Assumptions deeply flawed that article. Ok so the french can assemble an armed paramilitary force quickly. Hasn't done them any good tho has it. Its pretty clear the french security services have crap intelligence services, second time they have been done over by known high risk targets. And it seems one of them was questioned by police after the act, yet was allowed to go on his way.
And yes, it will happen here. Again, as it has always happened in my working life time in London.
|
Glad I live in a one horse s*** kicking town
Sheep stealing is front page news here
|
|
stealing them is the least of the disgusting sheep based habits up there.
|
>> Assumptions deeply flawed that article.
I think you've come at it from the wrong angle.
My take is the actual terrorist attack would be exceptionally difficult to prevent in the first place (although our security services/ anti terrorist branch/special branch etc are doing a remarkably good job at that).
My point in posting the article is not necessarily the stopping of the attack (although, obviously, that would be good) but what happens once the terrorist attack has started.
We are woefully short of armed officers.
At present, the police tactics for armed incidents is the for the unarmed ones not to attend and wait for the armed ones. So how long will that take?
Well before I left, it regularly took over 20 mins for an armed response vehicle to attend my north London Borough... if you needed 15 or 20 that would take hours.
There'd be a lot of dead people in that time.
Somewhere in the counties and it's worse.
|
>> Well before I left, it regularly took over 20 mins for an armed response vehicle
>> to attend my north London Borough... if you needed 15 or 20 that would take
>> hours.
>>
>> There'd be a lot of dead people in that time.
>>
>> Somewhere in the counties and it's worse.
>>
It will take a really high casualty, multi location, simultaneous attack to wake up our illustrious leaders. When or if that happens it will get the standard "Lessons will be learned" response.
|
|
I have just read that France has 278,000 armed police, we have 6,000.
|
|
... and without wishing to feed anyone's fire, what good has their 278.000 armed police done them so far?
|
... and this Wiki page says there are 101,000 gendarmes (who mostly/all carry a sidearm) and 150,000 Police Nationale. en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Law_enforcement_in_France
I guess these are the front line numbers so all must be armed and maybe some of the back office staff are too, to reach your number.
|
>> ... and without wishing to feed anyone's fire, what good has their 278.000 armed police
>> done them so far?
>>
Not a lot in the prevention of the terrorist atrocity in the first place, but quite possibly (and probably) quite a lot once it had started.
The first police responders* in France are armed, so are all the rest that turn up. The best we can offer is ours sat at a rendezvous point some distance away waiting for an armed response unit.
If we are to keep our unarmed tradition, then we must have a decent support for it. Currently we haven't.
* I know the average French cop only has a sidearm... and against a rifle it is somewhat unequal .. however, it's far better than not having anything at all.
How many more people in France would have been killed if the French police were unarmed and had to wait for 20 mins for the first armed responder?
Last edited by: Westpig on Mon 16 Nov 15 at 15:45
|
>> ... and without wishing to feed anyone's fire, what good has their 278.000 armed police
>> done them so far?
>>
Maybe on Friday night it helped keep the number of innocent dead in the Bataclan hall down to 89 from nearer 1000, or whatever the hall's capacity is?
Not that I endorse the arming of all Police officers in this country.
|
|
(I don't disagree with this, see elsewhere, I am in favour of more armed police)
|
>> I have just read that France has 278,000 armed police, we have 6,000.
>>
And the French terrorists had Kalashnikovs.. So an armed gendarme is worth nothing unless he has body armour and a submachine gun...or a high powered rifle.
A comparison of apples and pears.
Unless of course you suggest we arm police so they can be used as target practise:-)
Last edited by: madf on Mon 16 Nov 15 at 15:47
|
>> And the French terrorists had Kalashnikovs.. So an armed gendarme is worth nothing unless he
>> has body armour and a submachine gun...or a high powered rifle.
Don't forget that every cop has a pistol, so within several to say 6 or 7 minutes there could easily be a 100 cops turn up, all with pistols.
Fair enough an entrenched gunman with a rifle is going to see off plenty of cops with pistols... however the circs of these things are that the gunmen wander around shooting people... which gives a cop a chance of concealment and having a pop....
... whereas over here. Nothing, for quite some time potentially.
|
>> ... whereas over here. Nothing, for quite some time potentially.
In most European countries the police stemmed from the military and remain 'paramilitary'.
What we have here is peelers, unarmed bobbies who are supposed to keep order with their strong right arms and a (potentially) very nasty cudgel. Getting pistols 'issued' is a tiresome bureaucratic business, one is led to believe.
Most Britons prefer it like that I think, and probably the fuzz themselves do too, when they aren't outnumbered by tooled-up thugs down a dark alley... a rare event in our well-conducted society one would like to think.
|
>> Most Britons prefer it like that I think, and probably the fuzz themselves do too
Agreed.
However, you have to have a decent system in place to cover the eventualities that needs firearms.
|
|
Don't all French police carry a sidearm? They used to I think.
|
>> I have just read that France has 278,000 armed police, we have 6,000.
Pretty much every French cop from the CRS to Police Municipal is armed. Different system.
|
>> >> I have just read that France has 278,000 armed police, we have 6,000.
>>
>> Pretty much every French cop from the CRS to Police Municipal is armed. Different system.
>>
>>
I agree, but as Westpig says we don't have the immediate armed response to an incident. We could have someone running around shooting people until our armed response turns up. Any French police could keep a gunman contained for the short time it would take for their better armed people to arrive.
Last edited by: Old Navy on Tue 17 Nov 15 at 10:38
|
"Any French police could keep a gunman contained for the short time it would take for their better armed people to arrive."
But they didn't did they? Two major incidents this year and no benefit whatsoever in having an armed police force. Once again you seem willing to throwaway a cherished element of British life i.e an unarmed police force for no proven benefit. Once you arm the police it will be an irreversible decision.
