Shooting and Explosions in Paris

Status
Not open for further replies.
big soft moose said:
The point you are missing is the point IS want you to miss - ie that they are not represetantive of all of islam , they are a tiny tiny minority of nutcases - ergo their best chance of winning or at least not losing is to provoke the west into acting rashly and in a way that impacts lots of moderate muslims/non IS supporters and enables them to paint themselves as the representatives of the islamic world against west oppression

the flip side is that our best chance of beating them is not to be so f*****g stupid as to play into their hands - the hearts and minds we need to win are not the tiny minority of headcases but the population that surrounds them and the muslim world at large , and we won't acheive that with western boots on the ground in their holy places or bombing the s*** out of no end of civilians.

We also need to win the battle for the hearts and minds of our own muslim population so that they don't become radicalised - and we won't do that by going the route some imbecilic biffers want to go and persecuting or even interning them... the real irony being that organisations like BF and EDF are doing exactly what IS want, and aiding a cause that they claim to despise.
Click to expand...

Nobody is representative of all Islam, that's another problem. Winning their hearts and minds means what?
 
KitsuneAndy said:
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.”
Click to expand...

Indeed - however his remarks in respect of the shoot to kill policy and the war on the streets illustrates very clearly his position when it comes to the security of this nation. To me, that's worrying.
 
Laudrup said:
Nobody is representative of all Islam, that's another problem. Winning their hearts and minds means what?
Click to expand...

not blowing them up is a good start

but generally it means getting them onside - look at the malaya insurgency... communists vs british forces - rather than wantonly killing everyone who looked at us funny, our troops made a major effort to win hearts and minds of the peasants and seperate the communist guerillas from their potential popular support - net result we won.

In the same era and still in indo china french vs viet minh (and then later americans vs viet cong) - made no effort whatsoever to get or keep the local population on side, treated them appalingly (in the american case sided with a corrupt regime who were little better than nazi's) declared the countryuside a free fire zone and generally killed, bombed, amnd masacred the populace to punish them for supporting the guerillas - net result 50 thousand freindly casualties and a war lost.

One is a lesson to emulate, the other to learn from and not repeat - it doesnttake a genius to see which is which
 
Well at least Corbyn has actually made his position a little clearer today in respect of the 'shoot to kill' policy.

'
Jeremy Corbyn has said he would authorise the use of lethal force against terrorists in the UK in exceptional circumstances to protect life if he were elected prime minister.

As a series of Labour MPs raised concerns publicly about his apparent rejection of a shoot-to-kill policy, Corbyn told the party’s ruling national executive committee that he would be prepared to authorise lethal force if it met legal tests.'

What legal tests is this bloke referring to? If a terrorist has a gun or a suicide belt do you need to call a lawyer to ask if its legal to shoot? Surely there are legal safeguards already in place at this moment in time - why is Corbyn taking this patronising approach?
 
ZoneV said:
It's OK, at least we know Pete is also an authority on the SAS.

Who knew? :D
Click to expand...

Or at least that I can read (and that my reading goes further than the daily mail) , I don't claim to be a particular expert on special forces - i've read a few books about military history but nothing thats particularly germane here. What is germane is a) He's got the word police emblazoned across his chest , and b) you don't have to be an expert to realise that any form of SF don't generally identify themselves to the papers whilst trying to pass as a police officer , which leads us to c) when the DM captioned that photo as "police and SAS on the left and right' they were unsurprisingly full of crap

the only thing this incident proves conclusively is that Zone V would rather have a pointless argument based on nothing more than a desire to snipe than admit his source might be less than reliable
 
NeilA1975 said:
What legal tests is this bloke referring to? If a terrorist has a gun or a suicide belt do you need to call a lawyer to ask if its legal to shoot? Surely there are legal safeguards already in place at this moment in time - why is Corbyn taking this patronising approach?
Click to expand...

