Shooting and Explosions in Paris

[the black fox]

in case its slipped by any of you with your silly arguing over points of self interest ,president hollande has invoked a unused part of the european charter calling upon all EEC nations to assist france ,they have all agreed 100% ,if he also invokes the nato treaty which states a attack on any member state is a attack on all ,then we are effectively in a state of war whether we want it or not .the next week or so may be very interesting .time will tell especially if isis pull off another attack elsewhere

 

[big soft moose]

,if he also invokes the nato treaty which states a attack on any member state is a attack on all ,

yes because Nato assistance was very noticeable during the falklands.. (not to mention various american overseas wars)

It might also have escaped your notice but we've been in a state of war (as much as you can be with a non nation state) with AQ and asociated groups since 9/11

 

[LongLensPhotography]

if isis pull off another attack elsewhere

They will certainly plan and try to do so. Our best hope rests upon the police and secret service doing outstanding job and busting the bastards. Its a shame we can't simply cluster bomb them here in EU

 

[arclight]

And an interesting 5 minute history of Syria / ISIS

What we are dealing with here is a clusterfuq.

Tidy little video is that although, for the sake of clarity, it omits the myriads of sub cultures and groups that all contribute to the endless problems. In that part of the world they seem to bear grudges for centuries.
I suspect that if all the players, bar any two, were removed at random from the conflict there would still be fighting.

 

[cambsno]

killing for peace is like f*****g for chastity

I don't agree, Churchill wanted to take action against Germany in 36/37. We actually got chamberlains peace in our time shortly after, and we know what happened over the next 6 years.

Had we bombed Germany in 36 then yes, many Germans would have died but probably less than did in WW2 (although the issue of us having the resource is another question).

People like hitler can only be stopped by force. My view is that we do or don't and stop pussyfooting. Either we back off entirely and let IS do what they want (hoping they then stop attacking us, but longer term I think that will be an issue) or we all go in all guns blazing with a d day style approach and put hundreds of thousands of troops there and bomb round the clock. What I don't like is the odd air raid here and there.

 

[andya700]

Well here we go. Im actually linking to DM article...
http://hitchensblog.mailonsunday.co...-to-beat-terror-then-calm-down-and-think.html

Brilliant article, I sometimes have great difficulty listening to Hitchens, but IMO he is spot on this time.

After all, let us not forget that Islamist terror has grown in strength and reach, not diminished, since we embarked on our supposedly benevolent interventions in the Muslim world. The Iraq invasion, the Afghan intervention, the wild and brainless enthusiasm with which we greeted the disastrous ‘Arab Spring’, the supposedly humanitarian interference in Libya which turned it into a failed state, the aid and comfort we gave to the rebellion in Syria. Not only have these things failed to prevent terror. They have visited a violent chaos on the whole Muslim world, in which fanatical and grisly death cults thrive and prosper.

 

[andya700]

People like hitler can only be stopped by force. My view is that we do or don't and stop pussyfooting. Either we back off entirely and let IS do what they want (hoping they then stop attacking us, but longer term I think that will be an issue) or we all go in all guns blazing with a d day style approach and put hundreds of thousands of troops there and bomb round the clock. What I don't like is the odd air raid here and there.

ISIL and the other groups such as - Al Qaeda, Al Nusra, Al Shabab, Boko Haram, are nothing like Hitler and Nazi Germany in 1936 - 1939.
These groups although obvious in Syria, Iraq and Libya, have also spread and hidden themselves in many other countries, across the Middle East, parts of the far East (Malaysia, Indonesia), large swathes of Africa, most European countries, and do not have ONE leader, or to draw a comparison with Germany - ONE dictator.
The other important "elephant in the room", is that they are being funded by our so called allies in the Middle East - Saudi Arabia, Qatar and other Gulf States, where many people share the same ideology as ISIL.

 

[andya700]

I think that's a very narrow interpretation of what he is saying. Answer me this: we have had virtually no terrorist attacks in the UK. Why? Is it because we have heavily armed police on every street corner ready to blast anything that moves? Or is it because we have large teams of dedicated people working 24/7, gathering intelligence data, analysing it and working with people on the ground in communities? It's clearly the latter. So how is saying that these teams should be boosted and supported demonstrating an absolute lack of basic understanding, as you say?

