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

I've repeatedly posted the "tag line" NOT all Muslims are terrorists but all terrorists are Muslims.

(Corrected to read what I imagine you actually meant)

But you're still wrong. Very, very wrong. Not all terrorists are Muslims. As has already been stated. Why are you continually ignorant/dismissive of this?

If you use that same logic, then we can easily state that 'not all men are terrorists, but (pretty much) all terrorists are men'.

Shall we suspect, fear, hate and demonise all men?

Just a suggestion, but perhaps we should concentrate on the actual,real threats that are firing automatic weapons and using plastic explosives in city centres, not ones which you personally find offensive just because of their political ideals?

Anders Breivik for example?

This is in the US, but:

But headlines can mislead. [b]The main terrorist threat in the United States is not from violent Muslim extremists, but from right-wing extremists. Just ask the police.[/b]

In a survey we conducted with the Police Executive Research Forum last year of 382 law enforcement agencies, 74 percent reported anti-government extremism as one of the top three terrorist threats in their jurisdiction; 39 percent listed extremism connected with Al Qaeda or like-minded terrorist organizations. And only 3 percent identified the threat from Muslim extremists as severe, compared with 7 percent for anti-government and other forms of extremism.

http://www.nytimes.com/2015/06/16/opinion/the-other-terror-threat.html?_r=0

I'm not trying to pretend there is no problem with Islamist terrorism (obviously), but it's massively, massively overblown. Over 6000 people committed suicide in the UK in 2013 and the rate is rising, especially amongst middle-aged men - so surely an issue that should be of far greater concern than Islamist terrorism? Do we hear calls from the PM to spend billions of pounds on a 'war on suicide' and hysterical headlines about the growing threat?

No because there are no sexy pictures and videos of shouty men with beards with exotic looking flags holding rocket launchers or devastated cities involved, so the press don't give a ****, and it's not a convenient excuse to prop up our arms industry and take part in international dick-waving, so the government don't give a ****.

I'm only using it as one example obviously but awful as it is for those directly caught up in it the effect of Islamist terrorism on the vast majority of people's lives is pretty much zero. We just need to carry on exactly as we are and accept the fact that sometimes people will slip through the net and awful things will happen.

5 people die in car crashes every day in the UK and we just shrug and accept it. It's only because the media are shoving Islamist terrorism down our throats constantly that it starts to seem to so important.

If you teach lies and nonsense to the young and naive, the outcome is not going to be well rounded individuals. Proof of this across the last 17 pages 😥

Education is always key to a better future:
Re-topic in this thread, could we make sure that debunked religions are clearly taught as nonsense in 'all' schools?

My guess is he'll probably just ignore this as well.

Some men you just cannot teach.

Why are you continually ignorant/dismissive of this?

See how this affects people:

[url= http://www.enfieldindependent.co.uk/news/14092662.Live_coverage__Bomb_scare_in_Enfield_Town/ ]Local Bomb scare[/url]

See how this affects people:

What do you mean by that exactly?

Don't start reading too much into it Grum.

I'm referring to the fact that a town just went in lockdown over a briefcase, and might not have done two weeks ago. Nothing more, nothing less.

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

I wasn't, was just genuinely wondering what you were trying to suggest/imply (if anything).

If you hold those kind of extremist views and want to kill people then you can join the army. I would imagine there are many serving soldiers who are also supporters of Britain First.

Copa, from this and previous posts, it's pretty obvious you don't like he British military much. Other posters get flamed for posts like yours that start "I would imagine" without evidence, that just reads like giving prejudices an airing as many others on this thread have done. I'm in the military and I've done tours in Iraq and Afghanistan. Do you really not differentiate between me and a member of ISIS?

just reads like giving prejudices an airing as many others on this thread have done.

I've definitely seen a lot of stuff that would suggest a fairly large proportion of Britain First supporters are either current or ex military or families/friends etc. I don't have any 'evidence' as such. Do you think that's incorrect then?

I missed that post and you are correct to challenge a view put as bluntly as that
However there is a skewing within in it just like social workers are more likely to be bleeding heart hand wringers

IMHO its to nationalistic ,patriotic and "traditional values" [RW/conservative [ not politically] ]rather than racist and odious

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

if you were to imagine a different perspective, perhaps from someone who lives in those countries, you could be seen as someone who is part of an invading military force which uses violence against people who happen to have a differing ideology, and who wants to impose their will over others, through the use of said violence, fear and intimidation. Or, as some might put it, a 'terrorist'. An individual who has been trained to be part of a killing machine, who will blindly obey orders, even if those orders may be considered 'morally wrong' by some people.

And some of those people in those countries might not like what you do, and what you appear to represent. And possibly even chose to react against you using violence themselves.

Perspective is of course dependent on where you stand.

My FB is prob 50/50 military (or ex) and never served. Just looked and 2 of my "friends" like Britain first, both civilian. Looking at the the spoof (anti BF) "britain furst" page; 2 like this, one serving, one ex (no civilians).
Only one example but goes against Grums guess.

We reflect the society we serve. Lots of British people are conservative white men not overburdened with brains. Lots of (ex) military are too. Britain First are well known for using innocuous looking Facebook clickbait to gather likes, "I'd imagine" the bulk of them wouldn't like what they saw if they looked into the group a bit more. So yes, I'd have thought (ex) mil are over represented in Britain First, although it's worth noting that public support for extreme politics of any flavour is a disciplinary offence. But a blanket statement like that one is just as offensive as suggesting all Muslims are terrorists, it's still tarring a lot of folk with a big brush.

bartyp - Member
Shall we suspect, fear, hate and demonise all men?