Last edited by: CGNorwich on Tue 17 Nov 15 at 10:52
|
>> But they didn't did they? Two major incidents this year and no benefit whatsoever in
>> having an armed police force.
I think that your thought process is exceptionally naive.
We do not fully know how beneficial the armed police were.... because French armed police turned up and got on with tackling the bad guys.
My real fear for the UK, is not having enough armed police to start with would cause considerably more casualties than the French had.
>> Once again you seem willing to throwaway a cherished element
>> of British life i.e an unarmed police force for no proven benefit. Once you arm
>> the police it will be an irreversible decision.
>>
That is you twisting the arguement, possibly through ignorance. We don't need to arm every police officer.. just ensure there are enough ARV's (armed response vehicles) to ensure a decent first response with armed officers. It is my belief that at present we cannot possibly achieve that.
I wrote to my MP about that yesterday.. so watch this space. If anything worthy comes about, i'll post it in this thread.
Last edited by: Westpig on Tue 17 Nov 15 at 17:43
|
We had armed police appear in full on shouty machine gunnery in Cambridge today apparently, which put the wind up some spectators, unsurprisingly. Turned out there was a report of an armed robbery in the Premier Travel agent, and the response team got there pretty sharpish by all accounts. Which is good.
I can only put down to funding or a lack of local knowledge by a police call centre somewhere in Guernsey that it turned out to be a different Premier Travel agent. In Newmarket.
Which is unfortunate for everyone, really.
|
>> Any French police could keep a gunman contained for the short time it would take
>> for their better armed people to arrive.
Didn't seem to happen on Saturday though. The English witness, interviewed at length by Steven Nolan in 5Live, spoke of lying on the floor after the initial gunfire and waiting 90+ minutes before Police entered the building. The fact is that limiting factor for 5 men with Kalashnikovs is probably the amount of ammunition they can carry.
The British method of negotiating worked quite well historically - see Balcombe Street, Spaghetti House, Afghan Airlines etc.
Whether it could be successful with perpetrators who regard death as victory is another question.
|
According to reports in the Telegraph, the way the events in the Bacalan theatre unfolded was something like:
- First officer arrives within 20 minutes of it starting. He fires at a gunman - gunman detonates his vest (either intentionally or from being shot)
- 15 minutes later a heavily armed SWAT team arrives. They enter the building
- Attackers retreat upstairs and have hostages
- Hostage is sent out to talk with police around an hour later.
- Mobile phone conversations/negotiations with terrorists go nowhere.
- They won't release hostages
- Go ahead for final assault given at 00:20.
- Attackers open fire but police keep advancing... See the damage to the heavy shield!
i.telegraph.co.uk/multimedia/archive/03502/Paris-police-shiel_3502613b.jpg
- Stun grenade thrown, one terrorist shot.... other blows them both to bits.
- No hostages in the corridor were hit - thank goodness.
|
>> >> Assumptions deeply flawed that article.
>>
>> I think you've come at it from the wrong angle.
>> My point in posting the article is not necessarily the stopping of the attack (although,
>> obviously, that would be good) but what happens once the terrorist attack has started.
Well firstly we have to look at how we have handled stuff in the past.
Arming the police and then letting them shoot some completely uninvolved bloke AkA Jean Charles de Menezes is not a good precedence.
But take the Paris scenario, and transplant it to London. Terrorist are in the Albert Hall, have shot 20 hundred and holding the rest hostage. You and I know whats going to happen. Politicos will assume control and decide the best thing to do is to talk then out and will take about 5 days, despite having the SAS handy.
|
>>Terrorist are in the Albert Hall, have shot 20 hundred and holding the rest hostage. You and I know whats going to happen. Politicos will assume control and decide the best thing to do is to talk then out
No - it's a given that as soon as a hostage is killed on purpose, the hostage takers are dead men walking.
|
>> >>Terrorist are in the Albert Hall, have shot 20 hundred and holding the rest hostage.
>> You and I know whats going to happen. Politicos will assume control and decide the
>> best thing to do is to talk then out
>>
>> No - it's a given that as soon as a hostage is killed on purpose,
>> the hostage takers are dead men walking.
I would like to think that, but I suspect that is not the case given the UK chain of command.
Last edited by: Zero on Mon 16 Nov 15 at 19:21
|
>> I would like to think that, but I suspect that is not the case given the UK chain of command.
>>
Yes, they certainly screwed up the Iranian embassy siege, one terrorist survived.
|
>> Yes, they certainly screwed up the Iranian embassy siege, one terrorist survived.
It took them 5 days to decide on force in that one.
|
>>
>> >> Yes, they certainly screwed up the Iranian embassy siege, one terrorist survived.
>>
>> It took them 5 days to decide on force in that one.
>>
It will have done back then, not relevant now though. No way they'd wait 5 days now.
|
>> It will have done back then, not relevant now though. No way they'd wait 5
>> days now.
As I said, I hope they wouldn't, but I still fear they might.
|
>> >> It will have done back then, not relevant now though. No way they'd wait
>> 5
>> >> days now.
>>
>> As I said, I hope they wouldn't, but I still fear they might.
>>
It's the first bit I'm more worried about. The bit when the carnage starts and you don't know exactly what's going on and don't have enough resources to deal.
Two hours later (and onwards) you'd have plenty of resources.
|
>> As I said, I hope they wouldn't, but I still fear they might.
>>
Anything is of course possible, but the way the world works today i couldn't imagine it waiting that long. A couple of hours is a long time on line. A few decades ago people had that luxury, now no way.
|
>> Well firstly we have to look at how we have handled stuff in the past.
>>
>> Arming the police and then letting them shoot some completely uninvolved bloke AkA Jean Charles
>> de Menezes is not a good precedence.
