Shootings and explosions in Paris

[tinfoilhat]

That's a fair point. What would you do instead?

 

Strictly from a UK stand point, more or less what we're doing. We are showing willing with targeted airstrikes which will be as accurate as they can be and offer training to Iraqi forces if there are any who haven't run away. Give the Kurds more weaponry rather than cap guns. As I said before, the Russians and french can get stuck in they want to. Cameron has said he wants to spend more on out intelligence service - that's the way to go. Strangle them financially if we can, and keep a lid on extremists on the home front.

 

We put billions into Iraq and Afghanistan and paid a high human cost too. We got sod all from it. Take a back seat on this one.

[milquetoast1]

Which was not a theocracy. Nor were Egypt, Libya, Syria, Tunisia or Morocco for that matter.

 

Iran though...theocracy start year: 1979. And we're only just now starting to do business with them again.

 

36 years on

 

I hear you fully about running away from theocracies. Not that Egypt is one, but e.g. for over 2 decades my Dad had some very good Egyptian friends met through business. Copts. Not heard anything from them for over 10 years now, and we've repeatedly tried to find them/get in touch over time. Not a trace. I count on the fingers of one hand the 'everyday' people I know (friends, acquaintance, UK and elsewhere) who know anything about the persecution of Christians throughout the Middle East, never mind how long it's been going on.

 

Egypt is not a theocracy, but many bits of it effectively are. My mum was a Christian, my dad a Muslim, not a good combination after the assassination of Sadat.

 

I mentioned the war in Iraq only to highlight that Islamic intolerance was happening well before it.

[Dubaidani13]

a) since when did that bother our government?

b) trying to think if there is anything in the Geneva convention that would make it not be. I'm not even sure if Geneva convention applies here as we've discussed before. Like most things, the UN and lawyers decide legality and I can't see anything I've suggested that's not been used in wars before now.

 

why even bother with the Geneva convention?? our enemies dont, if both played by the same rules then yes but IS dont do they, they hide behind mosques, women and children.

if getting rid of key players in IS involves "illegal" action then bring it on

[sgtkate]

why even bother with the Geneva convention?? our enemies dont, if both played by the same rules then yes but IS dont do they, they hide behind mosques, women and children.

if getting rid of key players in IS involves "illegal" action then bring it on

 

Because if we don't then you've just sentenced all our soldiers to jail terms for war crimes. Just because we don't like the laws doesn't mean we can ignore them. I've said before that Geneva convention needs updating to allow us to fight ISIS on a vaguely even footing, but it was written in an era when enemies were defined countries with armies and not groups of disparate soldiers like ISIS.

[buck]

Because if we don't then you've just sentenced all our soldiers to jail terms for war crimes. Just because we don't like the laws doesn't mean we can ignore them. I've said before that Geneva convention needs updating to allow us to fight ISIS on a vaguely even footing, but it was written in an era when enemies were defined countries with armies and not groups of disparate soldiers like ISIS.

I doubt that we have the time to wait for somebody to rewrite the Geneva Convention, just like the Germans and Japanese didn't back in the Forties. Kill when you have to, apologize later.

[RiffRaff]

For those still confused about the Middle East situation, I've just come across this :

 

"In case you don't know what's happening in the middle east.

President Assad ( who is bad ) is a nasty guy who got so nasty his people rebelled and the Rebels ( who are good ) started winning ( Hurrah!).

But then some of the rebels turned a bit nasty and are now called Islamic State ( who are definitely bad!) and some continued to support democracy ( who are still good.)

 

So the Americans ( who are good ) started bombing Islamic State ( who are bad ) and giving arms to the Syrian Rebels ( who are good ) so they could fight Assad ( who is still bad ) which was good.

 

By the way, there is a breakaway state in the north run by the Kurds who want to fight IS ( which is a good thing ) but the Turkish authorities think they are bad, so we have to say they are bad whilst secretly thinking they're good and giving them guns to fight IS (which is good) but that is another matter.

 

Getting back to Syria.

So President Putin ( who is bad, cos he invaded Crimea and the Ukraine and killed lots of folks including that nice Russian man in London with polonium poisoned sushi ) has decided to back Assad ( who is still bad ) by attacking IS ( who are also bad ) which is sort of a good thing?