Because anything he has to say is completely insignificant. So he might as well talk as much arse as possible to get people talking about him. At the end of the day, all he is interested in is himself.
 
big soft moose said:
Or at least that I can read (and that my reading goes further than the daily mail) , I don't claim to be a particular expert on special forces - i've read a few books about military history but nothing thats particularly germane here. What is germane is a) He's got the word police emblazoned across his chest , and b) you don't have to be an expert to realise that any form of SF don't generally identify themselves to the papers whilst trying to pass as a police officer , which leads us to c) when the DM captioned that photo as "police and SAS on the left and right' they were unsurprisingly full of crap

the only thing this incident proves conclusively is that Zone V would rather have a pointless argument based on nothing more than a desire to snipe than admit his source might be less than reliable
Click to expand...

It actually says..

The SAS and armed police (pictured left and right) are poised for a shoot to kill operation at tonight's game at Wembley as 80,000 fans come together in a poignant display of solidarity against Friday's terror attacks.

Which to me reads that the photos are of armed police (which they clearly are)
 
NeilA1975 said:
What legal tests is this bloke referring to? If a terrorist has a gun or a suicide belt do you need to call a lawyer to ask if its legal to shoot? Surely there are legal safeguards already in place at this moment in time - why is Corbyn taking this patronising approach?
Click to expand...

I presume he means if the tthreat to life is apparent and the terrorist is armed/bombed up - i'd guess that he's aluding to things like the gibraltar incident (where the SAS shot and killed an active service unit of PIRA who were on a bombing campaign but not actually armed at the time) ... if i recall corectly the soldiers were acquited of murder, but i'd guess that this is the sort of shoot to kill that corbyn feels doesnt meet the legal tests (also de menzies)
 
TCR4x4 said:
I

The SAS and armed police (pictured left and right) are poised for a shoot to kill operation at tonight's game at Wembley
Click to expand...

to me that reads as armed police pictured left and SAS pictured right - but whatever even if your interpretation is correct its still hyperbolic reporting at its very worst - do they really 'stand poised for a shoot to kill operation' ... a more balanced view is" armed police deployed at wembley as a precaution against terrorist attacks... SAS may also be involved but if they are no one has told us" but that sort of calm and accuracy doesnt sell papers.
 
big soft moose said:
I presume he means if the tthreat to life is apparent and the terrorist is armed/bombed up - i'd guess that he's aluding to things like the gibraltar incident (where the SAS shot and killed an active service unit of PIRA who were on a bombing campaign but not actually armed at the time) ... if i recall corectly the soldiers were acquited of murder, but i'd guess that this is the sort of shoot to kill that corbyn feels doesnt meet the legal tests (also de menzies)
Click to expand...

Indeed - but I would have thought lessons would have already been learnt from those incidents with the legal processes and procedures adjusted accordingly - I honestly do not know but surely we already have a system in place so have no idea what the hell he's on about.
 
I'm 100% sure the SAS are poised and ready.. They always are, that's thier job.

They are probably at a slightly higher alert than usual, and possibly there will be undercover troopers there, I imagine there often is at large scale events where royalty are present and there is a risk of attack..
Nothing new there, just tabloids shouting about something that's pretty mundane.
 
NeilA1975 said:
Indeed - but I would have thought lessons would have already been learnt from those incidents with the legal processes and procedures adjusted accordingly - I honestly do not know but surely we already have a system in place so have no idea what the hell he's on about.
Click to expand...

I'm guessing he may also be thinking of the alledged 'shoot to kill' policy in NI in the 70s and 80's which has been roundly condemened - to be fair to corbyn 'shoot to kill policy' arent words that any politician is going to be happy to be associated with , and what he has said tracks with the current position - ie that lethal force is authorised when there is a clear threat to life and the suspect cannot be safely detained by non lethal means (essentially - obviously thats a para phrase of the full position)
 
TCR4x4 said:
Nothing new there, just tabloids shouting about something that's pretty mundane.
Click to expand...

As i said above the Mail and the express have a fixation about the SAS patrolling the streets etc ... this kind of thing http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/art...ployed-streets-prevent-terrorist-attacks.html

where a load of speculation and hyperbole is reported as fact then right at the foot of the article they mention that

An MoD spokesman said: 'We don't usually comment on special forces and we don't see the need to change this on this occasion.'

