Thoughts for those that lost their lives in Paris

chewmylegoff

Moby wrote: »

I love animals. They are my passion in life, especially my three dogs! Animals never ever behave the way those individuals did. The fact is there are people living amongst us who hate us. The killers of Lee Rigby were part of the same phenomenon. One thing I dont get, probably through naivety........But bombing ISIS in Syria has been going on for months and months using sophisticated drones etc. Why are they still there and able to still fight back. Why havent they been eliminated?

There are plenty of examples of animals acting in horrible ways including killing for fun and cannibalising their own young. If you have a chimpanzee an ak47 it would probably shoot some other chimpanzees with it before eating their babies.

Moby

chewmylegoff wrote: »

There are plenty of examples of animals acting in horrible ways including killing for fun and cannibalising their own young. If you have a chimpanzee an ak47 it would probably shoot some other chimpanzees with it before eating their babies.

MMMM....some truth in that. I don't know how you would define 'fun' in this context but it's interesting the most obvious example ....the one you give is our closest relative.....apart from Bonobo's of course who by the way are far more gentle!;)

Mistermeaner

Thrugelmir wrote: »

Selectively. Taking out command structures has a demoralising effect on the masses.

Trouble is the guys that can do bad stuff need not be part of any formal organisation - isolated individuals / isolated groups can claim to be 'isis' without ever having contact with any of the 'official isis'. It's like fighting the hydra, chop off one head and two more grow - IMO it is an impossible fight.

It's made even worse by the fact the enemy actually wants to die and have no objective apart from to cause as much disruption and death in the west as possible.

It's such a tough one to know what to do - other than the UK completely distancing itself from anything to do western military action but it's probably too late for that.

Moby

Generali wrote: »

Mostly, IMHO, because they have moved the battlefield.

An army as we like to think of it fights against other armies in the open. ISIS, Al Qaeda and others see all of us as their enemy not just our armies. All of us are fair game whether Muslim, Christian, agnostic if we are not them. The more people they can kill in the most graphic possible way the better they like it.

They don't wear a uniform because they don't want to fight, they just want to kill everyone that isn't them. It's an extension of the mentality that puts missiles in schools. The whole idea is to force the enemy away from moral decency and it works. By acting so disgustingly they force a response. NATO responds by, perhaps, bombing a leader ISIS and kills a couple of civilians at the same time or maybe accidentally attacks a hospital or a school leaving scores dead. ISIS can then point to a moral equivalence between themselves and the enemy, you and me.

Make no mistake, ISIS would be very happy to see you decapitated with a bread knife.

I agree with what you say...missiles in schools etc .....the problem is the only realistic way of responding would therefore seem to be 'boots on the ground'?
Also the Islamist extremists are clearly following a strategy of provocation designed to alienate Moslem moderates within their own communities. The Ghettos of Paris are the 'low hanging fruit'.
It's no suprise the first named terrorist (Mostefai) came from a Paris suburb and his father and brother have now been arrested. He was also already well known to the police for extremist activities! Could he have been stopped earlier? Was intelligence ignored or are their too many young men with similar profiles for the French intelligence services to monitor?

Incidentally reports are now saying that the earlier statement that one of the terrorists came from Syria as a migrant are incorrect.

Due to the nature of my job I have regular training regarding radicalisation as part of the Govmts prevent strategy. The one thing that comes up again and again is how many of these young terrorists are alienated from their own culture and are also not identifying with their new British culture. They also have a sense of grievance against the state and usually have quite low self esteem. They are the types who get drawn in by the 'glamour' of Islamist extremism. IMO monitoring for signs of this and then working to address the issues in relation to this phenomenon needs to be dramatically increased in schools, colleges, prisons, (my own area) etc.

Generali

Moby wrote: »

I agree with what you say...missiles in schools etc .....the problem is the only realistic way of responding would therefore seem to be 'boots on the ground'?

I know ~nothing about military strategy but I would imagine than fighting against a group that targets civilians then boots on the ground just means more dead people, only this time more dead people in the Middle East.

The problem is displaced not solved.

Moby wrote: »

Also the Islamist extremists are clearly following a strategy of provocation designed to alienate Moslem moderates within their own communities. The Ghettos of Paris are the 'low hanging fruit'.
It's no suprise the first named terrorist (Mostefai) came from a Paris suburb and his father and brother have now been arrested. He was also already well known to the police for extremist activities! Could he have been stopped earlier? Was intelligence ignored or are their too many young men with similar profiles for the French intelligence services to monitor?

Incidentally reports are now saying that the earlier statement that one of the terrorists came from Syria as a migrant are incorrect.

