Well USAF dropped leaflets first, then flew over and fired warning shots, before going in and hitting the targets. They didn’t just fire a missile from 50 miles away with no warning.
This is just so much shite, I can’t believe that you even think this is true. Please do tell us that they do this when using drones on civilian locations…]

They did, you know. Why wouldn’t they? I know STW groupthink says the military are mindless bloodthirsty thugs, but even taking the humanitarian argument away from it, it’s not in the interests of western militaries to kill non-combatants. Page 1 of counter-insurgency doctrine, the support of the people is required for success. Sorry to talk about RoE and targeting again, but words like carpet bombing in this thread show a lot of ignorance of same. Lots of posters should consider whether their picture of how the planning and decision making cycle that leads to weapons release is the product of actual knowledge or their own biases and preconceptions.
The assumption that the military response is the only show in town is flawed too. Doctrine again, but google “Jackson’s Rope”. The military is just part of the solution, but it grabs all the media coverage. There is a lot of work from other govt deps going on too. Bombing IS, or indeed anyone, is clearly not an ideal solution, because there will always be innocents killed. It might just be the least worst option here though.

If it’s true, it’s horrendous, and they want to put their house in order sharpish. But drones operate to the same RoE as manned aircraft IME, so the only grounds for objecting to them (assuming you don’t object to a manned strike) is that they are more likely to be there when the target presents and so carry out a successful attack, because of the reduced political risk (no pilot to be captured).

I can’t speak for the Americans and wouldn’t speculate, but I find it VERY difficult to imagine a culture like that is present in UK units.

Like all laws?

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

Why so?

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.

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.

Including their families/friends/children/neighbours?

Whose presence would preclude the attack based on my most recent operational experience.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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?

gwaelod – Member

Nicked from aarse.. Translated account of the incident from the Boss of the team that stormed the flat

https://translate.googleusercontent.com/translate_c?depth=1&hl=fr&ie=UTF8&nv=1&prev=_t&rurl=translate.google.be&sl=fr&tl=en&u=http://www.lefigaro.fr/actualite-france/2015/11/18/01016-20151118ARTFIG00320-assaut-a-saint-denis-l-intervention-du-raid-heure-par-heure.php&usg=ALkJrhg1sch7p1OIrPvAl39U-_u-wNL3VA

😯

Fair enough. That was my recollection, sorry for not fact-checking.. A cock-up indeed.

The current RoE allow opening fire without a warning if there isn’t time or to do so would increase the danger, ISTR. They need to protect those who open fire, because they have to make difficult decisions quickly to protect the populace without the benefit of hindsight. There’s little evidence of trigger-happiness among British police, look at the response to Lee Rigby’s killers for restraint, or Pte Clegg or Sgt Blackmore’s cases for legal action against those who go out with the RoE.

Jean was someones child, doing no harm, just going about his life. There was no reason to shoot him, they could have stopped him at anytime (see the reports).

He ran from the police, with a rucksack, a few days after multiple suicide bombings on the Tube. Tragic, but you have to admit he didn’t help himself. The policeman had to make a terrible decision and make it fast, and considered hindsight is no place to judge him from.

If the flat had actually been a building in Syria then they would have sent in a drone and flattened it. I’m not suggesting that they do that with a residential block in Paris but it does raise an interesting question about whether an airstrike could / would have been used on home soil if the terrorists were, for example, holed up in a farmhouse.

Not if it didn’t satisfy the rules of engagement and targeting policy they wouldn’t, these impose tight limits on things like collateral damage. Generally the aim of these raids is to arrest the individuals and extract any intelligence from them or their surroundings, which wouldn’t work with an air attack.

“I’m not happy with the shoot-to-kill policy in general – I think that is quite dangerous and I think can often be counterproductive. I think you have to have security that prevents people firing off weapons, where they can. There are various degrees of doing things as we know … but the idea you end up with a war on the streets is not a good thing. Surely you have to work to try and prevent these things happening, that’s got to be the priority.”

That reads to me like confusion between armed police/military RoE and extra-judicial killing, like the SAS (allegedly) in Gibraltar back in the 80s, if not in JC’s mind then in the press. There’s no such thing as a shoot to NOT kill policy, except for some marksmen under certain circumstances that I can’t imagine applying to an armed attack/suicide bomber. If you’re legally opening fire in the defence of your life or others, the object is to kill the other party. Clearly it would be better if things didn’t get to that stage as JC says, but the police have to be empowered if they do, as he also says.

Local stuff, not so much. Our radars are about 30 years old! Peripheral stuff like info displays might be susceptible, but on the military side, our comms, approach aids and sensors (the important bits) are probably protected by their age! En-route stuff, much higher tech and therefore probably more susceptible. Paper flight strips and enhanced use of the military kit for civil aircraft would greatly reduce the system’s capacity.