Scotland Yard also refused to comment.
Click to expand...

ergo they have no way of knowing if special forces are deployed or not (the same applying to the more recent article - if the MOD don't comment on the deployment of SF troops , how does the mail know they are involved at wembley ? )
 
Theres also the issue that if IS/AQ whoever want to attack wembley neither the SAS nor the armed police can really stop them - it would be a bloody awful environment for a gun battle, and in a crowd that size catching a suicide bomber before he pulls the pin would be more luck than judgement

I'm sure they'd reduce casualties - but they can't stop it from happening.

theres also the danger that while the major focus is on wembley IS go and shoot up something else - they don't need celebs for their purposes any target with casualties will get them talked about, and security forces can't guard every potential target 24/7
 
Last edited:
I think we should just drop the SAS thing now, we're never going to prove anything either way.

I'm sorry I mentioned it.
 
ZoneV said:
80's Sierra too. I can almost hear the theme from "The Professionals". :D
Click to expand...

Don't tell the mail , they'll run a splash head line 'CI5 patrol wembley' :LOL:
 
I say we take off and nuke the planet from orbit.. its the only way to be sure



(and yes i know the original quote said 'site' )
 
big soft moose said:
I say we take off and nuke the planet from orbit.. its the only way to be sure



(and yes i know the original quote said 'site' )
Click to expand...

Mmmmm... I'm thinking high flying planes above Isis territory with massive speakers attached blurting out a number of Rick Astley numbers on loop. I'm sure they'd be surrendering within a couple of hours.
 
where the hell are bruce willis and steven seagal when you need them :punch:
 
Daryl said:
Hicks from the movie Aliens had the right idea.
Should do this to the town of Raqqa........

''Prep for dust-off. We're gonna
need an immediate evac.
I think we'll take off and nuke
the site from orbit. It's the
only way to be sure.''

Fracking A!!!!!!!
Click to expand...

He only repeated word for word what Ripley said first ;)
 
big soft moose said:
not blowing them up is a good start

but generally it means getting them onside - look at the malaya insurgency... communists vs british forces - rather than wantonly killing everyone who looked at us funny, our troops made a major effort to win hearts and minds of the peasants and seperate the communist guerillas from their potential popular support - net result we won.

In the same era and still in indo china french vs viet minh (and then later americans vs viet cong) - made no effort whatsoever to get or keep the local population on side, treated them appalingly (in the american case sided with a corrupt regime who were little better than nazi's) declared the countryuside a free fire zone and generally killed, bombed, amnd masacred the populace to punish them for supporting the guerillas - net result 50 thousand freindly casualties and a war lost.

One is a lesson to emulate, the other to learn from and not repeat - it doesnttake a genius to see which is which
Click to expand...

The only British Muslims we are blowing up are the ones who are fighting for Islamic State. The rest who live here dwell in a peaceful, stable and prosperous democracy where the only small risk of being blown up is from extremist Muslims. Certain insular Muslim communities need to do more to combat radicalization of their own sons and daughters and relatives. Appeasing them with a change of foreign policy in the Middle East isn't going to happen any time soon.
 
Laudrup said:
The rest who live here dwell in a peaceful, stable and prosperous democracy.
Click to expand...

You might struggle to convince the Methil couple who were attacked as they were closing their takeaway on Saturday night that that's the case.
Iirc they've been there approx 25 years, yet were attacked by a group of knuckle dragging youths shouting anti Muslim abuse because of the Paris attacks.
Yes....sounds very peaceful and stable for them.
 
Laudrup said:
The only British Muslims we are blowing up are the ones who are fighting for Islamic State. The rest who live here dwell in a peaceful, stable and prosperous democracy where the only small risk of being blown up is from extremist Muslims. Certain insular Muslim communities need to do more to combat radicalization of their own sons and daughters and relatives. Appeasing them with a change of foreign policy in the Middle East isn't going to happen any time soon.
Click to expand...

