Corbyn and the military.

[Owlswing]

I agree with you there. There is no such thing IRL as "shoot to wound", that's just for the movies and the alleged "shoot to kill" policy had nothing to do with that.

My understanding of the alleged "shoot to kill" policy was that there was an alleged secret order not to try to arrest terrorists even if there was no immediate danger to life and limb but to kill them to avoid tedious things like trials.

The large problem with this is the little word "Alledged".

[jeremyp]

The rules, at the time of Gibraltar, were that you shot if you considered that, by not shooting you placed yourself or others in mortal danger.

It is a truism that "shooting to wound" is almost impossible; a shot at a moving target that would, at the time the trigger is pulled, be a "shot to wound", could very well be, by the time the bullet hit the target, be a "shot to kill"!

Or worse a miss.

In the case of Gibraltar, the security forces believed that the terrorists had planted a car bomb in a busy part of town and had a detonator. They also believed the terrorists to be armed. Neither of those was true (the car bomb was still in Malaga), but they didn't know that, so they shot and killed the terrorists.

In the case of de Menezes... well, I'm not sure what went on there, it was a fuck up^* from start to finish.

^*Note to BA: strong language intentional and justified in this instance.

[wigginhall]

I think you had to see the interview with Laura Koenssberg of the BBC, to appreciate what he was actually advocating, the nuances of his very defensive attitude.  He kept quoting Iraq, and suggests that we Talk to ISIS.. Perhaps he would go to Syria and speak to them personally.  If he did, would you be thoughtful enough to buy the first bunch of flowers.  It's commendable to have principles, but you also have to deal with the real world.
..

But in the real world, eventually there will be negotations between the Sunni factions and the Shia.  At the moment, IS represent the extreme end of the Sunni revivalism which has been going on, partly in defence against the rise of Shia power (in Iraq), and partly to defeat Assad, and partly to neutralize Iran.

Maybe it's too early for negotiations, but I think calling for them is pretty real, as it was in N. Ireland.  And it is very likely that they are going on in the background, not with IS, but with their backers.  For example, in Iraq some Sunni tribes have been working with IS, so one task is to peel them away, and it can be done.

Obama knows that the drift to war is remorseless, and he is holding the line at the moment, under severe pressure.    But war is a drug.  IS want war, some Republicans in the US also, and various right-wing people.   So we need sane voices.

[Owlswing]

In the case of de Menezes... well, I'm not sure what went on there, it was a fuck up^* from start to finish.

^*Note to BA: strong language intentional and justified in this instance.

And Cressida Dick came out of it smelling of roses!

How the Hell that happened is beyond me!

[jeremyp]

The large problem with this is the little word "Alledged".

Nope. No problem there at all. It has been alleged but not shown to be true.

[Owlswing]

Nope. No problem there at all. It has been alleged but not shown to be true.

My point exactly - it seems, from some posts here, to have been accepted as fact despite it being trumpeted by those who killed innocents indiscriminately but didn't like the possibility of getting killed themselves.

[Nearly Sane]

The problem as always with any policy is that often what isn't in it is as important as what is. Arguably knowing, or sincerely believing anyone to be a terrorist means that if they do anything at that is not immediately giving themselves up and even then if they make any such moves they might be suspected of be being a danger to others.

The tragic case of de Menezes illustrates that if you think someone is a terrorist then any action you don't think is giving themselves up can lead to killing. The case was an utter tragedy for his family and indeed the officers involved. There is no easy line but we have to be careful that we do not make such mistakes too easy by simply saying 'these things happen'

The Gibraltar shootings are messier in terms of the claims about the events. Again though part of the question was whether official policy was somehow subverted. I have no sympathy for those shot that day, but I am sure it was still tragic for many members of their family. That I have no sympathy for them dies not effect my belief that we need to follow due process in.all such things.

[Nearly Sane]

My point exactly - it seems, from some posts here, to have been accepted as fact despite it being trumpeted by those who killed innocents indiscriminately but didn't like the possibility of getting killed themselves.

I haven't seen any posts where a shoot to kill policy in this sense has been taken as fact. Can you point me to them?

[jakswan]

Obama is under massive pressure to go to war.   IS know this, so they are now baiting the West, as they would love a Western invasion.   Thankfully, Obama is also sane, but there are plenty of voices urging invasion, and if IS mount another atrocity, he may have to give in.

I thought you meant the UK.

Cameron is just being an idiot, when he says that killing Jihadi John struck a blow at the heart of IS.  Wow, and this guy is making the decisions?  Help.

Wasn't he at the forefront of a lot of Islamic State's propaganda?