Did he say we should get rid of the armed response units? No he didn't.

France do indeed have heavily armed anti terrorist units (so do Belgium), but unfortunately it did not stop the muders at Charlie Hebdo, the Jewish supermarket, or the latest atrocities in Paris.
Heavily armed response units are only any good if you know immediately where an incident is going to take place and RESPOND accordingly.

 

[poacher]

ISIL and the other groups such as - Al Qaeda, Al Nusra, Al Shabab, Boko Haram, are nothing like Hitler and Nazi Germany in 1936 - 1939.
These groups although obvious in Syria, Iraq and Libya, have also spread and hidden themselves in many other countries, across the Middle East, parts of the far East (Malaysia, Indonesia), large swathes of Africa, most European countries, and do not have ONE leader, or to draw a comparison with Germany - ONE dictator.
The other important "elephant in the room", is that they are being funded by our so called allies in the Middle East - Saudi Arabia, Qatar and other Gulf States, where many people share the same ideology as ISIL.

I take it you are talking about wahhabism


The Saudi Wahhabis are the real foe
We must take our fight to the preachers and financiers of terror.


Since 2001 our policy for fighting Islamic terrorists has been, to put it politely, missing the elephant in the room, sort of like treating symptoms and completely missing the disease.

Policymakers and slow-thinking bureaucrats stupidly let terrorism grow by ignoring the roots. So we lost a generation: Someone who went to grammar school in Saudi Arabia (our “ally”) after September 11 is now an adult, indoctrinated into believing and supporting Salafi violence, hence encouraged to finance it — while we got distracted by the use of complicated weapons and machinery.

Even worse, the Wahhabis have accelerated their brainwashing of East and West Asians with their madrassas, thanks to high oil revenues.

http://www.politico.eu/article/the-...-real-foe-islamic-terrorists-salafi-violence/

 

[big soft moose]

I don't agree, Churchill wanted to take action against Germany in 36/37. We actually got chamberlains peace in our time shortly after, and we know what happened over the next 6 years.

Had we bombed Germany in 36 then yes, many Germans would have died but probably less than did in WW2 (although the issue of us having the resource is another question).

People like hitler can only be stopped by force. My view is that we do or don't and stop pussyfooting. Either we back off entirely and let IS do what they want (hoping they then stop attacking us, but longer term I think that will be an issue) or we all go in all guns blazing with a d day style approach and put hundreds of thousands of troops there and bomb round the clock. What I don't like is the odd air raid here and there.

hitler could have been stopped with one bullet from an assasin - he could also have stopped by not shafting the entire german economy at the end of big mistake number 1

 

[big soft moose]

or we all go in all guns blazing with a d day style approach and put hundreds of thousands of troops there and bomb round the clock.

Thus killing 1000s of innocent people who don't support isis and turning the whole country against us - wonderful plan

and when we've alledgedly won (probably at great cost both financially and in soldiers lives) what do we do next ? Do we go for a permanent army of occupation (which of course won't be a constant target for bombs and terrorist attacks) or do we pull out and then find ourselves no better off when the next bunch of head cases wind up in charge.

The boots on the ground approach is essentially what we did in Iraq in 2003 and afghanistan in 2001 - neither of those turned out too well (and the former is the root cause of the curernt mess)

 

[ZoneV]

Not surprisingly, they haven't skimped on the security measures at tonight's game at Wembley. Thorough searches, a very large armed Police presence and SAS teams patrolling the stadium.

I really hope it's a good game and visiting fans get some comfort and enjoyment.

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/art...atch-England-France-guarded-armed-police.html

 

[NeilA1975]

Brilliant article, I sometimes have great difficulty listening to Hitchens, but IMO he is spot on this time.

After all, let us not forget that Islamist terror has grown in strength and reach, not diminished, since we embarked on our supposedly benevolent interventions in the Muslim world. The Iraq invasion, the Afghan intervention, the wild and brainless enthusiasm with which we greeted the disastrous ‘Arab Spring’, the supposedly humanitarian interference in Libya which turned it into a failed state, the aid and comfort we gave to the rebellion in Syria. Not only have these things failed to prevent terror. They have visited a violent chaos on the whole Muslim world, in which fanatical and grisly death cults thrive and prosper.

