INFORMATION

This website uses cookies to store information on your computer. Some of these cookies are essential to make our site work and others help us to improve by giving us some insight into how the site is being used. For further information, see our Privacy Policy. Continuing to use this website is acceptance of these cookies.

Paris killings

...on serious topics that don't fit anywhere else at present.
Message
Author
User avatar
Dave B
Posts: 17809
Joined: May 17th, 2010, 9:15 pm

Re: Paris killings

#21 Postby Dave B » November 16th, 2015, 1:28 pm

Latest post of the previous page:

getreal wrote:I'm no politician. Philosophy makes my ears bleed and my grasp of politics is scant. But if we are fighting an ideology, how are bombs going to do that?

France claim more than 2000 French citizens have left France and joined IS. I don't know th figures for the uk, but the jihadi bride recruiter from Glasgow was in a close friends daughters class at school. How do these people become radicalised? How can we prevent this? What are the Muslim "authorities" doing to stop this?

I believe in Denmark, everyone returning from fighting is "de briefed" and used to help educate young people about the truth of this conflict. What do the uk and France do with returnees? Does the uk even know if they have returned?

A major part of th blame for the radicalisation of young people in the west lies at the feet of Muslims themselves. What are they doing to protest the reputation of their faith? I see nor hear any evidence of a concerted effort on the part of the faithful to help stop the radicalisation of their youth.


"The majority of Muslims are peaceful" they say. So why do they stay so quiet on the hijacking of their religion?
Part of the problem is that, globally, there is no supreme Islamic authority - like the Pope for Catholics. I have read the "The Word" is open to interpretation by the faithful because of a lot of metaphor and shifts in values over the centuries (the Bible suffers from this to a degree). So there is no person who can excommunicate erring Muslims.

There seems to be evidence that the more peaceful Muslims, in Britain at least, are doing what they can to prevent radicalisation, but that may not always be a lot and puts them in greater danger, being seen as "traitors" or having forsaken the true Islamic values as seen by the radicals.

I am not sure how much the Ummah affects this. The Ummah views the whole of Islam as a single nation, one people, and requires all Muslims to defend it against outsiders. This is why some Sunnis claim that Shiites are not Muslims and vice versa, allows them to ignore the Ummah.

Yes, the radicalisation is entirely due to the efforts of militant Muslims but any aggressive action by non-Muslims, or by the other kind of Muslims, is good propaganda for the process. There are always "angry young men" in any society (and a few angry young women?) but the deep seated value set in Islam makes it easier, perhaps, to tip them over the edge. It is this same value system that allows them to volunteer as suicide bombers, their individual survival is as nothing compared to the fate of the true people of Allah!

This is something that is hard to fight from the outside and may cause a blood bath if fought internally. Syria is blood bath enough. Such people may have visions and aims that extend beyond their own lives and will therefore ensure there is a good supply of warriors for the cause in the pipeline. IS is changing, in places, into a true state with an administration, services, industry etc. - for those in favour at least. That is perhaps the greatest danger, others seeing them as a, sort of, legitimate authority. Hezbollah did something similar in Lebanon.

Saudi Arabia, with its Sunni allies, could almost certainly put an end to the conflict but at a huge cost in other ways - almost certainly a war with Iran. Saudi Arabia are, at best, poor allies for us, I get the feeling that the West is the lesser of two evils for them, tolerated mainly because it buys their oil and supplies much of their arms and luxury goods. But there is a deeply stratified society there and the under-dogs are ripe for radicalisation.
"Look forward; yesterday was a lesson, if you did not learn from it you wasted it."
Me, 2015

User avatar
Alan H
Posts: 24031
Joined: July 3rd, 2007, 10:26 pm

Re: Paris killings

#22 Postby Alan H » November 16th, 2015, 2:25 pm

getreal wrote:"The majority of Muslims are peaceful" they say. So why do they stay so quiet on the hijacking of their religion?
They are, but not sure the media are doing as much as they could: "Not in my name" - Muslims speak out against Paris attacks conducted in the name of Islam
Alan Henness

There are three fundamental questions for anyone advocating Brexit:

1. What, precisely, are the significant and tangible benefits of leaving the EU?
2. What damage to the UK and its citizens is an acceptable price to pay for those benefits?
3. Which ruling of the ECJ is most persuasive of the need to leave its jurisdiction?

