Heart goes out to France

[P.K.]

 

 

Whilst last nights events are extraordinarily shit please remember that last month the supposed good guys spent an hour bombing a fucking hospital.

... the issue is motivation. I do not believe any of the people in the chain of command would have wanted to attack a hospital, to kill and injure doctors and nurses. The Geneva conventions are very clear on the status of hospitals and medical personnel. There was a command & control break down, and a tragic error occurred - and that is being investigated by the UN, NATO and the US Military to see if there was a crime or negligence involved - when crimes have been committed there are prosecutions from Mi Lai, to Abu Ghrab to Nisour Square - we know about these things because they were investigated and prosecuted - compare that to what happens in ISIS prisons & town squares. The US and UK militaries attempt under the hugely difficult circumstances of war to reduce civilian deaths and prosecute soldiers who fail to do that. There are multiple failures in that and justice is too often a casualty of war, but even so the motivation is there to try to reduce civilian deaths. ISIS are motivated to kill civilians, it is their aim and objective. I find it amazing when people time and time again see some moral equivalence between war and terrorism. The motivations involved are totally different.

>The US and UK militaries attempt under the hugely difficult circumstances of war to reduce civilian deaths and prosecute soldiers who fail to do that. I'm not a Muslim, and even I don't believe that. Of the 800+ cruise missiles fired at Baghdad in the first 2 days of the 2003 war, colateral damage involving civilians must have been:- 1) Inevitable with considerably more than 128 fatalities.2) Avoidable.

In my experience 'swingers' are an inevitable consequence of using modern munitions.

 

So you can designate the target with as much accuracy as you like but at the same time you know that collateral damage is a distinct possibility so you have to make a value judgement or simply obey orders...

[Chinahand]

 

The US and UK militaries attempt under the hugely difficult circumstances of war to reduce civilian deaths and prosecute soldiers who fail to do that. There are multiple failures in that and justice is too often a casualty of war, but even so the motivation is there to try to reduce civilian deaths.

 

ISIS are motivated to kill civilians, it is their aim and objective.

 

I find it amazing when people time and time again see some moral equivalence between war and terrorism.

 

The motivations involved are totally different.

 

 

>The US and UK militaries attempt under the hugely difficult circumstances of war to reduce civilian deaths and prosecute soldiers who fail to do that.

 

I'm not a Muslim, and even I don't believe that.

 

Of the 800+ cruise missiles fired at Baghdad in the first 2 days of the 2003 war, colateral damage involving civilians must have been:-

 

1) Inevitable with considerably more than 128 fatalities. Is there a reason you've given this rather precise number?

2) Avoidable. War is shit, and no if you go to war civilian casualties are sadly inevitable - the issue is trying to minimize them, but that doesn't mean zero - every soldier and realistic politician knows this.

 

The facts that frustrate some include:-

 

1) Iraq had a plentiful supply of oil that the UK/US wanted to control. But they haven't and don't - Iraq hasn't seen the Western Oil Majors make major gains in Iraq. They didn't even bid for the last set of concessions put onto the market. Link1 Link2

2) Iraq had the ability to pay for reparation of any damage caused by the Coalition forces, so there was a profit motive to indescriminately ruin Iraq. This is nonsense, firstly no reparations were paid, in fact its international debts were cancelled Link3. Also, a country doesn't pay reparations when an enemy destroys its own infrastructure - in WW1 reparations were demanded for German damage to Belgium and France etc, but not for Allied damage for Germany. If you are going to pillage a country you don't want to destroy it, you want to preserve its ability to generate money for you, not require money to be spent repairing its destroyed infrastructure.

3) Nonsensical justification for the war by means of insisting there was a threat via WMD, when their own inspectors told them that there wasn't. Rot again. The US, UK, French, Russian, Australian Intelligence services etc etc all reported that Iraq had WMD programs that it wanted to continue to develop. Link4, link5. They were wrong about the state of those programs and the amount of material Saddam had, though probably not his motivation to have them, but to use Chirac's words the intelligence services ‘intoxicate[d] each other’ - the Intelligence community said he had them and then the US spent millions of dollars trying to prove he had them after the invasion. Again the issue is one of openness - do you think Putin for an example would have admitted so clearly the intelligence was wrong.

 

Now if that doesn't motivate an infinitesimally small number of Muslin extremists to create mayhem, then I don't know what would.