9/11 happened before Afghanistan, Iraq, etc. Islamist terror's been going on for years but of course you would expect it to increase when confronted.

 

[big soft moose]

I strongly doubt the SAS will be doing anything of the sort - it wouldnt be a good use of their time/talent (the pictures are quite clearly both armed police) - the DM has a fixation about the SAS patrolling xyz, last time round they were alledgedly 'patrolling the streets of london'

 

[andya700]

I take it you are talking about wahhabism

I certainly am, and it has been something I have been talking about since the 9/11 attacks.

 

[big soft moose]

9/11 happened before Afghanistan, Iraq, etc. Islamist terror's been going on for years but of course you would expect it to increase when confronted.

It didnt however happen before Iraq part 1 , the air strikes on libya , or the creation of the state of isreal - the west have been meddling in the middle east for pretty much ever

 

[FujiLove]

The reason IS carry out attacks in the west is to provoke us into acting like they do. They will absolutely love it if we step up attacks. They will be overjoyed if UK troops arrive in Syria. What they utterly hate is people here living together in peace and friendship. Seeing us live our lives in a democracy and enjoying our freedom to live as we please.

I take it you are talking about wahhabism


The Saudi Wahhabis are the real foe
We must take our fight to the preachers and financiers of terror.


Since 2001 our policy for fighting Islamic terrorists has been, to put it politely, missing the elephant in the room, sort of like treating symptoms and completely missing the disease.

Policymakers and slow-thinking bureaucrats stupidly let terrorism grow by ignoring the roots. So we lost a generation: Someone who went to grammar school in Saudi Arabia (our “ally”) after September 11 is now an adult, indoctrinated into believing and supporting Salafi violence, hence encouraged to finance it — while we got distracted by the use of complicated weapons and machinery.

Even worse, the Wahhabis have accelerated their brainwashing of East and West Asians with their madrassas, thanks to high oil revenues.

http://www.politico.eu/article/the-...-real-foe-islamic-terrorists-salafi-violence/

I couldn't agree more. Our politicians love to bang the drums against the terrorist threat when all it means is having drones drop some ordinance on cars thousands of miles away. It buys them votes, so what's not to love? Ask them to act against Saudi, and suddenly they have nothing to say.

Saudi money ---> corporate profits ---> political funding.
Remove either of the arrows and it would be half the problem solved.

 

[ZoneV]

I strongly doubt the SAS will be doing anything of the sort - it wouldnt be a good use of their time/talent (the pictures are quite clearly both armed police) - the DM has a fixation about the SAS patrolling xyz, last time round they were alledgedly 'patrolling the streets of london'

I get your point but I wouldn't at all be surprised if they are involved tonight. Our PM and future King will be in the crowd and the threat level is very high.

 

[viv1969]

9/11 happened before Afghanistan, Iraq, etc. .....

Errrr no.
1990/91 anyone?
GW Bush's dad had a go long before his dingbat son.

 

[NeilA1975]

What he said has nothing to do with community police confronting terrorists. He was pointing out that if you are relying on heavily armed policemen to shoot and kill terrorists in some kind of running battle on the streets, you have already failed. That scenario is exactly what IS want to be happening in the UK. The smart way to tackle these people is through the use of intelligence, a large part of which is having eyes and ears in the communities where these people take refuge. Community support police are a key part of that.

That's not what I understand - Corbyn is unhappy at the shoot to kill policy period, even if it means shooting armed terrorists. How can anyone trust this man with our security?

 

[andya700]

9/11 happened before Afghanistan, Iraq, etc. Islamist terror's been going on for years but of course you would expect it to increase when confronted.

And Al Qaeda and Bin Laden were active before 9/11, when they bombed the two US embassies in Dar es Salaam and Nairobi in 1998. Even prior to 9/11 the US were meddling in the Middle East. There was also the attack on USS Cole in Yemen in 2000 by Al Qaeda.
What we should note, is that until 9/11, no other countries were in the sights of these Islamic extremists. The terror attacks on the rest of the World followed the "coalitions" decision to wage war on Afghanistan and Iraq.

 

[FujiLove]

What we are dealing with here is a clusterfuq.

Tidy little video is that although, for the sake of clarity, it omits the myriads of sub cultures and groups that all contribute to the endless problems. In that part of the world they seem to bear grudges for centuries.
I suspect that if all the players, bar any two, were removed at random from the conflict there would still be fighting.