User avatar
getreal
Posts: 4353
Joined: November 20th, 2008, 5:40 pm

Re: Paris killings

#23 Postby getreal » November 16th, 2015, 3:03 pm

Yes, Alan. I saw these in my FB feed this morning. But it's not enough.

Where are the heads of state of Islamic countries public condemnation?

Where are all the public comments by Imams?

Where are the letter in the press from "moderate" Islamic groups?


It's not enough for a few individuals-even for thousands of individuals-to post, tweet and publish letters in the press. It needs powerful Moslems and Moslem groups to be more open and condemn these actions (and all other terrorist actions) forcefully.

I don't live in an area with many Moslems. I only know one-non practicing-Moslem personally. I cannot say o have any experience of what the Moslem community is doing to try to redress the balance. I am not aware of anyone from the local Muslim Mosques going into any schools in Glasgow to talk to the pupils. Similarly, I know of no groups being set up in the local university to discuss and counteract these vile views spread by recruiters. Maybe they are doing it. But if they are, they are not making enough noise about it and they should be! Especially when, as I said, a Glasgow schoolgirl is now a major recruiter for jihadi brides.

The moderate majority are irrelevant if they don't actually DO anything about a problem with THEIR religion.
"It's hard to put a leash on a dog once you've put a crown on his head"-Tyrion Lannister.

User avatar
animist
Posts: 6519
Joined: July 30th, 2010, 11:36 pm

Re: Paris killings

#24 Postby animist » November 16th, 2015, 6:19 pm

getreal wrote:Yes, Alan. I saw these in my FB feed this morning. But it's not enough.

Where are the heads of state of Islamic countries public condemnation?

Where are all the public comments by Imams?

Where are the letter in the press from "moderate" Islamic groups?


It's not enough for a few individuals-even for thousands of individuals-to post, tweet and publish letters in the press. It needs powerful Moslems and Moslem groups to be more open and condemn these actions (and all other terrorist actions) forcefully.

I don't live in an area with many Moslems. I only know one-non practicing-Moslem personally. I cannot say o have any experience of what the Moslem community is doing to try to redress the balance. I am not aware of anyone from the local Muslim Mosques going into any schools in Glasgow to talk to the pupils. Similarly, I know of no groups being set up in the local university to discuss and counteract these vile views spread by recruiters. Maybe they are doing it. But if they are, they are not making enough noise about it and they should be! Especially when, as I said, a Glasgow schoolgirl is now a major recruiter for jihadi brides.

The moderate majority are irrelevant if they don't actually DO anything about a problem with THEIR religion.
I am wondering what might you satisfy you over this. Like you, I know few if any Muslims currently. What I have just done is to google Oxford University Islamic Society (the only one I have looked for):
https://www.facebook.com/ouisoc/

As you see, the second post is a condemnation of terrorism. I don't propose to search for any more Islamic groups in order to see what they say, if anything, about the attacks, but I imagine that many or most would do so; we just don't hear from them, and why would we? A few weeks ago I saw a TV news item which featured a young Muslim woman who was somewhat fed up with non-Muslim demands that her "community" condemn terrorism; she said, roughly, that other religions have problems with violent people who act in their name. I think there was something in what she said. And what can these Muslim groups/communities actually DO? The jihadists do not take notice of disapproval and probably regard the established leaders of Muslim communities (if these exist) as heretics, cowards, traitors or whatever.

User avatar
Dave B
Posts: 17809
Joined: May 17th, 2010, 9:15 pm

Re: Paris killings

#25 Postby Dave B » November 16th, 2015, 6:32 pm

Seems that Jezzer Corbin is against any "shoot to kill" policy in the event of an armed terrorist attack in Britain.