No, it was an almighty balls up for one small crucial part... i.e. the incorrect identification of Jean Charles... and even that wasn't wilful or unlawful, just a human mistake.
Some of the rest of it went fairly well and in particular the senior officer's authorisation of Op Kratos (in that it was actually authorised and not faffed over)... and the actions of the surveillance team following what they thought was a suicide bomber on to a tube train.
One high profile and monumental error up doesn't mean you never do it again or you don't sift through it take out the good bits and try to eradicate the bad bits and use them next time.
I don't wish to paper over the fact an innocent man died... however, the difficulties that day caused human error..it happens... and it'll happen again, humans are not robots.
|
|
That article sums it up quite well WP.
|
I quote ' Sheepless in Settle'
Blatant plagiarism from sad times in the recent past
|
An armed police force of half a million could not stop a a terrorist with a machine gun selecting a random target. The argument for a larger force is fallacious. It is almost impossible to beat terrorism with force as any study of history will reveal.
It should also be remembered that France is four times the size of England and Wales so you would expect it to have a larger police force even thought the population is about the same.
Arming the police would be like the idea mooted by ON of removing the right to a fair trial for terrorists. It would be allowing terrorism to dictate our liberties and way of life. It would be allowing a victory for terrorism.
It is important to keep these things in proportion. The loss of life in France has been terrible and the events truly tragic but compare it with the events that our parents or grandparents lived through and it does not seem quite so historically significant.
|
>> It is important to keep these things in proportion. The loss of life in France
>> has been terrible and the events truly tragic but compare it with the events that
>> our parents or grandparents lived through and it does not seem quite so historically significant.
Not just our parents or grandparents.
Since 1970 there have been approx 70 terrorist incidents in the UK, about 80 killed, 800 injured, billions of pounds of damage.
|
>> Since 1970 there have been approx 70 terrorist incidents in the UK, about 80 killed,
>> 800 injured, billions of pounds of damage.
I suspect you mean incidents in Great Britain. The term UK includes NI which would up the count considerably.
|
>> >> Since 1970 there have been approx 70 terrorist incidents in the UK, about 80
>> killed,
>> >> 800 injured, billions of pounds of damage.
>>
>> I suspect you mean incidents in Great Britain. The term UK includes NI which would
>> up the count considerably.
I did indeed mean Great Britain. NI was like Beirut.
|
But compared with the number of road deaths and injuries it pails into insignificance. If any amendment to our laws is proposed to reduce road deaths the car goes up that we just need to live with it. Nothing we can do. Yet if there is a terrorist incident we need to radically change our justice system, arm our police, impose detention without trial, curtail free speech etc,etc.
Unfortunately terrorism is going to be affect of life for a very long time. To a degree we have to learn to live with it. Of course we need to be vigilant, have an effective police and security forces but it seems to me they are doing a pretty good job at present.
You have to ask yourself what are the terrorists trying to achieve? They are trying to install fear and hatred of parts of our population. They are trying to damage our way of life and freedoms.
Many at the moment seem to playing into their hands.
|
>> Unfortunately terrorism is going to be affect of life for a very long time. To
>> a degree we have to learn to live with it. Of course we need to
>> be vigilant, have an effective police and security forces but it seems to me they
>> are doing a pretty good job at present.
which was the point I was trying to make. Its been a way of life for half a century, yet in no way has the country buckled or made any significant changes to our way of life.
Apart from airports. God those security checks are tiresome. but hey ho, if you pack and prepare properly you can usually minimise the agro.
|
I agree with your sentiments.
|
|
You must be doing it wrong Z, having been through Gatwick a few times this year it's a breeze compared to what it used to be - much quicker all round.
|
>> You must be doing it wrong Z, having been through Gatwick a few times this
>> year it's a breeze compared to what it used to be - much quicker all
>> round.
Its been easy for Mrs Z yes, but for me, I can never get through the scanner without being dragged out for a pat down.
|
|
They can spot a plastic cockney a mile off. Gold chain, pork pie hat and polarizing glasses in gold frames are the usual giveaways. You neex to drop the Dave Angel look.
|
>> They can spot a plastic cockney a mile off.
PLASTIC F ING COCKNEY? you are in a world of trouble my friend.
|
>> PLASTIC F ING COCKNEY? you are in a world of trouble my friend.
>>
Is it the "plastic" or the "cockney" which perturbs you?
:-)
|
>> Arming the police would be like the idea mooted by ON of removing the right
>> to a fair trial for terrorists. It would be allowing terrorism to dictate our liberties
>> and way of life. It would be allowing a victory for terrorism.
You are quick to disagree, but I don't recall your solution to the terrorist problem. In case I missed it could you tell us again?
|
I have many friends who were/are serving police officers. This was posted by a serving officer earlier today:
www.huffingtonpost.co.uk/chris-hobbs/police-cuts_b_6454652.html
|
|
Didn't WP already post this link?
|
Let me understand this: we face a threat from a group that objects to our liberal values and would like to impose on us its own authoritarian standards, enforced through the barrel of a gun. And our response to this should be to do their work for them by restricting our own civil liberties, limit freedom of speech, movement and association and have armed security forces to keep us in line?
Policing by consent means the police have the powers we give them. Any police officer - or former police officer - arguing for the police to have more power is to be regarded with deep suspicion. As Z points out, weapons in particular do not prevent crime, let alone terrorism; in fact it was the idea that force could solve problems that got us deeper into the mess we're now in.
|
WdB said "Any police officer - or former police officer - arguing for the police to have more power is to be regarded with deep suspicion"
Are police not allowed an opinion, doesn't freedom of speech apply to them? They are, after all, the ones that you and I send out to protect us at the front line and have a better handle on what's what than most of us do and their opinion should be valued rather than stifled.