I’m mil as well and went through this 2 years back. Some advice that I got at the time that turned out to be good:

Keep it simple and get it sorted quick as possible. Guilt fades and people’s focus shifts to No 1. We were keeping it amicable, after a year of the process she got graspy.

Do the stuff you enjoy for a bit, then internet dating is the military man’s friend; it’s a long way off, but once you get a new partner you won’t think so much about the old one.

Good luck, hope you manage to keep it friendly.

As an aside it just goes to show that the media game is one Corbyn can’t win. I believe his top button was done up, he was wearing a nice suit, sang the national anthem and talked to the soldiers, but that’s not good enough apparently. It’s shameful to use Remembrance for this kind of political mischief-making.

I agree, the lowest form of journalism/politics. I think “poppy fascism” is just a TV phenomenon, I’ve been walking about in military uniform for the past few days without one because I forgot, nobody’s mentioned it and I wouldn’t expect anyone to. Most folk I know think it’s an individual choice. It’s a shame the Beeb seem to have kowtowed to shouty internet types, in the past they’d just have been nutters shouting at the telly and writing “disgusted of Tunbridge Wells” letters. It would be nice if the DG had the backbone to set a policy of individual choice and explain why. Regarding the Tornado, it’s a very visible symbol and commemorative paint schemes on aircraft are nothing new, but I can see why it might be seen as distasteful.

Jivehoneyjive:

I appreciate that is US rather than UK, but when all is said and done, we all share the same planet…

even in UK terms, how much of the £33,000 per hour it costs to run a Tornado is fuel?

Since you asked, a Tornado burns about 4 tons of Avtur per hour on a typical sortie. That’s about 5000 litres. At 70p/litre, that’s £3500/hr. Those figures you see bandied around for per hour operating costs are usually quite dodgy and include the purchase price and through-life maintenance of the aircraft, the salaries of the crew and all the maintainers, the operating costs of the base…..

Speaking as an air traffic controller, I’m pretty confident that UK military aviation emissions are a flea on the flank of UK civil aviation emissions. I personally think the security of the UK is more important than holidays, but then I guess you don’t think that the military enhances your security.

Seasucker! Simple, quick, easy to store, rock solid.

Coursework:( Bet it pisses down next weekend.

As regards the Falklands surely,in true free market ideological style , we should let the markets decide.Defending the Falklands costs the UK taxpayer how much- £400 milion a year? And the Falkland residents contribute how much to this – zero? They also enjoy a top tax rate of 26% and pay no VAT.And as for self determination,it sounds like a great idea so who can migrate there and then get to vote on the issue?

Nick, believe me, 26% tax doesn’t make it worthwhile to live in the Falklands! Although it’s a great place to visit, I’m off next winter

God bless the children of the Ulster plantation eh. Its great to see what you canone can achieve if you just place loyal subjects of a foreign country in another land
Heart warming eh.
See also the Falklands and Gibraltar

On this rationale, we’d better be getting back to Saxony, Normandy, Scandinavia and ultimately the Great Rift Valley.

Argentina as an independent country didn’t exist when the UK colonized the Falklands. In any case, you can’t visit the sins of the fathers on their great-great-great grandsons. I presume you agree with the UN charter’s position on self-determination?

and today democratic Chile supports Argentina’s territorial claim on the Falkland Islands.

Not all progress then!

the entire fleet would bite the dust and having no choice but to use the nuclear sub to nuke them to kingdom come.

It was a nuclear powered boat, not a nuclear armed one.

How did a a debate about Jeremy Corbyn evolve into a right wingers circle jerk about the Falklands war ?

Well, apparently he does support Argentina’s claim and has talked about shared sovereignty, although I don’t know how much of that is the press making mischief. More interesting than having talked to Irish republicans/Hamas imo!

It’s been obvious for ages that the scheme is BS

Not really. It’s just that they’ve been fudging the tests. It’s meant to penalise high CO2 choices, so it’s not pro-rata based on actual amounts.
I get that, but I think the gradient is too steep! And it’s based on BS mpg figures in the EU case, ie
my old 320d did 45mpg real world = 158g CO2 = £180 VED
a new one 53mpg real world = 109g CO2 = £30 VED!

Wallop, thanks. Like I said on the other thread: Will there be a knock on effect on vehicle excise? It’s been obvious for ages that the scheme is BS, I pay 10x the VED (a CO2 tax) on my 10 year old 2-litre petrol as my mate does on his new 2-litre diesel. I reckon I create about 1.5x the CO2 and less of everything else. Could be the start of a swing against diesel? Willburt, I reckon big petrols are fine. Don’t confuse NOx/PM with CO2.