Three points about the above:

1. Correct: they have been fighting in the middle east over their petty religious grievances (ironically, as all three religions are all but identical) for centuries, and no doubt will do so forever. Or at least until one of them uses enough nuclear firepower on the others to turn the whole dysfunctional place into a huge ball of glass. Probably quite soon the way things are going.

2. Clusterfuq: has to be one of the greatest words of all time. Just wanted to point that out.

3. Your dog has exactly the same approach to visitors as mine

 

[big soft moose]

I get your point but I wouldn't at all be surprised if they are involved tonight. Our PM and future King will be in the crowd and the threat level is very high.

surely thats a job for the diplomatic protection group - however one thing is for sure if the SAS are involved they won't have told the daily mail about it and posed for pictures

 

[NeilA1975]

Errrr no.
1990/91 anyone?
GW Bush's dad had a go long before his dingbat son.

Different war and set of circumstances.

 

[big soft moose]

.
What we should note, is that until 9/11, no other countries were in the sights of these Islamic extremists. The terror attacks on the rest of the World followed the "coalitions" decision to wage war on Afghanistan and Iraq.

al quedas very first attack in 1992 was on a hotel in aden and the dead were australians ... also AQ didnt invent islamic extremism , remember for example Lockerbie, or even previous to that black september , islamic jihad , the armed islamic group, and so on

 

[andya700]

Errrr no.
1990/91 anyone?
GW Bush's dad had a go long before his dingbat son.

I had forgotten Desert Storm, and it didn't happen very long (in the scheme of things) after the US backed Saddam in the Iran Iraq war.
I have found another priceless article about John McCain's views on arming the Syrian "rebels" and the reasons he gives.

http://www.haaretz.com/israel-news/1.533132

 

[Deleted sulking member 63079]

That's not what I understand - Corbyn is unhappy at the shoot to kill policy period, even if it means shooting armed terrorists. How can anyone trust this man with our security?

Not really, he just said you should try to cordon off and prevent them from shooting people first, rather than shoot to kill as a default option. He said that the priority should be to avoid a "war on the streets".

 

[big soft moose]

to be fair failing to propperly support and arm the free syrian army is what pushed a lot of the anti assad support behind IS - had we effectively supported the anti assad pro democracy rebels that conflict would have been over before IS really go going - of course we couldnt do that out of fear of p***ing the russians off

 

[NeilA1975]

And Al Qaeda and Bin Laden were active before 9/11, when they bombed the two US embassies in Dar es Salaam and Nairobi in 1998. Even prior to 9/11 the US were meddling in the Middle East. There was also the attack on USS Cole in Yemen in 2000 by Al Qaeda.
What we should note, is that until 9/11, no other countries were in the sights of these Islamic extremists. The terror attacks on the rest of the World followed the "coalitions" decision to wage war on Afghanistan and Iraq.

Lets not forget the US Embassy bombing in Beirut in 1983 - group responsible? Iranian Jihadists!

 

[NeilA1975]

Not really, he just said you should try to cordon off and prevent them from shooting people first, rather than shoot to kill as a default option. He said that the priority should be to avoid a "war on the streets".

That's not what he said in his BBC interview!

 

[Deleted sulking member 63079]

It didnt however happen before Iraq part 1 , the air strikes on libya , or the creation of the state of isreal - the west have been meddling in the middle east for pretty much ever

And right back in WW1 we promise them a unified arab state in exchange for their assistance against the Ottoman Empire. A point that T E Lawrence felt so strongly about he turned down a knighthood over it.

A few years ago, I was in Jordan and spent 5 nights with a the Bedouins in the Wadi Rum, a tribal chief visited one evening and we sat around a campfire late at night and the guide we were with was translating some of what they were talking about. The majority of what they were talking about was "the bad man" in Syria and how things would be better when he was no longer in power, obviously referring to Assad.

I think Jordan has been lucky, in that there's no oil there, so it's been stable as there's not much to fight over!

 

[Deleted sulking member 63079]

That's not what he said in his BBC interview!