 

But Putin ( still bad ) thinks the Syrian Rebels ( who are good ) are also bad, and so he bombs them too, much to the annoyance of the Americans ( who are good ) who are busy backing and arming the rebels ( who are also good).

 

Now Iran ( who used to be bad, but now they have agreed not to build any nuclear weapons and bomb Israel are now good ) are going to provide ground troops to support Assad ( still bad ) as are the Russians ( bad ) who now have ground troops and aircraft in Syria.

 

So a Coalition of Assad ( still bad ) Putin ( extra bad ) and the Iranians ( good, but in a bad sort of way ) are going to attack IS ( who are bad ) which is a good thing, but also the Syrian Rebels ( who are good ) which is bad.

 

Now the British ( obviously good, except that nice Mr Corbyn in the corduroy jacket, who is probably bad ) and the Americans ( also good ) cannot attack Assad ( still bad ) for fear of upsetting Putin ( bad ) and Iran ( good / bad) and now they have to accept that Assad might not be that bad after all compared to IS ( who are super bad).

 

So Assad ( bad ) is now probably good, being better than IS ( but let’s face it, drinking your own wee is better than IS so no real choice there ) and since Putin and Iran are also fighting IS that may now make them Good. America ( still Good ) will find it hard to arm a group of rebels being attacked by the Russians for fear of upsetting Mr Putin ( now good ) and that nice mad Ayatollah in Iran ( also Good ) and so they may be forced to say that the Rebels are now Bad, or at the very least abandon them to their fate. This will lead most of them to flee to Turkey and on to Europe or join IS ( still the only constantly bad group).

 

To Sunni Muslims, an attack by Shia Muslims ( Assad and Iran ) backed by Russians will be seen as something of a Holy War, and the ranks of IS will now be seen by the Sunnis as the only Jihadis fighting in the Holy War and hence many Muslims will now see IS as Good ( Doh!.)

 

Sunni Muslims will also see the lack of action by Britain and America in support of their Sunni rebel brothers as something of a betrayal ( mmm.might have a point.) and hence we will be seen as Bad.

 

So now we have America ( now bad ) and Britain ( also bad ) providing limited support to Sunni Rebels ( bad ) many of whom are looking to IS ( Good / bad ) for support against Assad ( now good ) who, along with Iran ( also Good) and Putin ( also, now, unbelievably, Good ) are attempting to retake the country Assad used to run before all this started?

 

So, now you fully understand everything, all your questions are answered!"

[Dubaidani13]

Because if we don't then you've just sentenced all our soldiers to jail terms for war crimes. Just because we don't like the laws doesn't mean we can ignore them. I've said before that Geneva convention needs updating to allow us to fight ISIS on a vaguely even footing, but it was written in an era when enemies were defined countries with armies and not groups of disparate soldiers like ISIS.

 

in its current form yes technically, but how many soldiers now are banged up for war crimes wrongly? i can think of a Royal marine recently that is doing time for defending us. when in a war zone rules are secondary when your life is at stake.

[sgtkate]

For those still confused about the Middle East situation, I've just come across this :

 

"In case you don't know what's happening in the middle east.

President Assad ( who is bad ) is a nasty guy who got so nasty his people rebelled and the Rebels ( who are good ) started winning ( Hurrah!).

But then some of the rebels turned a bit nasty and are now called Islamic State ( who are definitely bad!) and some continued to support democracy ( who are still good.)

 

So the Americans ( who are good ) started bombing Islamic State ( who are bad ) and giving arms to the Syrian Rebels ( who are good ) so they could fight Assad ( who is still bad ) which was good.

 

By the way, there is a breakaway state in the north run by the Kurds who want to fight IS ( which is a good thing ) but the Turkish authorities think they are bad, so we have to say they are bad whilst secretly thinking they're good and giving them guns to fight IS (which is good) but that is another matter.

 

Getting back to Syria.

So President Putin ( who is bad, cos he invaded Crimea and the Ukraine and killed lots of folks including that nice Russian man in London with polonium poisoned sushi ) has decided to back Assad ( who is still bad ) by attacking IS ( who are also bad ) which is sort of a good thing?