 

Of course large numbers of people have been radicalized due to Western interventions in the Middle East, but that does not justify or excuse the deliberate cold blooded mass murder of civilians - if you think it does you have totally lost your moral compass.

 

... I mean, most extremists aren't fighting for a cause, they're just fighting; ... You really think this? You don't think they have political and religious reasons and are just doing it ... well for what exactly?

 

I'm tempted to say that as the UK Parliament, and cohorts, got us into this mess, so they should bloody well get us out of it.

 

But in reality that just isn't feasible.

 

So Cameron should stop playing to the gallery, and accept that his current actions are counter productive. What exactly are you complaining about - highlighting the fact Jihadi John was a sociopathic brutal murderer who was a direct ongoing murderous threat to people and hence a perfectly legitimate target.

 

TBT.

 

[The Border Terrier]

 

 

The US and UK militaries attempt under the hugely difficult circumstances of war to reduce civilian deaths and prosecute soldiers who fail to do that. There are multiple failures in that and justice is too often a casualty of war, but even so the motivation is there to try to reduce civilian deaths.

 

ISIS are motivated to kill civilians, it is their aim and objective.

 

I find it amazing when people time and time again see some moral equivalence between war and terrorism.

 

The motivations involved are totally different.

 

 

>The US and UK militaries attempt under the hugely difficult circumstances of war to reduce civilian deaths and prosecute soldiers who fail to do that.

 

I'm not a Muslim, and even I don't believe that.

 

Of the 800+ cruise missiles fired at Baghdad in the first 2 days of the 2003 war, colateral damage involving civilians must have been:-

 

1) Inevitable with considerably more than 128 fatalities. Is there a reason you've given this rather precise number?

2) Avoidable. War is shit, and no if you go to war civilian casualties are sadly inevitable - the issue is trying to minimize them, but that doesn't mean zero - every soldier and realistic politician knows this.

 

The facts that frustrate some include:-

 

1) Iraq had a plentiful supply of oil that the UK/US wanted to control. But they haven't and don't - Iraq hasn't seen the Western Oil Majors make major gains in Iraq. They didn't even bid for the last set of concessions put onto the market. Link1 Link2

2) Iraq had the ability to pay for reparation of any damage caused by the Coalition forces, so there was a profit motive to indescriminately ruin Iraq. This is nonsense, firstly no reparations were paid, in fact its international debts were cancelled Link3. Also, a country doesn't pay reparations when an enemy destroys its own infrastructure - in WW1 reparations were demanded for German damage to Belgium and France etc, but not for Allied damage for Germany. If you are going to pillage a country you don't want to destroy it, you want to preserve its ability to generate money for you, not require money to be spent repairing its destroyed infrastructure.

3) Nonsensical justification for the war by means of insisting there was a threat via WMD, when their own inspectors told them that there wasn't. Rot again. The US, UK, French, Russian, Australian Intelligence services etc etc all reported that Iraq had WMD programs that it wanted to continue to develop. Link4, link5. They were wrong about the state of those programs and the amount of material Saddam had, though probably not his motivation to have them, but to use Chirac's words the intelligence services ‘intoxicate[d] each other’ - the Intelligence community said he had them and then the US spent millions of dollars trying to prove he had them after the invasion. Again the issue is one of openness - do you think Putin for an example would have admitted so clearly the intelligence was wrong.

 

Now if that doesn't motivate an infinitesimally small number of Muslin extremists to create mayhem, then I don't know what would.

 

Of course large numbers of people have been radicalized due to Western interventions in the Middle East, but that does not justify or excuse the deliberate cold blooded mass murder of civilians - if you think it does you have totally lost your moral compass.

 

... I mean, most extremists aren't fighting for a cause, they're just fighting; ... You really think this? You don't think they have political and religious reasons and are just doing it ... well for what exactly?

 

I'm tempted to say that as the UK Parliament, and cohorts, got us into this mess, so they should bloody well get us out of it.

 

But in reality that just isn't feasible.

 

So Cameron should stop playing to the gallery, and accept that his current actions are counter productive. What exactly are you complaining about - highlighting the fact Jihadi John was a sociopathic brutal murderer who was a direct ongoing murderous threat to people and hence a perfectly legitimate target.

 

TBT.

 

 

 

> Is there a reason you've given this rather precise number?

 

That was the number of reported deaths in Paris at the time of my post.

 

> War is shit, and no if you go to war civilian casualties are sadly inevitable - the issue is trying to minimize them,

 

It's accepted that under 5% of specific 'high value Command' targets (and by that I mean Top Brass) are successful. So with such lamentable failure rates, why carry out such missions?