Oh - and AFAIK the impact of armed police is unknown apart from a couple of speculative comments about NI (which is a different kettle of fish anyway). I don't think anyone is suggesting armed police would prevent crime, any more than the highest security locks will prevent a determined burglar, but it may well be that the incidence, severity or impact would be reduced if more police were armed. Having said that I do not want the police to be armed as a matter of course but if that's what it takes...
|
Are police not allowed an opinion, doesn't freedom of speech apply to them?
Of course they are, and of course it does. But right to an opinion is not the same as right to decide - just as well, given some of the opinions here.
What happens on the front line is a tactical matter, so naturally for the police themselves to decide. But the parameters within which the police operate are for society to define and the police to abide by; anything else is the definition of a police state.
|
I certainly think that we risk being forced down a road that in the first instance reduces privacy - almost removing it in fact as far as free association and movement are concerned. The data all exist - showing that I have been to Tesco this morning, used my credit card to buy headache tablets and champagne (£9 a bot BTW), communicated with three specific people by email and one by phone, and returned home. It only needs tying together with the right powers which is what is potentially happening.
That would IMO inevitably in time lead to curtailment of freedoms - give government the power and eventually it will be used and expanded upon.
Pragmatically, some sacrifices are sensible. Preferably on a temporary basis. Principles and ideals will not solve this.
Meanwhile, we would do well to think about what motivates people to take part in terrorism - I use the word advisedly, the meaning is being overlooked; we are enthusiastically being terrorised now, to the extent that we wail and gnash our teeth, cancel public events and restrict our own freedoms.
I'm trying not to hold the view that the problem is Islam per se. Clearly fundamentalist Islam is absolutely unacceptable, but so too would be fundamentalist Christianity if followers picked out the nasty bits that suited them and started stoning people. Holding Islam responsible would be to blame 1.5 billion people worldwide, many of whom follow or want a liberalised form of the religion. To alienate all muslims would be a mistake, since they are the recruiting ground for daesh. That must be countered, not encouraged.
One way or another, they must not be fed. A single policy of extermination will make things worse.
|
>> Policing by consent means the police have the powers we give them. Any police officer
>> - or former police officer - arguing for the police to have more power is
>> to be regarded with deep suspicion.
You too are coming from the wrong angle.
The police don't need more powers, they don't need every cop armed, however they do need proper armed support and by proper I mean enough.
Those that are currently trained are trained well and have decent equipment...however they are few in number and in some places are becoming less.
|
>> You are quick to disagree, but I don't recall your solution to the terrorist problem.
>> In case I missed it could you tell us again?
Remind me how successful internment without trial was in NI.
|
>> You are quick to disagree, but I don't recall your solution to the terrorist problem.
>> In case I missed it could you tell us again?
Would you like to check how we resolved the NI terrorist problem?
And then check how well the yanks Guantanamo bay solution has worked.
Last edited by: Zero on Mon 16 Nov 15 at 07:58
|
|
OK my plan is proved not to work, what is yours? Appeasement? OH that doesn't work either so that rules that out. You all seem to know how not to resolve the problem but not much constructive from such clever people.
|
>> OK my plan is proved not to work, what is yours?
I ask again, as you seem to be missing it. What plan resolved the NI terrorist issue?
|
>> I ask again, as you seem to be missing it. What plan resolved the NI
>> terrorist issue?
>>
Are you really naive enough to believe that the NI problem has been resolved? It has been dramatically reduced but it has not gone away. There is still segregation and armed factions in NI. Don't be taken in by the smiling assassins masquerading as politicians.
Last edited by: Old Navy on Mon 16 Nov 15 at 09:12
|
>> >> I ask again, as you seem to be missing it. What plan resolved the
>> NI
>> >> terrorist issue?
>> >>
>>
>> Are you really naive enough to believe that the NI problem has been resolved?
are you really pig headed enough to ignore any progress of any kind because it does not add weight to your discredited gung ho attitude?
We know the answer to that one dont we.
|
>> are you really pig headed enough to ignore any progress of any kind because it
>> does not add weight to your discredited gung ho attitude?
Why can't you debate politely?
|
>>Why can't you debate politely?<<
Because he's losing the debate? :)
Pat
|
>> >>Why can't you debate politely?<<
>>
>> Because he's losing the debate? :)
>>
>> Pat
Do you have an opinion on the debate or do you just want to have a poke at me?
|
I have quite a few opinions on the debate but you, and some of your learned friends, prefer the use of 'put downs' as a reply to anyone who's opinion differs from yours.
Which is a shame because the more diverse the opinions, and the background they come from, the better the debate.
To ignore them makes the thread simply an affirmation of your own beliefs...it doesn't make those beliefs correct though.
Pat
|
>> I have quite a few opinions on the debate but you, and some of your
>> learned friends, prefer the use of 'put downs' as a reply to anyone who's opinion
>> differs from yours.
>>
>> Which is a shame because the more diverse the opinions, and the background they come
>> from, the better the debate.
>>
>> To ignore them makes the thread simply an affirmation of your own beliefs...it doesn't make
>> those beliefs correct though.
>>
>> Pat
I was right then, you just want to have a pop at people on your dislike list. You are actually every bit as bad in exactly the same way as the people you criticise.
Last edited by: Zero on Tue 17 Nov 15 at 13:09
|
>> >> are you really pig headed enough to ignore any progress of any kind because
>> it
>> >> does not add weight to your discredited gung ho attitude?
>>
>> Why can't you debate politely?
Because the debater I responded to did not start politely, so I responded in like.
Last edited by: Zero on Mon 16 Nov 15 at 18:54
|
>> >> OK my plan is proved not to work, what is yours?
>>
>> I ask again, as you seem to be missing it. What plan resolved the NI
>> terrorist issue?