 

But Putin ( still bad ) thinks the Syrian Rebels ( who are good ) are also bad, and so he bombs them too, much to the annoyance of the Americans ( who are good ) who are busy backing and arming the rebels ( who are also good).

 

Now Iran ( who used to be bad, but now they have agreed not to build any nuclear weapons and bomb Israel are now good ) are going to provide ground troops to support Assad ( still bad ) as are the Russians ( bad ) who now have ground troops and aircraft in Syria.

 

So a Coalition of Assad ( still bad ) Putin ( extra bad ) and the Iranians ( good, but in a bad sort of way ) are going to attack IS ( who are bad ) which is a good thing, but also the Syrian Rebels ( who are good ) which is bad.

 

Now the British ( obviously good, except that nice Mr Corbyn in the corduroy jacket, who is probably bad ) and the Americans ( also good ) cannot attack Assad ( still bad ) for fear of upsetting Putin ( bad ) and Iran ( good / bad) and now they have to accept that Assad might not be that bad after all compared to IS ( who are super bad).

 

So Assad ( bad ) is now probably good, being better than IS ( but let’s face it, drinking your own wee is better than IS so no real choice there ) and since Putin and Iran are also fighting IS that may now make them Good. America ( still Good ) will find it hard to arm a group of rebels being attacked by the Russians for fear of upsetting Mr Putin ( now good ) and that nice mad Ayatollah in Iran ( also Good ) and so they may be forced to say that the Rebels are now Bad, or at the very least abandon them to their fate. This will lead most of them to flee to Turkey and on to Europe or join IS ( still the only constantly bad group).

 

To Sunni Muslims, an attack by Shia Muslims ( Assad and Iran ) backed by Russians will be seen as something of a Holy War, and the ranks of IS will now be seen by the Sunnis as the only Jihadis fighting in the Holy War and hence many Muslims will now see IS as Good ( Doh!.)

 

Sunni Muslims will also see the lack of action by Britain and America in support of their Sunni rebel brothers as something of a betrayal ( mmm.might have a point.) and hence we will be seen as Bad.

 

So now we have America ( now bad ) and Britain ( also bad ) providing limited support to Sunni Rebels ( bad ) many of whom are looking to IS ( Good / bad ) for support against Assad ( now good ) who, along with Iran ( also Good) and Putin ( also, now, unbelievably, Good ) are attempting to retake the country Assad used to run before all this started?

 

So, now you fully understand everything, all your questions are answered!"

 

Magic!

 

---------- Post added 19-11-2015 at 15:42 ----------

 

in its current form yes technically, but how many soldiers now are banged up for war crimes wrongly? i can think of a Royal marine recently that is doing time for defending us. when in a war zone rules are secondary when your life is at stake.

 

Who shot an unarmed man? His life wasn't at stake at that point at all. He shot him out of malice and anger and frankly he's a crap soldier for doing so. He wasn't defending us, he was carrying out his own 'revenge'. Not acceptable.

 

However, Geneva convention is an odd idea really. How can you have rules for what is effectively murder? Sometimes wars are the only way and that's rubbish but they way of life. The aim of war is to win. Geneva convention should protect innocents and civilians and anything else should be pretty much fair game, otherwise it's just trying to make it all into a nice game which ends with a cup of tea and a biscuit.

[tinfoilhat]

Magic!

 

---------- Post added 19-11-2015 at 15:42 ----------

 

 

Who shot an unarmed man? His life wasn't at stake at that point at all. He shot him out of malice and anger and frankly he's a crap soldier for doing so. He wasn't defending us, he was carrying out his own 'revenge'. Not acceptable.

 

However, Geneva convention is an odd idea really. How can you have rules for what is effectively murder? Sometimes wars are the only way and that's rubbish but they way of life. The aim of war is to win. Geneva convention should protect innocents and civilians and anything else should be pretty much fair game, otherwise it's just trying to make it all into a nice game which ends with a cup of tea and a biscuit.

 

Crap soldier? Very harsh. Read this from the telegraph.

 

"It is hard to imagine the daily pressures faced by Blackman and the 15 men under his command as they performed their duties at Command Post Omar - a remote compound at the very frontline of the UK’s efforts to wrest back Helmand from the tyranny of the Taliban.

