[Closed] Shooting in Paris; casualties reported. Hope this isn't what it sounds like.

my impression is partly based on the fact that Britain First adopt quasi-military uniforms and use support for British troops (in a horrible deceptive way) to garner money and support for their cause

I've got a couple of ex army mates who post Britain First stuff all the time. But it's nothing to do with the army, they're both from the islands and a bit inbred. There's, what, 90000 regulars and 50000 reserves so no wonder some soldiers past or serving will be into this sort of thing, it's just numbers. I only know one scuba diving teacher and he posts Britain First pish on facebook, so unless anyone can correct me real fast I'm going to assume all diving instructors are racists.

Do you really not differentiate between me and a member of ISIS?

You are both people who are prepared to kill and be killed in support of a set of beliefs.

Whether it's individuals cutting heads off or blowing people up with drones, I don't see a great deal of difference.

Whether it's done for religious beliefs or for Queen and country, I think the mindset is similar.

But the UK media presents one group as heroic, noble and brave and the other lot as cowardly and deranged, as sub-human savages.

As you suggest, the world is not like that. It's annoyingly grey and fuzzy.

Here you go rusty;
http://www.arrse.co.uk/community/threads/britain-first-and-britain-first-armed-forces-groups.214420/

ARRSE and the mil in general don't like BF at all.
Some of these guys are quite eloquent. So much for stereotyping 😀

It's all part of the masterplan for a better Britain which requires an apocalyptic encounter between tattooed fascist knuckle-draggers, extreme ethnic wall-bangers and ultra-liberal, politically correct, EU-loving f@ckwits, whereby they all kill each other, preferably in one of those parts of the UK long overdue for demolition, and leave the rest of us to build a better society with a deeper gene pool.

But the UK media presents one group as heroic, noble and brave and the other lot as cowardly and deranged, as sub-human savages.

I suppose they might think a soldier facing people with guns and IED's etc is more brave than shooting and blowing up people in nightclubs, bars and street corners, going in to schools shooting kids or kidnapping a whole school of girls. The media is so one sided! 🙄

I'm right ,no i'm right ,you listen to me, no you listen to me.

So, who is right?

The opposite to who's left?

So, who is right?

Get her on here to finish this off then. 😯

Here you go rusty;
http://www.arrse.co.uk/community/threads/britain-first-and-britain-first-armed-forces-groups.214420/

Copa so you reckon the british armed forces are of the same mindset as these chaps.
[img] [/img]

Killing, raping because you were of a different religion or sexual preference.

use support for British troops (in a horrible deceptive way)

It was Tony Blair who did that in Gulf war 2. And both press and BBC/Sky followed. It was dreadful propaganda. Who wouldn't support the people who serve to guarantee their freedom? However, many opposed what the troops were sent to do.

Edit: I've never served but have worked for the NAAFI and was in the French parachute regiment triathlon club for a few years. Whilst the views after a few beers were often right of centre they were rarely if ever extreme right.

Whether it's individuals cutting heads off or blowing people up with drones, I don't see a great deal of difference.

Accidents notwithstanding, an important difference is that the people who get blown up by drones deserve it because they're engaged in the former.

Accidents notwithstanding, an important difference is that the people who get blown up by drones deserve it because they're engaged in the former.

Including their families/friends/children/neighbours?

Including their families/friends/children/neighbours?

Someone's going to give you an example of american drone behaviour in 3....2......1

Edit: I've never served but have worked for the NAAFI and was in the French parachute regiment triathlon club for a few years.

Are you Mike from Spaced?

Accidents notwithstanding, an important difference is that the people who get blown up by drones deserve it because they're engaged in the former.

Problem is that they also think the people they kill deserve it for what they have done- ie those of a different religion and those who are gay etc

You agree with them you just differ over what actions deserve death.

You agree with them you just differ over what actions deserve death.

Confusion between execution and authorised use of legal force under RoE. I don't think anyone should be summarily executed for anything they've done, I think they should stand trial and be punished appropriately. AFAIK, if an air strike of any sort is authorised, it's under RoE, eg the victims are endangering or about to endanger others and there's no other way to prevent it. How elastically that is interpreted or has been in the past is open to argument.

Your last post said they deserved it now you dont agree with it , can you decide which it is please?

TBH we executed Jihadi John you can say he deserved it , that we had to etc but we executed and many here are pleased we did this and rejoiced....just like they did when they kill folk

Of course i can see the difference between the two but the question remains as to whether you can see the similarities.