Giving in to the terrorists and letting the murderous bludgers join government.
|
>>Giving in to the terrorists and letting the murderous bludgers join government.
Well, given that the IRA stated and fought for desire was separation from the UK, I can't quite see how you work that out.
And I'd let the leaders of ISIS participate in any government if I thought it would end the violence.
The politician "murderous bludgers" eventually die and leave politician children behind them. As opposed to terrorist "murderous bludegers" who die and leave terrorist children behind them.
|
|
My experiences in fruit storage would suggest that granting human rights to bad apples would lead to a barrel-ful of mush.
|
>> Good article, thanks.
>>
+1
|
|
Excellent, NoFM. Well worth the time it takes to read.
|
|
Very useful. I thought that this article on the same site to be thought provoking: www.thenation.com/article/how-islamic-islamic-state/
|
"Excellent, NoFM. Well worth the time it takes to read."
Yep - the bottom line shows again 'you don't know what you've got 'til it's gone'.
I think it was N Farage who warned that life without Saddam would be even grimmer than life with him. I admit that, like most at the time, I didn't agree with Nigel.
Mind you, that sort of reaction isn't uncommon after a change of regime - many miss the 'old' Russia - 'life was better then than it is now'.
At the old company where I worked, several blokes were always moaning despite all the benefits provided by the firm. Eventually, there was a major reshuffle and those chaps were made redundant. Several years later, they were admitting how well they were looked after by the old firm. I suppose it's human nature ........ the good old days etc.
|
>>I think it was N Farage who warned that life without Saddam would be even grimmer than life with him
I don't remember that it was him who said it, but it was absolutely the view I subscribed to at the time.
As ever, had they gradually regulated what was going on, he too would have gradually passed without leaving this chaos behind him.
Can you imagine the chaos if the US had decided to start carrying out air strikes in Northern Ireland to stop the IRA terrorists bombing the mainland?
We'd have had innocent people desperately trying to get out of there to the mainland, we would have innocents wounded and dying, and we would have been creating a whole new bunch of dedicated terrorists, and giving them excuses to fight - as b***** Sunday did.
Why on earth would we expect this to be any different?
|
"Why on earth would we expect this to be any different?"
Yes - tolerating uncivilised behaviours is an interesting idea - nowadays, the police don't bother investigating burglaries and theft, though they're happy to give a crime number and I understand that in some advanced areas of the country, a blind eye is turned to organised rape.
I wonder how it would have all gone if we'd simply allowed Hitler to 'get on with it' ......... it might have saved a lot of lives.
I am reminded of a sketch on 'Not the nine o clock news'
www.youtube.com/watch?v=EWa3LyvFOdc
|
I think you misunderstand several things, including what I said. I am being generous with "misunderstand", because surely you wouldn't write that tripe just to be argumentative.
Fighting a nation is quite different to fighting a faction. So using force against Hitler made total sense, and were we to have a troublesome nation again today it would probably make total sense again.
So if you consider Northern Ireland. One nationality, all Christian, various types of Christian killing various other types of Christian, also killing "innocents" with bombs to make their point, running criminal enterprises, regular executions, lots of innocents who turn a blind eye to survive. lots of innocents who join in because they feel they have no choice, and loads of innocents just killed.
How in God's name would bombs sort that out? Who would you bomb / invade / shoot?
How many new terrorist rose from what they perceived to be previous injustices? How did internment work out?
What about if another nation decided to bomb the bits that they thought were on the wrong side in order to sort it out for us?
And whilst there are significant differences, the situation in the Middle East is a darn sight closer to the situation in Northern Ireland than to the Second World War.
I presume you do appreciate the differences?
And as for the perpetrators, I would personally prefer that they all ended up very dead. And that everybody who supported them was dead.
However, that would simply perpetuate the situation. And however much I would like to seem them dead, I'd rather see the conflict over.
p.s. didn't watch the clip, I never thought Not the 9 O'Clock news was funny.
Well, it was occasionally, but like Monty Python the good stuff was mostly buried in tripe.
Last edited by: No FM2R on Mon 16 Nov 15 at 12:46
|
>>>> Fighting a nation is quite different to fighting a faction.
A thought occurred to me over the weekend. What does the S in IS stand for? State. They want to be, and think they are, a country. That country appears to have declared war on us and multiple other, most significantly Russia and France. So, they want to be a country, let's treat them like a country.
Time to invade I'm afraid. But properly. All of us. A coalition including Russia, Iran, Israel, everyone. Sod the Saudis, if they want to stand by let them, the rest of us can agree to not buy their oil in perpetuity, see how clever they are then. We all have one common enemy now which we need to eradicate, all of us. Maybe after they're dealt with the world will understand a little bit better that those of us who remain are different and wish to run our countries differently, and we'll all get on a little bit better.
Man alive, I'm naïve, am I not?
One thing surprises me though, that Russia haven't nuked them yet.
|
So we should have treated the IRA like a Republic?
And it would take a nuke, or more likely several, to sort it out with force. And then where is the world going?
ISIS is like a school bully. It seems like the end of the world, and life will never get better. But the bullies always fade with time, albeit that often they are replaced with another.
Al Qaeda was going to end the civilised world, as was Indian Outsourcing, and Chinese Exports, etc. etc.
On a slightly different point, why do some people here think that the US Citizens all going to buy guns to protect themselves from shootings in Schools and Malls is ridiculous and yet fail to see the irony of their stance?
Last edited by: No FM2R on Mon 16 Nov 15 at 13:16
|
>> So we should have treated the IRA like a Republic?
Well no, the IRA never established a puppet government in Norn Iron. IS has occupied a large area and implemented its own governance upon it, it is to all intents and purposes a country, albeit a rogue one. This didn't happen on the Emerald Isle.