Due to the nature of my job I have regular training regarding radicalisation as part of the Govmts prevent strategy. The one thing that comes up again and again is how many of these young terrorists are alienated from their own culture and are also not identifying with their new British culture. They also have a sense of grievance against the state and usually have quite low self esteem. They are the types who get drawn in by the 'glamour' of Islamist extremism. IMO monitoring for signs of this and then working to address the issues in relation to this phenomenon needs to be dramatically increased in schools, colleges, prisons, (my own area) etc.

You might be interested to investigate how people of MENA background are treated in Paris. It excuses nothing but understanding others is a great step towards peace.

Moby

WannaBLoaded wrote: »

Sorry, are you forgetting Ed miliband telling cameron and obama that he did not want britain to kill terrorists in syria?

I'm not sure it is as cut and dry as you suggest, not having full parliamentary support seems to open a can of worms regarding law and financial claims against the government.

Yes cameron could probably go in if he wanted, but i actually prefer the idea of democratically seeking consensus after a thorough debate, of which has ran its course, as opposed to labours ill thought out and ill funded, border line illegal, wars. We've all seen the documentaries about what we and the americans got up to in iraq and afghanistan, we didn't have the resources to do the job properly so and even the americans thought we were crap, so what was the point?

This time it isn't just britain and america with irons in the fire, most of the middle east has come to the realisation that sitting around and watching the west spend money isn't going to solve their problems, why else do you think Iran, russia and gulf states are getting involved? Yes France was idle back in the day, but they have shown that they have changed their foreign policy, mali is a prime example of them looking to make a difference.

The west and eastern allies, even communist russia, could team up together in an orderly fashion with combined resources and sift through these countries taking out the majority of the filth with ease. America and the UK could not do it on their own.

Action needs to be taken, the world can no longer allow fundamental terrorists claiming to be acting on behalf of allah to continue blowing up people, whether in muslim countries or in the west. Enough is enough.

Maggie thatcher would have threw the kitchen sink at isis. She'd have never sent 10,000 british troops to defend an area the size of wales when 40,000 were needed, as blair continually did in afghanistan. What a waste of time.

Your post is a muddle of contradiction.....Blair took action just as you want now..... thinking he was sifting through taking out the 'filth' as you so eloquently put it! Of course the reality is the biggest backers of ISIS are Sunni Muslims in central Iraq, Saddams tribe. The very people who are now subjected to discrimination by the ruling shia majority in the puppet Iraq govmt! Incidentally i seem to remember the tories voted for Iraq and Afghanistan so lets not be too party political clever !!!! about this!. That's all benefit of hindsight stuff now but surely one lesson we have learned is that you don't go in without a plan? What was Cameron's plan when he bombed Libya? Did he succeed in reducing radicalisation there? is Libya a more stable state now with no refugees?
What is clear is that Islamist extremists are adept at using social media etc as a means of turning people in our own countries against us! Ham fisted western 'revenge' responses will just make it worse imo.

Moby

Generali wrote: »

I know ~nothing about military strategy but I would imagine than fighting against a group that targets civilians then boots on the ground just means more dead people, only this time more dead people in the Middle East.

The problem is displaced not solved.

Totally agree but the calls are starting already!

wymondham

I can understand reluctance to get involved with troops on the ground. They are not a clearly defined target and hence it would be a very long drawn out war. What I don't understand is the flip side of leaving our borders open, regardless of the refugee crisis.

I know the decision between helping genuine refugees and protecting your citizens from surprise attacks must be a difficult one, but you cannot do both effectively. If I PM I would be in turmoil, but ultimately I'd have to protect my country and ask other muslim countries to engage more to assist the people in their region... They are in a better position to help and they understand the people better as they have same customs/language/beliefs etc...

If our borders are not enforced then really we have no chance.......

Incidentally, the world wide display of French colours on buildings is a hollow gesture and does nothing to resolve the problem. We are all very good as gestures these days!

kabayiri

Generali wrote: »

...
The problem is displaced not solved.
...

There seems to be an obsession in Western circles with solving problems.

Some problems do not have a solution which all can agree on. The solution would be to accept this and the problem is endured.

Regional dictators are a problem which can be endured.

kabayiri

BobQ wrote: »

http://www.defensenews.com/story/defense/air-space/isr/2015/07/19/uk-leaders-highlight-need-boost-istar/30273215/

If we look longer term the goalposts have moved.

I wonder if future generations of Syrians; French; British;... will welcome a society with increased surveillance by automatic systems.

The recent events will shift military funding. Investment in drones and monitoring systems seem much more relevant than investment in another ICBM.