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

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.

So Junky, more seriously, what do you think should/could be done? Stop the drones and hope it all goes away? Ground forces (another invasion)? Accept that they are going to bomb cities, and take ground from sovereign states?
I don’t see many other options as we know that there is no negotiation here. Considering the stated aims of Daesh, there isn’t even a basis to start from.

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

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

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.

Eh? Are you suggesting that land be allocated to ISIS? The geo political reality is based on an invasion. Those are sovereign lands. Without western support the Iraqis and others would get smashed. Containment is essentially what we are doing now.

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.

That’s a case for air support rather than against 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

**** that shit. It’s a dangerous precedent, and should insurgents be rewarded for taking sovereign soil? Should they bollocks.
Not only is it rediculous it’s so completely unrealistic it’s not worth the space. Assad and by default the Russians would go batshit.

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…..

Interesting article

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.

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.

The British arms industry is a huge subsidy junkie. You might as well have everyone in the sector digging ditches and filling them in again – with the added advantage that our ditch digging doesn’t facilitate foreign wars.

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.

…until the OPEC meeting!!!