Not sure what the alternatives are: aiming to wound very much reduces the chance of stopping the target and is even more dangerous to standers by. Even the best marksman needs the biggest target, the torso, to maximise his chances of stopping the enemy.

Batten rounds are short range, tazers even shorter. There are obvious defences againt gasses. We have yet to invent the true stun gun.

So, Mr Corbin, what is your solution to stop the terrorist who has demonstrated he is willing to use his AK47 against everyone? Ask him nicely to desist?
"Look forward; yesterday was a lesson, if you did not learn from it you wasted it."
Me, 2015

User avatar
animist
Posts: 6519
Joined: July 30th, 2010, 11:36 pm

Re: Paris killings

#26 Postby animist » November 16th, 2015, 6:33 pm

Dave B wrote: We did not really fight against Germany and its people in the last war, we fought against an expansionist and exclusive ideology - Nazism.

well, we did fight the German state and people, and we fought them not because they espoused Nazism but because they acted it out by attacking other countries. Just the same, we should fight Isis because of what it actually does. One of the many disastrous effects of the Iraq invasion of 2003 is that, even now, it has made the West unwilling to send ground troops to the Middle East. I think it might be time to do this, and I think it might happen; it might in fact unite the West and Russia, and Iran, against a common enemy, a bit like how some of these countries defeated the Nazis. If we together we cannot defeat Isis, what hope is there?

User avatar
animist
Posts: 6519
Joined: July 30th, 2010, 11:36 pm

Re: Paris killings

#27 Postby animist » November 16th, 2015, 7:03 pm

Dave B wrote:Seems that Jezzer Corbin is against any "shoot to kill" policy in the event of an armed terrorist attack in Britain.

Not sure what the alternatives are: aiming to wound very much reduces the chance of stopping the target and is even more dangerous to standers by. Even the best marksman needs the biggest target, the torso, to maximise his chances of stopping the enemy.

Batten rounds are short range, tazers even shorter. There are obvious defences againt gasses. We have yet to invent the true stun gun.

So, Mr Corbin, what is your solution to stop the terrorist who has demonstrated he is willing to use his AK47 against everyone? Ask him nicely to desist?

I agree, I think. But does wounding (eg to the legs) not stop the target? Maybe not. I suppose that Jez and lots of liberals are affected by the macho language used. "Shoot to kill" - no. "Shoot to effectively disable" - yes

User avatar
Dave B
Posts: 17809
Joined: May 17th, 2010, 9:15 pm

Re: Paris killings

#28 Postby Dave B » November 16th, 2015, 7:40 pm

animist wrote:
Dave B wrote:Seems that Jezzer Corbin is against any "shoot to kill" policy in the event of an armed terrorist attack in Britain.

Not sure what the alternatives are: aiming to wound very much reduces the chance of stopping the target and is even more dangerous to standers by. Even the best marksman needs the biggest target, the torso, to maximise his chances of stopping the enemy.

Batten rounds are short range, tazers even shorter. There are obvious defences againt gasses. We have yet to invent the true stun gun.

So, Mr Corbin, what is your solution to stop the terrorist who has demonstrated he is willing to use his AK47 against everyone? Ask him nicely to desist?

I agree, I think. But does wounding (eg to the legs) not stop the target?
The chances are leg wounds may not stop a determined guman from continuing to spray bullets around. There can be a period of several seconds between acquiring a wound and being incapavitated by the shock and pain. With a high adrenaline level this may be extehded to a minute, you can do a lot of damage with an automatic asault rifle in 60 seconds.

Then the chances of hitting the legs of even a stationary person are less than half that of getting a critical hit in the torso, forget about the arms. The energy imparted, especially by a soft nosed round, is usually enough to knock the target off their feet. There is also the potential for them to employ a bomb if they are not totally incapacitated by the first round to hit them.

I am assuming a mobile target here, with a stationary target the marksman may be able to pick a non-lethal solution. In a situation like Paris it is a case of put the target down before he can do more damage. But without armed personel in the vicinity the terrorist has free reign.