Long after The Yanks insisted Saddam had been killed in numerous drone strikes, he was observed wandering about Baghdad chatting to his subjects.

 

>Also, a country doesn't pay reparations when an enemy destroys its own infrastructure

 

But who benefits from the replacement of everything destroyed? So blow up a bridge/hospital/power station indescriminately and then force the host country to fund Coalition coffers in the form of building contracts by swapping oil in lieu of cash. Then add a goodly % to offset the attackers expenses etc. Ever heard of Erik Prince at Blackwater?

 

>The US, UK, French, Russian, Australian Intelligence services etc etc all reported that Iraq had WMD programs that it wanted to continue to develop.

 

And non found so much as a bottle of Domestos.

 

>the Intelligence community said he had them and then the US spent millions of dollars trying to prove he had them after the invasion. Again the issue is one of openness

 

Openness? The Yanks? Crikey...remember the Wikileaks fiasco?

 

Is it not a case of having taken so long not to find WMD, abject humiliation and grudging acceptance that they never existed?

 

Dr David Kelly advised them of such conditions before the war commenced. Dr Kelly passed away in 'untenable' circumstances shortly after the war finished and long before the Yanks completed their fruitless search. Should have listened to him and saved all the heartache across the globe.

 

>Of course large numbers of people have been radicalized due to Western interventions in the Middle East, but that does not justify or excuse the deliberate cold blooded mass murder of civilians - if you think it does you have totally lost your moral compass.

 

You can't solve a problem without considering all sides of the situation.

 

I don't agree with it or excuse it. But I do understand it. I've worked with young Muslims and recognise the full implications of their argument.

 

>You don't think they have political and religious reasons and are just doing it ... well for what exactly?

 

They're just not wired right; young, impressionable, disaffected, poor prospects; there are a whole host of reasons.

 

But considering the radical Muslim population in France is reported at ~3800, those prepared to 'pull the trigger' are probably less than 1%. Of the Muslim population as a whole, the figure is infinitessimally small.

 

So why persecute all Muslims (Nuke 'em, send 'em back home etc.) if the figures don't stack up?

 

Solving a complex problem that IS have isn't going to be achieved by throwing a hand grenade into a concert hall. Publicity, maybe, but solution, no!

 

>What exactly are you complaining about

 

All this brouhaha about 129 fatalities in Paris, when the Coalition have, under false pretences, invaded another country and caused hundreds of thousands of deaths. Numbers wise, the French aspect pales into insignificance.

 

Perhaps school bully, in the form of the Coalition, doesn't have the stomach for a fight now that the casualties are closer to home?

 

TBT.

 

ETA. Research Colonel James (Jim) Steele and his activities post war.

[woolley]

 

 

... the onus must be on THEM to adapt if they want to settle in the West.

 

Well, until they are in the majority at least.

 

You go on about this a lot, Woolley. You do realize it is basically demographically impossible.

 

Absolutely not. Give it time. Look beyond what you are told.

 

If you said a politically important demographic - 25% or so, then that is worth talking about, but it is just silly to discuss events based on unjustifiable straight line projections over 100s of years.

 

Say 25% if you like for the sake of the debate. Surely that is nightmare enough.

 

They are meaningless to rational political decision making.

 

We don't have an awful lot of rational political decision making, I'm afraid. Nor have we had for many decades. Were we having this discussion during the first large waves of immigration in the 60s China, I daresay you would have told me that it was demographically impossible for there ever to be a European city with a white minority, but we are on the cusp of that landmark moment in Marseille. I am very familiar with the French city and I have watched its descent over the years in despair. Parts of it are like the third world, totally beyond the control of the republic. That is personal experience.

 

This is entirely factual: http://chersonandmolschky.com/2014/01/17/marseille-here/

 

Leicester is getting there and the schools in many other cities are already there too. Here is a chap from the Grauniad telling us how wonderful it all is: http://www.theguardian.com/world/2010/jan/02/leicester-minority-immigration-diversity-faith

How contrived is that?

 

 

Muslims are a tiny minority at the moment and will only become a politically important demographic in something like 100 years assuming zero integration or assimilation and unchanging birth rates etc.

 

It is totally unrealistic.