Hopefully, in the background the intelligence people are actually thinking about the Sunni revivalism going on - how do you deal with it?  If it isn't dealt with, IS will flourish.  The Sunni arc stretches from Iraq through Syria, into Turkey, and of course, the Saudis.   Where else do IS get money and supplies?

Don't know, I think we should get out and stay out.

[jakswan]

I haven't seen any posts where a shoot to kill policy in this sense has been taken as fact. Can you point me to them?

http://www.lbc.co.uk/met-police-chief-dismisses-corbyns-shoot-to-kill-issue-119914

There is no shoot to kill but reasonable force, possibly the wrong question fielded by the BBC.

[Nearly Sane]

http://www.lbc.co.uk/met-police-chief-dismisses-corbyns-shoot-to-kill-issue-119914

There is no shoot to kill but reasonable force, possibly the wrong question fielded by the BBC.

Sorry, how is this relevant to Owlswing'sclaim that there are posters on here trumpeting that there was a shoot to kill policy in NI that was about shooting believed terrorists even if they were not thought to be a danger?

[BashfulAnthony]

But in the real world, eventually there will be negotations between the Sunni factions and the Shia.  At the moment, IS represent the extreme end of the Sunni revivalism which has been going on, partly in defence against the rise of Shia power (in Iraq), and partly to defeat Assad, and partly to neutralize Iran.

Maybe it's too early for negotiations, but I think calling for them is pretty real, as it was in N. Ireland.  And it is very likely that they are going on in the background, not with IS, but with their backers.  For example, in Iraq some Sunni tribes have been working with IS, so one task is to peel them away, and it can be done.

Obama knows that the drift to war is remorseless, and he is holding the line at the moment, under severe pressure.    But war is a drug.  IS want war, some Republicans in the US also, and various right-wing people.   So we need sane voices.

The Sunni and Shia are so far apart they make the Catholics and Protestants in NI look like best buddies.  Horrid prospect as it is, the Daesh  (I use that because, apparently, they hate it. ) must be destroyed.  The longer they exist, the more powerful they become, and then they are less and less likely to talk; rather they will feel they can use force to gain their objectives,  In the mean-time, they are continuing to behead, crucify, steal, kill and rape.  We ought to learn the lesson of history:  we thought we could talk to Hitler, and he just took it as weakness.  Had we been prepared and acted earlier, unknown numbers of lives cuild have been saved.

[King Oberon]

Meet violence with violence? Not sure Jesus would have approved 

While I can see why you would say what you do BA like the taliban I suspect IS isn't going anywhere no matter what we do in the west and these people they tend to hide in plain sight amongst civilians and when you start bombing them.. more recruits to the cause.. 

I don't have any answers though.. doing nothing isn't really an option but we have to be a smarter than bombing the crap out of them indiscriminately...

[BashfulAnthony]

Meet violence with violence? Not sure Jesus would have approved 

While I can see why you would say what you do BA like the taliban I suspect IS isn't going anywhere no matter what we do in the west and these people they tend to hide in plain sight amongst civilians and when you start bombing them.. more recruits to the cause.. 

I don't have any answers though.. doing nothing isn't really an option but we have to be a smarter than bombing the crap out of them indiscriminately...

He wouldn't approved of Daesh, as He wouldn't have approved of Hitler.  But what is the alternative?  To allow them to carry on killing indiscriminately?  Or to destroy them;  and the only way, unfortunately, will be by boots on the ground.  Unless something dramatic happens to alter the situation.

[Nearly Sane]

Yeah because the boots on the ground worked so well last time.

[King Oberon]

Sorry BA but boots on the ground just drives them underground (or into the hills in the case of the taliban)..

It may curb them initially but it won't stop there terrorist activities which will increase 10 fold i'm sure.

[BashfulAnthony]

I suggest boots on the ground, as I can't think of another solution.  Maybe it would work, maybe not.  Perhaps somebody can think of something better?

[Nearly Sane]

So you want to send young people to kill and be killed because you are out of solutions. And you really think Jesus would be behind that.

Both wigginhall (in line with much of what Cornyn has said) and Jamaican have indicated different alternatives in this thread, but no you want boots on the ground, a phrase which hides in the reality of real people killing and being killed in a lazy metonymy.

We had boots, people, on the ground in Iraq and it has contributed to the problem we now face. We had people on the ground in Afghanistan and  still we have the shocking aspects of a nine year girl being beheaded.


It needs a bigger picture and we could start by not indulging the obscenity that is Saudi Arabia.

[Jack Knave]

Actually, if Corbyn had been leader, there would have been no invasion of Iraq.  He has the sense to see the repetition going on now - let's invade Syria.   And then what?  For me, he is the voice of sanity.