 

Undermanned and overstretched, the Marines lived for six months in a cramped mud-brick enclosure, patrolling for up ten hours a day and living with the constant threat of buried IED bombs and attack. Seven Marines from 42 Commando were killed during this tour and after one IED explosion, soldiers from the unit found body parts of British troops deliberately hung from a tree to taunt them.

 

A psychiatric report on Blackman, presented only after his conviction, found that he and his men had been under near-intolerable stress. At sentencing, the court martial conceded it was likely the Marine had been suffering “to some degree from combat stress disorder”.

[Brian Equato]

For those still confused about the Middle East situation, I've just come across this :

 

"In case you don't know what's happening in the middle east.

President Assad ( who is bad ) is a nasty guy who got so nasty his people rebelled and the Rebels ( who are good ) started winning ( Hurrah!).

But then some of the rebels turned a bit nasty and are now called Islamic State ( who are definitely bad!) and some continued to support democracy ( who are still good.)

 

So the Americans ( who are good ) started bombing Islamic State ( who are bad ) and giving arms to the Syrian Rebels ( who are good ) so they could fight Assad ( who is still bad ) which was good.

 

By the way, there is a breakaway state in the north run by the Kurds who want to fight IS ( which is a good thing ) but the Turkish authorities think they are bad, so we have to say they are bad whilst secretly thinking they're good and giving them guns to fight IS (which is good) but that is another matter.

 

Getting back to Syria.

So President Putin ( who is bad, cos he invaded Crimea and the Ukraine and killed lots of folks including that nice Russian man in London with polonium poisoned sushi ) has decided to back Assad ( who is still bad ) by attacking IS ( who are also bad ) which is sort of a good thing?

 

But Putin ( still bad ) thinks the Syrian Rebels ( who are good ) are also bad, and so he bombs them too, much to the annoyance of the Americans ( who are good ) who are busy backing and arming the rebels ( who are also good).

 

Now Iran ( who used to be bad, but now they have agreed not to build any nuclear weapons and bomb Israel are now good ) are going to provide ground troops to support Assad ( still bad ) as are the Russians ( bad ) who now have ground troops and aircraft in Syria.

 

So a Coalition of Assad ( still bad ) Putin ( extra bad ) and the Iranians ( good, but in a bad sort of way ) are going to attack IS ( who are bad ) which is a good thing, but also the Syrian Rebels ( who are good ) which is bad.

 

Now the British ( obviously good, except that nice Mr Corbyn in the corduroy jacket, who is probably bad ) and the Americans ( also good ) cannot attack Assad ( still bad ) for fear of upsetting Putin ( bad ) and Iran ( good / bad) and now they have to accept that Assad might not be that bad after all compared to IS ( who are super bad).

 

So Assad ( bad ) is now probably good, being better than IS ( but let’s face it, drinking your own wee is better than IS so no real choice there ) and since Putin and Iran are also fighting IS that may now make them Good. America ( still Good ) will find it hard to arm a group of rebels being attacked by the Russians for fear of upsetting Mr Putin ( now good ) and that nice mad Ayatollah in Iran ( also Good ) and so they may be forced to say that the Rebels are now Bad, or at the very least abandon them to their fate. This will lead most of them to flee to Turkey and on to Europe or join IS ( still the only constantly bad group).

 

To Sunni Muslims, an attack by Shia Muslims ( Assad and Iran ) backed by Russians will be seen as something of a Holy War, and the ranks of IS will now be seen by the Sunnis as the only Jihadis fighting in the Holy War and hence many Muslims will now see IS as Good ( Doh!.)

 

Sunni Muslims will also see the lack of action by Britain and America in support of their Sunni rebel brothers as something of a betrayal ( mmm.might have a point.) and hence we will be seen as Bad.

 

So now we have America ( now bad ) and Britain ( also bad ) providing limited support to Sunni Rebels ( bad ) many of whom are looking to IS ( Good / bad ) for support against Assad ( now good ) who, along with Iran ( also Good) and Putin ( also, now, unbelievably, Good ) are attempting to retake the country Assad used to run before all this started?

 

So, now you fully understand everything, all your questions are answered!"

 

What happened to my enemy's enemy is my friend like we used to have? Made things so much simpler.