I was refering to the hearts and minds of the syrian population

with regard to our own muslim population not alienating them by treating them like the enemy , not having gangs of skins invading mosques and disrespecting their worship , not shouting abuse at them in the street and generally acting like the civilised country we are supposed to be , rather than the pale imitation of germany in '36 that the far right would like

true story - just after 9/11 I was working in milton keynes , where upon i happened upon two charming specimens spray painting a swatstika on the peace pagoda at willen lake... when asked what they were playing at the older of the two offered that 'these f***in muslims should eff off back to their own country and not blow people up an s***' - resisting the urge to punch him in the teeth I explained positively that a) that not all muslims support Al Quaeda , and b) that regardless the peace pagoda is a budhist shrine , maintained by budhist monks and has jack s*** to do with islam. His response "yeah well budhist are a sort of muslim innit , they can all f*** off and so can you "

Take away messages a) there are a lot of f***wits in milton keynes (tbh there are lot of f***wits everywhere sadly) , and b) for a certain segment of our society if you wear any manner of robes or look in any way foreign then you should f*** off back where you came from... charming.


Add on story not long after that I was with my friend javed when we were approached by a bunch of skins who also felt he should "f*** off back where he came from" - his response was perfect "Bradford ? f*** off i aint going back there " :LOL:
 
Last edited:
viv1969 said:
You might struggle to convince the Methil couple who were attacked as they were closing their takeaway on Saturday night that that's the case.
Iirc they've been there approx 25 years, yet were attacked by a group of knuckle dragging youths shouting anti Muslim abuse because of the Paris attacks.
Yes....sounds very peaceful and stable for them.
Click to expand...

:agree:

(yes, again)
 
big soft moose said:
true story - just after 9/11 I was working in milton keynes , where upon i happened upon two charming specimens spray painting a swatstika on the peace pagoda at willen lake...
Click to expand...
According to Wiki they were just being helpful and showing respect (y)

The Swastika (also known as the gammadion cross, cross cramponnée, or wanzi) (as a character: 卐 or 卍) is a symbol that generally takes the form of an equilateral cross, with its four legs bent at 90 degrees.[1][2] It is considered to be a sacred and auspicious symbol in Hinduism, Buddhism and Jainism.[3]
 
I'd believe you if i thought the little s***s could pronounce any of those words :LOL:
 
viv1969 said:
You might struggle to convince the Methil couple who were attacked as they were closing their takeaway on Saturday night that that's the case.
Iirc they've been there approx 25 years, yet were attacked by a group of knuckle dragging youths shouting anti Muslim abuse because of the Paris attacks.
Yes....sounds very peaceful and stable for them.
Click to expand...

An assault doesn't change the UK being a peaceful and stable democracy.
 
Cobra said:
According to Wiki they were just being helpful and showing respect (y)

The Swastika (also known as the gammadion cross, cross cramponnée, or wanzi) (as a character: 卐 or 卍) is a symbol that generally takes the form of an equilateral cross, with its four legs bent at 90 degrees.[1][2] It is considered to be a sacred and auspicious symbol in Hinduism, Buddhism and Jainism.[3]
Click to expand...

Yip, I remember them in the Po Lin Monastery on Lantau Island (Hong Kong).
 
big soft moose said:
I was refering to the hearts and minds of the syrian population

with regard to our own muslim population not alienating them by treating them like the enemy , not having gangs of skins invading mosques and disrespecting their worship , not shouting abuse at them in the street and generally acting like the civilised country we are supposed to be , rather than the pale imitation of germany in '36 that the far right would like
Click to expand...

If the terrorists plan and attack the west and their interests from Syria and Iraq then they will be attacked in Syria and Iraq. I don't know how much more onside we can get Syrians when Merkel said to every one of them to come to Europe unchecked and we will provide them with everything. It was a foolish gamble that isn't paying off and putting all of our security at risk.
 
MartynK said:
Yip, I remember them in the Po Lin Monastery on Lantau Island (Hong Kong).
Click to expand...
The thought never even crossed my mind TBH I was looking up Moose's comment about the peace pagoda in Willen, as I live local, (I though it may have made the news at some point,)
When I stumbled across that reference.
 
Maybe Moose bumped into some anti-vandals: extremely rude youths that leave respectful symbols on religious monuments.
 
ZoneV said:
Maybe Moose bumped into some anti-vandals: extremely rude youths that leave respectful symbols on religious monuments.
Click to expand...
We are like that around here (y)
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top