It's not his ideas that are wrong in anyway it is the conclusions he comes to which are off their trolley.

[Nearly Sane]

Jeremy Corbyn comments - yes, all too 'off the trolley'


'Tonight, I will be going to the England vs France match at Wembley stadium. It is important we show solidarity with all those affected by the tragic events that took place in Paris on Friday.
It is right that we are reflecting on the appalling attacks in Paris and how we agree an effective international response. That needs to focus on negotiating a comprehensive settlement of the Syrian civil war through the United Nations, which is the only way to end the threat from ISIS.
That is the serious challenge facing us all. I am therefore disappointed that comments I made yesterday in regard to a "shoot to kill" policy have been taken out of context and have distracted from this discussion.
Nonetheless, I would like to clarify my position. As we have seen in the recent past, there are clear dangers to us all in any kind of shoot to kill policy. And we must ensure that terrorist attacks are not used to undermine the very freedoms and legal protections we are determined to defend.
But of course I support the use of whatever proportionate and strictly necessary force is required to save life in response to attacks of the kind we saw in Paris.'

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Jeremy Corbyn comments - yes, all too 'off the trolley'


'Tonight, I will be going to the England vs France match at Wembley stadium. It is important we show solidarity with all those affected by the tragic events that took place in Paris on Friday.
It is right that we are reflecting on the appalling attacks in Paris and how we agree an effective international response. That needs to focus on negotiating a comprehensive settlement of the Syrian civil war through the United Nations, which is the only way to end the threat from ISIS.
That is the serious challenge facing us all. I am therefore disappointed that comments I made yesterday in regard to a "shoot to kill" policy have been taken out of context and have distracted from this discussion.
Nonetheless, I would like to clarify my position. As we have seen in the recent past, there are clear dangers to us all in any kind of shoot to kill policy. And we must ensure that terrorist attacks are not used to undermine the very freedoms and legal protections we are determined to defend.
But of course I support the use of whatever proportionate and strictly necessary force is required to save life in response to attacks of the kind we saw in Paris.'

Mr Corbyn fell victim to Kuntsberger syndrome i.e. Fusing  shite news coverage of a situation outside Britain in the context of the BBC heavy handedly questioning people other than malleable british interviewees who fall in with the BBC drill.....with added anti labour bias.

[Jack Knave]

Obama is under massive pressure to go to war.   IS know this, so they are now baiting the West, as they would love a Western invasion.   Thankfully, Obama is also sane, but there are plenty of voices urging invasion, and if IS mount another atrocity, he may have to give in.     

Cameron is just being an idiot, when he says that killing Jihadi John struck a blow at the heart of IS.  Wow, and this guy is making the decisions?  Help.

Hopefully, in the background the intelligence people are actually thinking about the Sunni revivalism going on - how do you deal with it?  If it isn't dealt with, IS will flourish.  The Sunni arc stretches from Iraq through Syria, into Turkey, and of course, the Saudis.   Where else do IS get money and supplies?

ISIS have lost quite a bit of territory, I gather, and Paris may have been a desperate move to keep up the offensive. But they are sure not short of cash. So baiting the allies into Syria won't actually help them as it seems they don't have enough manpower to fight back. What they do have is guerrilla tactic which is hard to defend against and I reckon they are going hit random targets from now on, especially in Europe as the situation there is getting to chaotic proportions with the migrants and this would have Brussels running round in circles.

Cameron, yes, wanker!!!

The problem seems to be that both the Sunni and the Shia are gathering a pace, and where and how the US and Russia line themselves up in this growing conflict.

[Nearly Sane]

Would post the link but struggling to pick it up for some reason - try googling ISIS is weak and watching the Australian anchor cover the issues.

[Jack Knave]

But in the real world, eventually there will be negotations between the Sunni factions and the Shia.  At the moment, IS represent the extreme end of the Sunni revivalism which has been going on, partly in defence against the rise of Shia power (in Iraq), and partly to defeat Assad, and partly to neutralize Iran.

Maybe it's too early for negotiations, but I think calling for them is pretty real, as it was in N. Ireland.  And it is very likely that they are going on in the background, not with IS, but with their backers.  For example, in Iraq some Sunni tribes have been working with IS, so one task is to peel them away, and it can be done.

Obama knows that the drift to war is remorseless, and he is holding the line at the moment, under severe pressure.    But war is a drug.  IS want war, some Republicans in the US also, and various right-wing people.   So we need sane voices.

NI was political the ME is a religious war and will go on for years. Negotiations will achieve nothing in the short to medium term because it is not an agreement in the intellectual sense but one of hearts and minds, and of emotions, and words have no sway against such odds.

[Nearly Sane]

NI was political and religious, the ME is the same.