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: Scotland
Posts: 367
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Warning, a long article that may be a bit educational:
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.
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.
Join Date: Dec 2000
Location: Horsham, England, UK. ---o--O--o---
Posts: 1,185
Received 4 Likes
on
2 Posts
I vote, that Corbyn be sent to Syria to negotiate.. 
Well at least he has a beard!
Well at least he has a beard!
Join Date: Apr 1999
Location: Manchester, UK
Posts: 1,958
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
"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.
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.
Join Date: Feb 2006
Location: Hanging off the end of a thread
Posts: 32,975
Received 2,882 Likes
on
1,231 Posts
"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.
Not because some bearded nut-job with an AK47 wants us to.
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
We have had shoot to kill for decades in accordance with the ROE.
CG
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?
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?
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?
Throw something at them? Duck? Get a shot of the numberplate? Call for armed protection?
Ecce Homo! Loquitur...
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.
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.
Allez la France!
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.
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.
Last edited by BEagle; 17th Nov 2015 at 13:02.
Originally Posted by engineer(retard)
Paris Attacked!
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.............
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.............
Allez la France!
Scroll down to see the number of terrorist killings in France during the past 3 years.
Hollande was forced to abandon his default 'denial' mode - he had to act this time..
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.
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.
Join Date: Feb 2008
Location: East Sussex UK
Age: 66
Posts: 6,995
Likes: 0
Received 1 Like
on
1 Post
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
Image Credit : MOD
Here is the full brief ...
https://www.gov.uk/government/news/u...trikes-in-iraq
Presumably the PR Bod that chose this pic thought the engine nacelles on the 146 were very big bombs
Image Credit : MOD
Here is the full brief ...
https://www.gov.uk/government/news/u...trikes-in-iraq
Last edited by CoffmanStarter; 17th Nov 2015 at 13:53.
The massacre appears to have been intentional, as has been demonstrated by historian Jean-Luc Einaudi, who won a trial against Maurice Papon in 1999 – the latter was convicted in 1998 on charges of crimes against humanity for his role under the Vichy collaborationist regime during 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] Many demonstrators died when they were violently herded by police into the 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.