I'd like to agree with everything you say on the matter and would wish vehemently that you're right and it will all fizzle out and go away. In the meantime, we're going to get blown up on a regular basis over here in a far worse way than the IRA ever managed. I'm not sure that's a price worth paying for taking the chance that it will play out naturally.
I've sent my wife off to London on the train today and she's a bit nervous. I don't want to live like this. Someone is going to end up pushing the ultimate button over this. Might as well be sooner than later. Of course, I don't want that to be so, but I fear it is.
|
>>the IRA never established a puppet government in Norn Iron
It certainly thinks it did. I was living in Fermanagh at the time, and it certainly felt like it.
Complete with laws, courts and punishments.
|
>> >>the IRA never established a puppet government in Norn Iron
>>
>> It certainly thinks it did. I was living in Fermanagh at the time, and it
>> certainly felt like it.
>>
>> Complete with laws, courts and punishments.
>>
Well I have some limited experience also, having lived in Belfast for a few months in the early 90s and had a friend whose farmland in Fermanagh ran along the Republic's border - they were Proddies who regularly had their farm shop smashed up/vandalised, and indeed had it blown up once, but refused to bow and move away.
I'm not entirely convinced though that the extent of the IRA's power over the territory was quite as entrenched and firm as that demonstrated by IS in their bits of Syria and Iraq now. I went there (Fermanagh, near Enniskillen) a few times and didn't get beheaded I don't think (although someone was nasty to me on a bus once, assuming I was a British soldier because I had a short hair cut and a plummy accent) - I don't plan on trying that trick in Syria.
But anyway, the point is that IS appear to think they're a State, so perhaps our leaders should treat them like one. Attempt dialogue to secure peace, and when that fails as it inevitably will, treat it like a war situation and blow the bar stewards out of the ground. Silly, puppyish little wet leftie that I am.
|
>> One thing surprises me though, that Russia haven't nuked them yet.
>>
That Is a bit extreme, but if the middle East in general don't sort themselves out someone will do it for them big time. I don't see a good outcome for anyone in this. I note that ISIS have kept clear of Israel, you mess with them at your peril and they know it.
Last edited by: Old Navy on Mon 16 Nov 15 at 13:14
|
Vested interests and territorial interests make this a different scale of problem to NI; though I largely accept NFM's position that it is analogous in some respects.
The solution to NI (as far as it has gone, which is a big improvement on where it was) is as a result of some concessions. It is usually better to have troublemakers at least half in the tent, than outside pithing in.
I'm not sure that can apply to daesh. The IRA's main aims were to end British rule in NI and a united Ireland. Daesh's short term aim is supposedly to establish a fundamentalist caliphate under Sharia with no tolerance for those who don't agree with it. They seek our destruction. There's no negotiating with that.
I say short term aim, because it must follow that control of Saudi Arabia is or will become the ultimate objective. It is the headquarters of the religion, the only law is Sharia, it has infrastructure and wealth.
I hope the Saudis are thinking very hard about what they should be doing about daesh, because they should definitely be doing something. As Britain "negotiated with the IRA, it is they who should be engaging with daesh. I would not be surprised if they are - I just hope it is in the right way.
|
>> >>>> Fighting a nation is quite different to fighting a faction.
>>
>> A thought occurred to me over the weekend. What does the S in IS stand
>> for? State. They want to be, and think they are, a country. That country appears
>> to have declared war on us and multiple other, most significantly Russia and France. So,
>> they want to be a country, let's treat them like a country.
that's an interesting point and one to be thought more about. What consistutes a state? What more do they need to be thought of as one? Time i think is the main factor, carry on for long enough and it'll be increasingly thought of as one.
|
>> So if you consider Northern Ireland. One nationality
With respect Mark I think you fall into a trap if you see the Troubles as being about people of one Nationality fighting over religion. The real issue was about nationality, ethnicity even.
Religion was one of the markers of difference.
|
Sorry Bromp missed this...
>> you fall into a trap if you see the Troubles as being about people of one Nationality fighting over religion. The real issue was about nationality, ethnicity even.
As far as religion was concerned, as you say that was an indicator rather than a particular driver, nonetheless it remained a factor as did wealth, power, social position, etc. etc.
I still believe that NI is a better comparison than WWII, albeit with substantial differences.
|
|
Withhold the ethylene? Unusual. But not dissimilar in principle to the old oxygen deficiency strategy. That didn't work either.
|
Norman Tebbit in full flow here:
tinyurl.com/o954lo2
Remind me what the IRA's bombing of him and his wife changed his mind? Of course it made him more determined than ever to win.
Pity he appears not to have applied that learning to the current position.
|
I have to give Charles Moore credit for some intelligence, but he needs more transparently to distinguish Islam and muslims from Islamism. Intolerance of Islamism, fundamental and militant Islam yes, but many will read that as intolerance of muslims.
The majority of muslims are modernisers who do not want us all to live by Sharia or to live under the fundamentalist kind themselves. We need to be on the same side unless we want more of the bad kind. If that is appeasement then I disagree with Moore.
|
>> I have to give Charles Moore credit for some intelligence, but he needs more transparently to distinguish Islam and muslims from Islamism.
Seems to me he did his best. The problem with this is that Muslims are themselves confused about the distinction. Their religion expects them to be. Takes a very smart and honest believer to be clear about it, and they get a lot of gyp from their fellow-believers. Christians are similarly ambivalent.
|
>> >> I have to give Charles Moore credit for some intelligence, but he needs more
>> transparently to distinguish Islam and muslims from Islamism.
>>
>> Seems to me he did his best.
How many won't get past the headline?
|
>> How many won't get past the headline?