I think you are over reacting ... calm down dear.

Are you searching for a perfect solution to world problems?

What do you have to offer that have not been exhausted?

bartyp - Member
Perspective is of course dependent on where you stand.

Are you attempting to deconstruct their ideology? 😯

See my Rule 1.

An individual who has been trained to be part of a killing machine, who will blindly obey orders, even if those orders may be considered 'morally wrong' by some people.

Not correct. We don't blindly obey orders, we are trained in the law of armed conflict and rules of engagement and therefore challenge illegal orders. There's a lot of imagination in your statement.

if you were to imagine a different perspective, perhaps from someone who lives in those countries, you could be seen as someone who is part of an invading military force which uses violence against people who happen to have a differing ideology, and who wants to impose their will over others, through the use of said violence, fear and intimidation.

I've heard first hand the perspective of a few of them who were quite grateful for our presence due to their long experience at the hands of people like those you describe. Shades of grey.

Loads of fake accounts on FB trolling in this style. I wouldn't be surprised if you are all talking to Russians in a call centre or bored unemployed Britain first types.

I posted the Austrain piece for the line at quoted, which is that legislation explicitly reminded Muslims that the countries laws take precedence

My FB is prob 50/50 military (or ex) and never served. Just looked and 2 of my "friends" like Britain first, both civilian. Looking at the the spoof (anti BF) "britain furst" page; 2 like this, one serving, one ex (no civilians).
Only one example but goes against Grums guess.

Very few of my (ex) forces FB friends like Britain First too. Quite a few spend their time correcting the BF untrue statements though. I must be wrong too as Grum says it is so and he never speaks bollocks 🙄

Grum's generally pretty balanced IMHO. We all do a bit of stereotyping!
I'd bet you'll find a lot more construction types on BF than soldiers. Of my friends, they are the ones most anti-immigration.

I must be wrong too as Grum says it is so and he never speaks bollocks

I never claimed it as fact I just said that was my impression. I'm quite happy to be proved wrong. I think 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 so there's a lot of confusion/crossover there.

Grum's generally pretty balanced IMHO. We all do a bit of stereotyping!

**** you. 🙂

We all do a bit of stereotyping!

To me the army is like the police its going to get slightly more right wing/pro the state/salute the flag/sign the national anthem/ tradition/respect than say social work is but i am not really sure this will equate into more racist individuals.

I also think STW is very good in this respect as all sides and all views dont tolerate racism . Perhaps its just a battele that PC has won and they still exist but they know they cannot say it but no one on here will get away with racism

No I get it Grum, it's all the puffed out chest "arr country" stuff. Most military types these days have been around a bit and are more worldly wise than most.
Seeing people being abused and living in abject squalor makes you think a bit.

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.

wrecker - Member

Those are sovereign lands.

Not in favour of giving ISIS land myself, I don't think it'd satisfy them, I reckon it'd just be a base of operations. But it's a wee bit late to be getting precious about sovereignty, considering all the world powers sticking their oar in. "No, we must respect Syria's sovereignty! While bombing it with drones!"

Good for them!
We're trying.....
[img] ?oh=acf6cd403938d8b6c7006bf9cf9a3445&oe=56B59A19[/img]

Interesting article

http://www.nytimes.com/2015/11/21/opinion/saudi-arabia-an-isis-that-has-made-it.html?_r=1

kimbers - Member

Interesting article

http://www.nytimes.com/2015/11/21/opinion/saudi-arabia-an-isis-that-has-made-it.html?_r=1

Yep. There was another article from a year ago somewhere where a former chief of defence at the MOD stated a similar opinion re ISIS, Syria and military action and how, in his opinion bombing and further military campaigns were little more than short term measures as the flow of money and Wahhabism from Saudi and Qatar was the root cause of the problem (along with Israel and western imperialism of course).

http://www.nytimes.com/2015/11/21/opinion/saudi-arabia-an-isis-that-has-made-it.html?_r=1

Nails it.

The real debate in the country we should be having is how much are we willing to pay for petrol and how many jobs are we willing to lose in the arms and associated industries to cut off all ties with Saudi Arabia and call for international sanctions against them/their oil industry?

And if faced with being worse off and losing thousands of jobs if they were being honest most people will probably say 'er actually I think we'll just put up with the odd terrorist attack that mostly doesn't affect me thanks'. The whole media discourse on this at the moment is a total charade.

Given how many articles I've read describing how we are currently awash with oil, surely there would be no better time.

The trade relationship with Saudi works both ways, however.
We buy their oil, they buy our defense systems.

[img] [/img]

The real debate in the country we should be having is how much are we willing to pay for petrol and how many jobs are we willing to lose in the arms and associated industries to cut off all ties with Saudi Arabia and call for international sanctions against them/their oil industry?

The trade relationship with Saudi works both ways, however.
We buy their oil, they buy our defense systems.

Equally, this policy of propping up awful authoritarian governments so we are guaranteed cheap oil seems to be very expensive: not just through the billion dollar wars we keep saving up for ourselves, but also through the economic activity that isn't happening because of the inequitable distribution of wealth and terrorism/security risk.

And none of that is even talking about whether it's...you know...ethical...

Given how many articles I've read describing how we are currently awash with oil, surely there would be no better time.