Confusion between execution and authorised use of legal force under RoE

I suspect that ISIS consider that they act according to their laws and their RoE.

Deserved it in the sense of getting their comeuppance. Like I said I don't think states should execute people. I'm not familiar enough with the Jihadi John example to comment really, don't know anything beyond what's been in the papers. I can see the similarities in people's responses but that's just good old human tribalism, they killed one of ours and now we've killed one of theirs, hooray.

I suspect that ISIS consider that they act according to their laws and their RoE.

A straw poll suggests ours are better.

I'm not Mike.

A straw poll suggests ours are better.

A straw poll? Well that settles it - it's just a shame the beheading victims didn't think to point that out.

You agree with them you just differ over what actions deserve death.

I suspect that ISIS consider that they act according to their laws and their RoE.

1/ persuade the Turks to stop attacking the Kurds and give them autonomy in the area they have an overwhelming majority.
2/ Let the Russians get on with it in Syria in that Putin will do whatever he wants anyhow. Try to get him in on the deal with the Turks.
3/ Stop buying oil from the region
4/ Use existing laws to deal with extremists in Europe.
5/ Stop using attack drones
6/ limit military action (bombing) to containment. Draw some new lines on a map that more accurately respect the geo-political reality and enforce those lines. If no-one steps over the lines or fires anything over them then non intervention.
7/ If the new borders work then encourage the return of refugees to native lands if they so wish.

Fight them with ground troops in an attempt at genocide or contain them and risk terrorism. hOnestly I dont think wars kill ideas and we need to remove the causes of extremism rather than remove the latest example of the extremist but that seems unlikely to be UK policy.

I accept the broader point that we may well be drifting inexorably towards a point where even peace loving hippies like me accept we have to bomb the shit out of them but its treating the symptoms not the cause and for that reason I will always prefer another option but direct conflict may be inevitable.

Do i think their MO is worse than ours - yes as they actively target innocents/civilians where as we just kill them as collateral /accidentally
Rejoicing at the death of Jihadi is no better than what they do when they kill us.

There are no easy choices here but destroying them wont destroy the idea or extremism that it is the manifestation of

6/ limit military action (bombing) to containment. Draw some new lines on a map that more accurately respect the geo-political reality and enforce those lines. If no-one steps over the lines or fires anything over them then non intervention.

I agree fully with the russian proposal (which would be my preference) but their interest is limited to Syria. It reaches further than that.

Well maybe we should have used theirs rather than expect them to work to ours?

Or maybe just realise that "RoE" etc are a complete irrelevance?

Or maybe just realise that "RoE" etc are a complete irrelevance?

Why so?

Well if you've got a better idea of what to do about Mosul other than put a virtual fence around it there's blank box at the bottom for you to type in. The Iraqi army fled leaving ISIS to it.

Well if you've got a better idea of what to do about Mosul other than put a virtual fence around it there's blank box at the bottom for you to type in. The Iraqi army fled leaving ISIS to it.

Give people a territory and some legitimacy they might just respect the boundaries without the need for air support. It seems to me that deterrence is the only thing that keeps boundaries in place. That was one of the great pities in Gulf War 2. Gulf war 1 had simply reestablished a boundary in favour of the aggressed party which sent out the right message. Gulf War 2 violated that boundary which destroyed the message.

Why so?

Cos it's just some stuff written down on a bit of paper by someone.

Like all laws?

I've never served but have worked for the NAAFI

a Spar shop?

Like all laws?

Yep, sort of. Try telling the Americans that they should obey our laws on say, gun control. Our laws are for us and reflect our philosophies and priorities.

Give people a territory and some legitimacy they might just respect the boundaries

They were already in Mosul. And the Kurds were already in the parts of Turkey Syria and Iraq.

So what?

Well it's giving them independence rather than them taking foreign soil. If the Scots even vote for independence they won't be taking foreign soil. If ever the Basques got independence (which I doubt given the demographics) that would involve them gaining independence from both France and Spain.

Giving who independence? The kurds or daesh? Two very different propositions. The kurds are a peoples, daesh aren't. Mainly foreigners from all over.
Maybe you could give them some land, and just bomb the **** out of it?

The scots don't fill large cages with woman and small children before setting them on fire.

Eh bé.

Anyhow, the Muslims of France have never been so vocal in their opposition to violence in the name of Islam. There were some really heartening reports on our news tonight and there are some great YouTubes posted by Muslims with six million hits for a guy calling for Muslims to denounce members of their own community involved using stronger language than you'd expect.