Dunno. But many are confused by Islam, and it's mostly Islam's fault.
|
Not least Moore himself, to judge from that article. He commits precisely the error of reasoning that the article in Norton's link warns against - and commends Obama for avoiding.
Then he compounds it by making up statistics and treating them as facts. 1m new Muslim arrivals in Germany, OK; but 'if only one percent subscribe to the doctrines of Isil...' One percent? That's an extraordinary share of society to consist of people willing to machine gun unarmed civilians - especially when it would mean sharing the values of those they've risked their lives to escape - yet Moore makes no attempt to justify it, just treats it as fact.
Moore is simply manipulating - and inventing - evidence to support his and his readers' prejudices. Not worth the time to read it.
|
But the attacks in France weren't one by immigrants, so why is his article relevant?
And even if you wish to consider it because you like the sentiments, what does he do except whinge and play to the less educated and comprehending parts of his readership.
It is designed and written to appeal to the half witted and dense. And it seems to have scored.
I wonder if he was a journalist preaching intolerance against all Irish Catholics in the UK 30 years ago.
I doubt he had the balls.
As Manatee said, we need to find common ground, not sling rocks of ignorance.
Last edited by: No FM2R on Mon 16 Nov 15 at 14:02
|
>> But the attacks in France weren't one by immigrants, so why is his article relevant?
It would seem at least some were.
>> It is designed and written to appeal to the half witted and dense. And it
>> seems to have scored.
I must be half witted and dense then.
>>
>> I wonder if he was a journalist preaching intolerance against all Irish Catholics in the
>> UK 30 years ago.
I didn't see his article as preaching intolerance against all Muslims.. just that we should battle against the extremists.
So pretty much echoing my own view.
|
|
I doubt if anybody is suggesting that we shouldn't battle with extremists so if that is all he is saying it wasn't worth the ink.
|
These are my thoughts, based on my previous policing knowledge and previous management control of firearms incidents in London. Bear in mind though I've been out of the game since Sep 2011:
We don't have enough firearms support officers in this country. That was my opinion outside of any terrorist angle and was well before the last few years of severe financial restraint. That statement stands with just regard for domestics or bank raids or whatever where firearms are involved.
Because we have unarmed police officers, it stands to reason you need a system for supporting them when needed. There is a support system and those in that are good, well trained and have good equipment..it's just that they are spread far, far too thinly.
If we talk about a Mumbai, Charlie Ebdo or Paris Nov 2015, we couldn't cope.... and Theresa May and the govt has been systematically running the police down both with morale and financially.
I agree with austerity, voted for the govt, agree we should financially keep our house in order, like what George Osborne has done and am uncomfortable arguing for more resources for 'my lot', when other people's 'lot' has the fiscal chop... however.... some things are too important to sod about with...
.... and this is one of them.
Last edited by: Westpig on Mon 16 Nov 15 at 16:04
|
...keep our house in order like what George Osborne has done ... when other people's 'lot' has the fiscal chop...
Education, for example?
Sorry to use the same gag twice, WP, but if you will keep offering open goals...
In other news, I had a look at the below-the-line comments on that Telegraph article. Oh dear, Charles, if you're going to stay in with that lot you're going to need a tattoo, probably on the back of your shaved head. Good luck.
Last edited by: WillDeBeest on Mon 16 Nov 15 at 16:30
|
>> Education, for example?
>>
>> Sorry to use the same gag twice, WP, but if you will keep offering open
>> goals...
No, I'm arguing that one.
Read it as: "I like what George has done"
You took my comma out when you re-posted.
|
Hmmm, maybe. The comma was my fault - or I could blame iOS 8 for making copy-and-paste unnecessarily fiddly. But the ambiguity was still there, and that's on you.
}:---)
|
>> Hmmm, maybe. The comma was my fault - or I could blame iOS 8 for
>> making copy-and-paste unnecessarily fiddly. But the ambiguity was still there, and that's on you.
>> }:---)
>>
Not sure how you could read it any other way. Seemed clear to me.
|
>> Hmmm, maybe. The comma was my fault - or I could blame iOS 8 for
>> making copy-and-paste unnecessarily fiddly. But the ambiguity was still there, and that's on you.
Oh no, there's two ways of reading it.
1, was as I intended
2, was somewhat pertinent to a chav
I didn't think of no.2...you did!
|
>> Oh no, there's two ways of reading it.
>>
The ambiguity comes from writing in shorthand, as one does in a quick post on a forum.
"Like what George Osborne has done" was presumably intended to mean "I like what GA has done", rather than the chavish "Like wot GA dun"?
On a pedantic note, it's "there're two ways of reading it" - there are (plural) not there is (singular)
|
Do you have a degree in being patronising W de B or is it just a gift?
Pat
|
|
Pat, is your contribution to this discussion today confined solely to discussing how others are discussing, or do you actually have any worthwhile opinions to offfer?
|
>>> is your contribution to this discussion today confined solely to discussing how others are discussing, or do you actually have any worthwhile opinions to offer?
OOOOH, ponce ponce... no, can't be bothered. Sigh ... Pat's all right though I think...
|
|
Did you actually have a point AC? Seems like a lot of words just to day that you won't be saying anything.
|
I explained the reason for that very early this morning in another thread.
Since you continually tell me my opinions are worthless why would I waste them on you?
You are after all, judge and jury of this forum and if you say that's what it is, it must be correct.
'Course, my old Mum would have just said 'He's got a bob on himself'
Pat
|
Pat,
I get that you don't really understand the issues, whick is ok. But you can't then just focus on your opinions on everybody else's style.
Why not either learn about the complexities or find a subject you're more comfortable. You did quite well in your little cooking thread, so perhaps there's a clue there for you.
|
>>since you continually tell me my opinions are worthless why would I waste them on you?