Yes. But the 40% pay rise though!

Klunk – Member

maybe he had a long term crush on…

Posted 9 hours ago # Report-Post

To be fair, I probably would.

We’ve all done it, right?

Right?

ernie_lynch – Member

You may think that supports your case when you read it through rose tinted spectacles, but it doesn’t.

I don’t understand why people don’t treat ninfan-Z-11’s posts in the same way as Chewwy’s posts should be treated – mostly ignored.

Can’t have anyone derailing the stw “Margaret Thatcher = antichrist” narrative eh? In her defence, she did give the Armed Forces a 40% pay rise 😉 Although we’re apparently just state sponsored terrorists, according to some, whatever a terrorist is!

Like most history, I guess your reading of it depends on your bias….

Hence my use of “usually”. And I was talking about the modern Taliban, not the Mujahideen.

you do realise that terrorists want peace too, don’t you? And that they usually only resort to violence when they have no other options?

This is tosh. Everyone wants peace – on their terms. Some terrorists turned to terrorism because they don’t have any popular legitimacy and/or because they’re simply scumbags.

This times lots, resisted making the same point myself earlier. I don’t think the Taliban, or PIRA for that matter, represent the will of the majority. There’s usually the option of engaging constructively with your opponents/putting up and shutting up.

On basic training:
Gimlet was a boring tool.
Leatherman was a useless tool that everyone carried.
A mate of mine was Ahab because of his penchant for spearing whales.
D the C was Dave the c***.

Had mine up to 90 (mini bomber) with 2 mtbs on, no issues ever. Really chuffed with it. I keep a pack of wipes and a plant mister in the car to prep the roof.

Tangent alert!

Un, didn’t the UN (not just America) go to Korea to stop an invasion?

No

Yes, according to wiki:

Korea was ruled by Japan from 1910 until the closing days of World War II. In August 1945, the Soviet Union declared war on Japan and—by agreement with the United States—occupied Korea north of the 38th parallel. U.S. forces subsequently occupied the south and Japan surrendered. By 1948, two separate governments had been set up. Both governments claimed to be the legitimate government of Korea, and neither side accepted the border as permanent. The conflict escalated into open warfare when North Korean forces—supported by the Soviet Union and China—invaded South Korea on 25 June 1950.[34] On that day, the United Nations Security Council recognized this North Korean act as invasion and called for an immediate ceasefire.[35] On 27 June, the Security Council adopted S/RES/83: Complaint of aggression upon the Republic of Korea and decided the formation and dispatch of the UN Forces in Korea. Twenty-one countries of the United Nations eventually contributed to the defense of South Korea, with the United States providing 88% of the UN’s military personnel.

jamj1974 – Member

airtragic – Member
Jam may be talking bolleaux, but there’s no need to reciprocate

Sometimes, just sometimes I think idiocy should be a crime.
Posted 4 hours ago # Report-Post

I sometimes think sanctimony should. 😉

You mean the Korea that was divided by an American invasion to impose a political ideology and the Zimbabwe that was run by colonial powers until overthrown by a revolution. Or did you have in mind other countries with the same names that you thought made your point?

Un, didn’t the UN (not just America) go to Korea to stop an invasion? If you asked the people of the South, I’m sure they’d rather be in the same boat as the North now. Zimbabwe was run by a white minority Zimbabwean Govt that were very uncooperative towards the old colonial power, until it was overthrown by a revolution. But yeah, I’m sure it’s all the Great Satan’s fault.

Jam may be talking bolleaux, but there’s no need to reciprocate in kind!

I’m looking forward to this becoming an new sport “confuse Google”.

I don’t see what need these driverless car will be filling. Other than the desire to see if its technologically possible to do it. What problem are they going to solve.

Is this not a case of a solution looking for a problem ?

I don’t want to be in a bus / car / plane / train that cant be overruled by a human.

Personally, I’m looking forward to programming mine to come and get me from the pub. Or driving to Skye on holiday, say, overnight with me asleep in it = 2 less days leave!

The course is interesting, I’ve done two! (In my defence one 34/30, one 72/60 overtaking a truck who, it turned out, was also overtaking a camera 🙁 )

I don’t consider myself a boy racer and I endeavour to stick to 30/40/50 limits. Presumably all those preaching on here have NEVER let the needle creep over.

To all the people having a go at the Op:

So when they continued asking him , he
lifted himself up and said unto them, He
that is without sin among you, let him be
the first to cast a stone at her. So when
they continued asking him , he lifted up
himself, and said unto them, He that is
without sin among you, let him first cast a
stone at her.

This^. Fairy tale or not, the Bible is the basis for most common law I believe?