 

I disagree. Maybe if you take the entire country, but it won't happen like that. Leicester will be first in the very near future and other cities will follow suit in the next few decades. Major centres of population. They will become magnets for others because birds of a feather flock together. White flight will increase and the country will become more segregated. I've seen it happen in several districts and some wards are now virtually 100% Asian returning Asian councilors. They pretty much run their own affairs and have minimal interaction with the official authorities or the populations of surrounding localities. Police generally keep out because the management and their political masters don't want to be seen as "provocative". Female genital mutilation and first cousin marriage is rife. It is all swept under the carpet as was the Muslim abuse of young white teenage girls. I had an aquaintance who left Oldham after being forced out as one of the last two white residents in his street. That was 15 years ago.

 

 

There is a data out there showing decreasing religiosity amongst the UK's Muslim population and increasing integration, but your rhetoric implies quite the opposite. It isn't evidence based.

 

It is definitely evidence based. How else do you account for the second and third generation immigrants turning to Jihad and butchering people on the streets whilst their parents are aghast? How do you account for young Muslims leaving home to join Islamic state leaving behind parents who claim to have absolutely no knowledge of their plans? Is the data you speak of put together by some wishful thinking organisation like the BBC? There is a body of opinion among young Muslims that utterly rejects the Western values, or lack of values as they see it, that they have grown up with. It seems to be gathering pace with time.

 

Certainly there are enclaves in the UK where Islam is intolerant and pervasive, but those areas have to be put into the perspective of the population as a whole and the social environments of those communities examined. They are not static - and in fact can be quite fascinating in their social dynamism. Think more Brick Lane, London, than your worst cliche of a Midland or Yorkshire enclave.

 

We've all seen artificial multi-ethnic constructs fall apart after decades of apparent harmonious co-existence. Think more Balkans. Fascinating indeed. Why would we volunteer our grandchildren for the grief?

[the stinking enigma]

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/world/kremlin-says-paris-attack-shows-russia-west-must-unite-on-syria/article27264155/

seems a reasonable enough proposition to me...

[alibaba]

 

Whilst last nights events are extraordinarily shit please remember that last month the supposed good guys spent an hour bombing a fucking hospital.

... the issue is motivation. I do not believe any of the people in the chain of command would have wanted to attack a hospital, to kill and injure doctors and nurses. The Geneva conventions are very clear on the status of hospitals and medical personnel.

 

There was a command & control break down, and a tragic error occurred - and that is being investigated by the UN, NATO and the US Military to see if there was a crime or negligence involved - when crimes have been committed there are prosecutions from Mi Lai, to Abu Ghrab to Nisour Square - we know about these things because they were investigated and prosecuted - compare that to what happens in ISIS prisons & town squares.

 

The US and UK militaries attempt under the hugely difficult circumstances of war to reduce civilian deaths and prosecute soldiers who fail to do that. There are multiple failures in that and justice is too often a casualty of war, but even so the motivation is there to try to reduce civilian deaths.

 

ISIS are motivated to kill civilians, it is their aim and objective.

 

I find it amazing when people time and time again see some moral equivalence between war and terrorism.

 

The motivations involved are totally different.

 

 

I'd like to respond to this properly but I'm drunk and am worried I might not do it as well as I should. I apologise in advance.

 

Firstly yeah, terrorism bad. We all know that. Targeting civilians goes against everything we are supposed to believe in, the rule of law, our whole society etc. Everyone knows that.

 

It's ok though when its us, its just collateral damage, Or something,

 

The hospital bombing is A DISGRACE. The more you read about it the worse it gets. Frankly defending it is fucking disgusting. One of the doctors apparently got a text half an hour in from a currently unnamed NATO official saying 'we're sorry about that' and it continued for another 25 minutes including the shooting from planes from people escaping the already bombed hospital. You cannot just write it off as an accident or a mistake and say its ok there will be an investigation, No matter what you believe, The bombing of a hospital is right fucking BANG OUT OF ORDER.

 

There have been a whole bunch of lies told about it already. The whole truth will never come out, despite whatever investigations are made. The stories told by the members of MSF should be enough.

 

You cannot bomb a hospital.

 

CUNTS

[alibaba]

Ugh, not only am I drunk but now I'm in a bad mood.

 

I like to be a happy drunk.

 

The french guy says 'we'll be merciless'

 

The british guy says 'expect casualties'

 

Great. More people whose lives are already shit are about to get shitter. Awesome.

[alibaba]

 

I find it amazing when people time and time again see some moral equivalence between war and terrorism.

 

WAR = GOOD

 

TERRORISM = BAD

 

Simple.