It pretty much i, at no point did he say "we should never shoot anyone" just that he'd rather have security that prevents people getting shot first:

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

 

[big soft moose]

no sane person wants ' war in the streets' but the origin of the shoot to kill policy was that its very hard to overwise deal with a suicide bomber - short of shooting them in the head theres not much you can do to stop them detonating ... and shooting to wound in the body is a bad idea for obvious reasons

 

[ZoneV]

surely thats a job for the diplomatic protection group - however one thing is for sure if the SAS are involved they won't have told the daily mail about it and posed for pictures

Who said anything about posing for pictures? Pete, are you drunk?

 

[Dave *]

yes because Nato assistance was very noticeable during the falklands..

Mainly because it didn't apply.


Article 5.

The Parties agree that an armed attack against one or more of them in Europe or North America shall be considered an attack against them all and consequently they agree that, if such an armed attack occurs, each of them, in exercise of the right of individual or collective self-defence recognised by Article 51 of the Charter of the United Nations, will assist the Party or Parties so attacked by taking forthwith, individually and in concert with the other Parties, such action as it deems necessary, including the use of armed force, to restore and maintain the security of the North Atlantic area.
Any such armed attack and all measures taken as a result thereof shall immediately be reported to the Security Council. Such measures shall be terminated when the Security Council has taken the measures necessary to restore and maintain international peace and security.

Article 6.

For the purpose of Article 5, an armed attack on one or more of the Parties is deemed to include an armed attack:

• on the territory of any of the Parties in Europe or North America, on the Algerian Departments of France (2), on the territory of or on the Islands under the jurisdiction of any of the Parties in the North Atlantic area north of the Tropic of Cancer;
• on the forces, vessels, or aircraft of any of the Parties, when in or over these territories or any other area in Europe in which occupation forces of any of the Parties were stationed on the date when the Treaty entered into force or the Mediterranean Sea or the North Atlantic area north of the Tropic of Cancer.

Tropic of Cancer :

 

[big soft moose]

Who said anything about posing for pictures? Pete, are you drunk?

In the DM article the supposed SAS man clearly aware of the camera and is making no effort not to be photographed - he's quite clearly an armed police officer (probably SO19 or similar as hes not in uniform like the guy on the left)

 

[ZoneV]

In the DM article the supposed SAS man clearly aware of the camera and is making no effort not to be photographed - he's quite clearly an armed police officer (probably SO19 or similar as hes not in uniform like the guy on the left)

So what? I still don't see anyone "posing for photographs".

Pete, can I suggest you drop this macho posturing before you make a Bluetit of yourself?

 

[dejongj]

Do you really think that our politicians are going to stare the leaders of Saudi Arabia, Qatar and quite probably Turkey in the face, and tell them to stop funding ISIL (buying their oil and supplying them with weapons)?
The proposal four years ago in parliament, was not to bomb ISIL, but to bomb Assad - we and the US were the ones helping the Syrian "rebels" back then, most of whom then joined or were already members of ISIL, Al Qaeda or Al Nusra.

No they are not, so no I don't think so. However that is what is required if you want to do this in a peaceful, or as peaceful as possible way.

And yes it wasn't specifically to get rid of deash, however the inaction then has let and allowed this to grow and grow.

One would reasonably expect not more western Muslims to join deash with our action. I mean, aren't they reported killing more Muslims then any non Muslim group. That is the weird thing about this situation, and that message need to come to the forefront, being that we are joint together to stop the killing of more Muslims. At the moment they continue to win their propaganda.

 

[big soft moose]

So what? I still don't see anyone "posing for photographs".

Pete, can I suggest you drop this macho posturing before you make a Bluetit of yourself?

umm what macho posturing - just admit that the DM are full of s***, no one will think less of you, it isnt even you that is wrong, just their usual poor reporting ... if you look closely at that photograph you can see the ...ice of the legend 'police' on his bullet proof vest (okay so yes the SAS could be wearing police body armor/uniform for covert ops but how the DM would know that this particulasr person is an SAS man ? , they can't so the likelihood is that they are just making stuff up )

 

[NeilA1975]

In the DM article the supposed SAS man clearly aware of the camera and is making no effort not to be photographed - he's quite clearly an armed police officer (probably SO19 or similar as hes not in uniform like the guy on the left)

Indeed he is - the writing across his chest that states 'POLICE', although partially obscured, is a bit of a give away!