The unfortunate case of the shooting of an innocent man on the London Underground demonstrated the policy of shoot to the head in case he has a bomb. That is the other side of armed security, the potential for mistakes is very high. At the same time the price of allowing one person to slip in can be very much higher.
"Look forward; yesterday was a lesson, if you did not learn from it you wasted it."
Me, 2015

Lord Muck oGentry
Posts: 629
Joined: September 1st, 2007, 3:48 pm

Re: Paris killings

#29 Postby Lord Muck oGentry » November 16th, 2015, 7:57 pm

I am no expert in these matters, so I shall cheerfully accept correction.

As I understand it, however, legal responsibilty for using lethal force falls entirely on the individual officer. He is entitled to use force, including lethal force where necessary, to protect himself or others. He is not entitled to use lethal force where he knows that lesser force will suffice. And he is not entitled to plead that he was merely following orders to use lethal force because that is the policy handed down.

That is quite consistent with training officers to recognize situations where the only reasonable option is to shoot, aiming for the torso; and, modern weapons being what they are, to kill or at least seriously injure the target. That is not, as I understand it, a shoot-to-kill policy.
What we can't say, we can't say and we can't whistle it either. — Frank Ramsey

User avatar
Alan H
Posts: 24031
Joined: July 3rd, 2007, 10:26 pm

Re: Paris killings

#30 Postby Alan H » November 16th, 2015, 8:34 pm

From NewsThump: Absolutely everyone suddenly an expert on how to defeat ISIS
Absolutely everyone is suddenly an expert on how to defeat ISIS, according to reports today.

The Islamic State – who really hate being called the Da’esh so you should probably start doing that – have proven an intractable foe for several years, but all of a sudden everyone on the Internet has a solution which has eluded the world’s finest minds to date.

Popular suggestions include bombing the organisation back to the Stone Age, which unfortunately skips the fact much of the Da’esh is already there and actually quite like it.

Similarly popular is to reject unilateral action and insist on a coordinated international response through the UN, which has the advantage of ensuring the moral high ground, tempered only by the disadvantage of there being no chance whatsoever of it actually happening.

Meanwhile many American commenters insist the only way to avoid terrorist atrocities and mass shootings is to ensure everyone is armed, a strategy that has been working out tremendously well for them at home lately.

“I reject the idea of a complex, messy solution which risks me getting it wrong,” Internet general Simon Williams told us.

“I’d like to see members of the Da’esh arrested and tried but obviously I don’t want to see British troops deployed.”

“The fact that the government has failed to accommodate my contradictory wishes means I win the Internet and they don’t deserve to be in power.”

“So there,” he added, smugly.

One common suggestion is that the world could prevent the deaths of innocents by closing their borders to refugees, a great idea which is only slightly undermined by the fact it would condemn untold numbers of innocents to death.

Any suggestion that defeating the Da’esh will be time-consuming, very expensive, involve grubby compromises and certainly feature people we like dying has been rejected as completely unacceptable.
Alan Henness

There are three fundamental questions for anyone advocating Brexit:

1. What, precisely, are the significant and tangible benefits of leaving the EU?
2. What damage to the UK and its citizens is an acceptable price to pay for those benefits?
3. Which ruling of the ECJ is most persuasive of the need to leave its jurisdiction?

User avatar
Dave B
Posts: 17809
Joined: May 17th, 2010, 9:15 pm

Re: Paris killings

#31 Postby Dave B » November 16th, 2015, 9:07 pm

Lord Muck oGentry wrote:I am no expert in these matters, so I shall cheerfully accept correction.

As I understand it, however, legal responsibilty for using lethal force falls entirely on the individual officer. He is entitled to use force, including lethal force where necessary, to protect himself or others. He is not entitled to use lethal force where he knows that lesser force will suffice. And he is not entitled to plead that he was merely following orders to use lethal force because that is the policy handed down.

That is quite consistent with training officers to recognize situations where the only reasonable option is to shoot, aiming for the torso; and, modern weapons being what they are, to kill or at least seriously injure the target. That is not, as I understand it, a shoot-to-kill policy.
I thinkk you are correct, m'lord. That applies to "normal" crime scenes, even involving an armed opponent.