[alibaba]

A 'tragic error occurred'

 

FFS Chinahand.

 

Come on. Get a fucking grip. Its pretty much the most disgusting thing 'we' (yeah, the modern western democracies) have done in my lifetime.

 

Aren't we supposed to rise above the barbarians, have some kind of standards, a rule of law, human rights etc. I'm aware the 'enemy' dont, isn't that what all of this shit is about?

 

Its OK to murder your most wanted criminal and chuck his body off a boat then, rather than bring him in front of a judge. Or celebrate the probable anonymous machine killing of 'jihadi john' from a drone a few days ago?

 

Surely the only way to win is to rise above the hate, murder and death preached by these morons?

 

No, just bomb the shit out of them until they agree hey.

[alibaba]

I'm gonna stop now, drink some rum and listen to spaceman3.

 

Stop the killing. Everywhere.

 

Please.

 

Chin chin

[Gladys]

Ali, I think I understand exactly where you are coming from. The whole thing is pretty f*cked up, and there seems to be no way out.

 

It would be so good if there could be discussion, but there won't, the two sides are so polarised now and both have the indeterminable truth on their side, as they see it.

 

A hospital can't be bombed and explained as collateral damage, collateral to what exactly? A restaurant cannot be fired upon in the name of Jihad. What exactly is that?

 

The problem is that the top guys on each side have their agenda and their way of manipulating the respective faithful. It is never about what is visible, but what lies beneath and in neither camp are there any truly altruistic aims. The Iraqi war was never about improving things for the Iraqi people, the Afghanistan war was never about removing the Taliban to improve the lot of your average Afghanistan, let alone the women.

 

Truth is, humans are self-serving twats, by and large. Perhaps the way to break this is to come clean on that score and really put the cards on the table.

[P.K.]

Wars are fought by people and people fuck up. End of.

 

Osama was killed in situ for two reasons:

 

- he was based in Pakistan that has very dubious military and intelligence services

 

- they needed to know it was him so they could stop looking

 

Otherwise a simple drone strike would have done the business.

 

War is about winning. So the best way to fight a war is to essentially massacre your enemy from a position of safety. Anything less simply causes unnecessary casualties to your own people.

 

Dear me but some folks grip on reality is tenuous at best. Those poor women and children massacred in Hallabja couldn't have been killed by Saddam because no WMD were found. FACT!

[oldmanxfella]

Ali, I think I understand exactly where you are coming from. The whole thing is pretty f*cked up, and there seems to be no way out.

It would be so good if there could be discussion, but there won't, the two sides are so polarised now and both have the indeterminable truth on their side, as they see it.

A hospital can't be bombed and explained as collateral damage, collateral to what exactly? A restaurant cannot be fired upon in the name of Jihad. What exactly is that?

The problem is that the top guys on each side have their agenda and their way of manipulating the respective faithful. It is never about what is visible, but what lies beneath and in neither camp are there any truly altruistic aims. The Iraqi war was never about improving things for the Iraqi people, the Afghanistan war was never about removing the Taliban to improve the lot of your average Afghanistan, let alone the women.

Truth is, humans are self-serving twats, by and large. Perhaps the way to break this is to come clean on that score and really put the cards on the table.

Every day in the Middle East people are being killed in our name by people we voted into power. Democracy is flawed as we can't remove these people from power other than by elections in X years or so, and we can't control what they do once they are in, and so the bombings will go on. In Paris people going about their daily lives have been dragged into a war by the actions of the people they voted into power. We gave them the mandate to represent us and they are representing us in a terrible way. I would see the only solution being a democratic backlash in the West - a sort of Arab spring - to tell these people to get the fuck out of other people's countries and start re-building a world that is broken.

[pongo]

I would see the only solution being a democratic backlash in the West - a sort of Arab spring - to tell these people to get the fuck out of other people's countries and start re-building a world that is broken.

Many people argue, perhaps with some justification, that the political and economic situation which resulted in WW2 was the result of Versailles - that WW2 was the result of WW1 and that WW1 was the result of ... etc. That's the model of history which leads intelligent people to, similarly, consider the reasons for where we are today.

 

By 1939 however, it didn't really matter what the reason was for the dreadful situation. Staying out of it was not going to make it go away and liberal democracy actually had to be won.

[the stinking enigma]

I think it may already be too late to go back. We may have to accept that we are going to have to wipe a load of people out, but with a bit more honesty maybe, rather than indoctrinating our children right now with this good versus evil fairytale pantomime