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!

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 .

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

Neutron bomb anyone? :E

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/par...15-gkzjfp.html

Wishful Thinking.
 

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

LJ, The major leaflet campaign has been replaced by overlaying your Facebook profile with the French flag.

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.
The opening sentence is worth quoting:
It's worth bearing in mind that he made this speech prior to the UK joining the EEC (as was).

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

Iindeed. It's related to one of the old "Murphy's Laws of Combat" which is "tracers work both ways."
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:

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.

Where's Lt Col Colin Campbell Mitchell when you need him?

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.

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 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.

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.

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

What ISIS Really Wants - The Atlantic

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

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.

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!!

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

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

Graeme Wood

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

Well at least he has a beard!

"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.

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

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

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?

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?

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.

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

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.

Great link, thanks.

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.............

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.
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.

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/...ps9udcttxt.jpg

Image Credit : MOD

Here is the full brief ...

https://www.gov.uk/government/news/u...trikes-in-iraq

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

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paris_massacre_of_1961

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