Possibly terrorist actions are a different dynamiccwith different motivations, tge srmed robber is using his wewpon as abtool to threaten and, possibly, avoidvsrrest. The terrorist just wants to maximise the body count.

In the armed forces you have "Rules of Engagement" before any guard duty or srmed operation you are told, explicitly, when you canbpoint your weapon at another human and pull the trigger. This is why soldiers who have served in Iraq and Afghanistan - and in N. Ireland - can be taken to court to defend their actions. Unless circumstances are very special breaking the RoE and killing an innocent person by so doing is treated as a civilian offence.

If the srmed forces became involved they would have strict rules and come under the overall command of a senior pooice officer I think. There is always the possibility that the policecwill have acset ofvrules for certain kinds ofvsituation set out for them.

The French Gendarmerie are a pseudo military force that operates under different rules from the civil police and has supreme surhority in armed terrorist matters I would think. We have no equivalent - yet.
"Look forward; yesterday was a lesson, if you did not learn from it you wasted it."
Me, 2015

User avatar
Alan H
Posts: 24031
Joined: July 3rd, 2007, 10:26 pm

Re: Paris killings

#32 Postby Alan H » November 16th, 2015, 9:53 pm

An interesting take on ISIL - by a Muslim: This Muslim TV Host Gave An Incredible Speech Following The Paris Terror Attacks
“I’m pretty sure that right now none of us wants to help these bastards.”
Alan Henness

There are three fundamental questions for anyone advocating Brexit:

1. What, precisely, are the significant and tangible benefits of leaving the EU?
2. What damage to the UK and its citizens is an acceptable price to pay for those benefits?
3. Which ruling of the ECJ is most persuasive of the need to leave its jurisdiction?

User avatar
Alan H
Posts: 24031
Joined: July 3rd, 2007, 10:26 pm

Re: Paris killings

#33 Postby Alan H » November 17th, 2015, 1:14 am

Alan Henness

There are three fundamental questions for anyone advocating Brexit:

1. What, precisely, are the significant and tangible benefits of leaving the EU?
2. What damage to the UK and its citizens is an acceptable price to pay for those benefits?
3. Which ruling of the ECJ is most persuasive of the need to leave its jurisdiction?

thundril
Posts: 3607
Joined: July 4th, 2008, 5:02 pm

Re: Paris killings

#34 Postby thundril » November 17th, 2015, 6:37 am

Lord Muck oGentry wrote:I am no expert in these matters, so I shall cheerfully accept correction.

As I understand it, however, legal responsibilty for using lethal force falls entirely on the individual officer. He is entitled to use force, including lethal force where necessary, to protect himself or others. He is not entitled to use lethal force where he knows that lesser force will suffice. And he is not entitled to plead that he was merely following orders to use lethal force because that is the policy handed down.

That is quite consistent with training officers to recognize situations where the only reasonable option is to shoot, aiming for the torso; and, modern weapons being what they are, to kill or at least seriously injure the target. That is not, as I understand it, a shoot-to-kill policy.
The control the state exercises over those licenced to use lethal weapons must be strict. And the harsher to situation, the tougher the discipline needs to be. If not, sooner or later it comes to
THIS

User avatar
Dave B
Posts: 17809
Joined: May 17th, 2010, 9:15 pm

Re: Paris killings

#35 Postby Dave B » November 17th, 2015, 8:34 am

I agree with you, Thundril, discipline is everything in these situation but the rules of action must be pragmatic.