Well you are correct in that i do think your opinions are worthless, certainly on this subject, but i don't believe I've said so, and certainly not "continually"
Last edited by: No FM2R on Tue 17 Nov 15 at 13:23
|
Who's being patronized, Pat? The other day, he used some poor English in making a political point that I disagreed with, I poked him gently for it and he took it in the playful spirit I intended. He did (or maybe didn't do) something similar in this thread, so I had another go. It's a bit of fun, and he doesn't need you - or your five invisible supporters - to fight imaginary battles for him.
Yelling "No-one likes you, you've got no friends," while others stand around pointing and jeering is playground bully stuff and not worthy of you.
I expect NoFM would say something similar, but he doesn't need me to fight his battles either.
|
>> You started it.
yeah, hes a trouble maker miss
|
Mark and W de B
Patronising me will not beat me! I've met so many pig headed lorry drivers in my time that I'll take you both on anytime.
Do neither of you realise just how embarrassing you make yourselves look when you do that?
Are you really that blind or arrogant?
Do you think I think you're both clever?
Do you think I sit here wounded by your *imagined* put downs?
I just wonder what it is that makes you feel so vulnerable.
So, bring it on lads, do your worst, I'll still be here smiling to myself in the morning when you're both snoring away.
....and Z, you're wrong with your assumption because I'm happy to state publicly that though I've never met you, I quite like you:)
Mark......for the record, I don't fancy him, before you start with tactics you've used in the past.
Z and I can have a spat but still have a mutual respect for each other.....get the message?
Pat
|
Pat, I'm not sure what you think I'm doing or when I'm supposed to have done it. I don't think I've directed anything towards you except what I thought was a reasoned response to your gratuitously snarky quip about being patronizing - which in any case I seem to have misunderstood as I thought it referred to WP.
So explain yourself or give it a rest, please. For the rest of you, the red face button is here. ---------------------------------------------------V
|
>>for the rest of you
Not all of us...
Last edited by: Clk Sec on Tue 17 Nov 15 at 16:15
|
Oh do stop bickering darlings...
- the red face button is here.
|
|
Here I am, umming and ahhing over whether to update my SAAB thread (the forum's greatest) with the latest bombshell, and all I can see on here is this childish prattle. You lot don't deserve it. It's like nursery class today.
|
>> It's like nursery class today.
Knew an Algerian cat called Abdeslam back in the day. He came on pious and Islamist, but was a scapegrace really, from a well-off FLN-connected family. His father was a wicked old former terrorist and assassin, or so he claimed. Ali La Pointe was a buddy of his, he also claimed. He had a word with some old gangster connection and got me some dope, so I liked him a lot. I didn't like washing at a cold tap in the yard with women walking about liable to spot my uncircumcised thingie...
Abdeslam's elder half-brother (the old man had two or three wives) was a secret policeman. Drank like a whole school of fish and drove like a total maniac. Even when he crashed - he did once with me on board - he could flash his card and send the ordinary fuzz scuttling for cover with their tails between their legs.
Arab hospitality can have an oppressive side but is genuine and refreshing to a genetically stingy Westerner. It must be much more oppressive for the hosts than for the guest.
Last edited by: Armel Coussine on Tue 17 Nov 15 at 16:37
|
>> He had a word with some old gangster connection and got me some dope, so I liked him a lot.
He was though, when he'd had a smoke, inexhaustibly voluble, with a harsh, shrill voice that I can still hear. The discourse was a mixture of information, propaganda and self-justification, very hard to separate from each other. But gave a fascinating, if slanted and highly-coloured, insight into the modern, very tragic and brutal history of Algeria. The old boy really had knifed a couple of narks, or set them up for it. The Franco-Algerian tangle is one of the most lurid in modern history.
As a hack I had the privilege of access in Algeria to people of all political and criminal shades. The FLN had me, as all hacks, permanently surrounded and steered this way and that. The Algerians were tolerant with the blundering fool of an outsider, and seized the chance to plant a few truths, lies etc. It was all jolly interesting to a naive English boy.
|
>> Here I am, umming and ahhing over whether to update my SAAB thread (the forum's
>> greatest) with the latest bombshell, and all I can see on here is this childish
>> prattle. You lot don't deserve it. It's like nursery class today.
If yu thunk the SAAB three is the forums greatest (its the longest for sure) then I think your "bombshell" could well be a damp squib.
Unless of course you have fixed the gearbox for 5 quid and and hairpin.
|
>> Here I am, umming and ahhing over whether to update my SAAB thread (the forum's
>> greatest) with the latest bombshell, and all I can see on here is this childish
>> prattle. You lot don't deserve it. It's like nursery class today.
>>
No it's not nursery. They're not old enough to go to nursery..:-)
|
So this is posting after posting explaining in detail how much you don't care? Posting after posting talking about why I am doing what or what I am thinking, so that I understand your lack of interest?
You're obsessing and its making you behave irrationally.
As for comments being effective, I have no idea, and little interest, in how you feel, but it would appear that every time I try to wind you up I succeed. Every time I make a comment to get a reaction, I indeed get one.
Rather effective and not a little amusing, albeit predictable.
|
>> but it would appear that every time I try to wind you up I succeed. Every time I make a comment to get a reaction, I indeed get one.
Rather effective and not a little amusing, albeit predictable. <<
....and none the less, very childish behaviour from a supposed adult.
Pat
|
|
For Christ's sake grow up.
Last edited by: CGNorwich on Wed 18 Nov 15 at 09:36
|
|
Other Gods are available.
|
>> Follow the gourd.
I always knew vegetarians were nutters
|
|
Well it's the gourd or the shoe, but choose carefully. Your eternal soul depends on it.
|
>>........Your eternal soul depends on it.
>>
....no longer my concern, it's already owned by Google.
;-)
|
Potential for terrorist atrocity in UK - Zero