I would hope that we never achieve the level of hatred and brutality that seems inherent in the Iraeli authorities. At the same time we should be willing to defend innocent lives anywhere and, unfortunstely, violence is sometimes necessary to do so.
"Look forward; yesterday was a lesson, if you did not learn from it you wasted it."
Me, 2015

User avatar
Alan H
Posts: 24031
Joined: July 3rd, 2007, 10:26 pm

Re: Paris killings

#36 Postby Alan H » November 18th, 2015, 9:07 pm

I was at the Civic Centre (the council offices) for a meeting yesterday evening. It's right next to Wembley Stadium where England played France:

IMG_1199.JPG
IMG_1199.JPG (99.56 KiB) Viewed 2750 times


Quite a few well-armed police around!
Alan Henness

There are three fundamental questions for anyone advocating Brexit:

1. What, precisely, are the significant and tangible benefits of leaving the EU?
2. What damage to the UK and its citizens is an acceptable price to pay for those benefits?
3. Which ruling of the ECJ is most persuasive of the need to leave its jurisdiction?

User avatar
Alan H
Posts: 24031
Joined: July 3rd, 2007, 10:26 pm

Re: Paris killings

#37 Postby Alan H » November 19th, 2015, 11:07 am

Well worth two minutes of your time listening to a grieving husband: Paris attacks: 'I will not give you the gift of hating you'
Alan Henness

There are three fundamental questions for anyone advocating Brexit:

1. What, precisely, are the significant and tangible benefits of leaving the EU?
2. What damage to the UK and its citizens is an acceptable price to pay for those benefits?
3. Which ruling of the ECJ is most persuasive of the need to leave its jurisdiction?

User avatar
Alan H
Posts: 24031
Joined: July 3rd, 2007, 10:26 pm

Re: Paris killings

#38 Postby Alan H » November 21st, 2015, 8:05 pm

Alan Henness

There are three fundamental questions for anyone advocating Brexit:

1. What, precisely, are the significant and tangible benefits of leaving the EU?
2. What damage to the UK and its citizens is an acceptable price to pay for those benefits?
3. Which ruling of the ECJ is most persuasive of the need to leave its jurisdiction?

User avatar
Alan H
Posts: 24031
Joined: July 3rd, 2007, 10:26 pm

Re: Paris killings

#39 Postby Alan H » November 21st, 2015, 9:00 pm

Not sure where I got this from...

Screenshot from 2015-11-21 2.png
Screenshot from 2015-11-21 2.png (247.45 KiB) Viewed 2709 times
Alan Henness

There are three fundamental questions for anyone advocating Brexit:

1. What, precisely, are the significant and tangible benefits of leaving the EU?
2. What damage to the UK and its citizens is an acceptable price to pay for those benefits?
3. Which ruling of the ECJ is most persuasive of the need to leave its jurisdiction?

User avatar
Dave B
Posts: 17809
Joined: May 17th, 2010, 9:15 pm

Re: Paris killings

#40 Postby Dave B » November 21st, 2015, 10:26 pm

I can see the logic of tge above but . . .

If we stopped all actions in the ME tomorrow it probably would not stop radicalisation nor fundamentalism nor international terrorism. There are historical elements thar range from the split in Islam all the way up to the Sykes-Picot agreement and now.

It seems that IS are another "End Time" organisation according to the pundits.Like others they beleive that the world's final battle will be fought in Syria.

The West is seen as an historical eneny (true) and they still want to pay us back for the Crusades. I have said before that there is the posdibility that this 1000 odd year old animosity will not end until one side or the other is reduced to the point where they cannot fight any longer. I doubt that it will be the West.

There are also players on the Muslim side who do not count time in the same ways that Western politicians do. They are planning for the next millenium and beyond, not the next four years. Their personal life is nothing compared to the Holy Cause. Thus "martydom" is welcomed.
"Look forward; yesterday was a lesson, if you did not learn from it you wasted it."
Me, 2015

User avatar
animist
Posts: 6519
Joined: July 30th, 2010, 11:36 pm

Re: Paris killings

#41 Postby animist » November 22nd, 2015, 9:37 am

the "cycle" ignores the fact that Western bombing of Iraq and then Syria was initially aimed at defending inhabitants of the region, like the Yezidis, from the fanatical terror of Isis, not to prevent terror against the West. Where the cycle is correct is in pointing out the hypocrisy of supporting and arming a regime like Saudi Arabia, which in effect encourages fanaticism and thence terror


Return to “Miscellaneous Discussions...”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 7 guests