Tunisia Terrorism - It's time to get tough
Register | Edit Profile | Subscriptions | Forum Rules | Log In | RSS Feed
jamiemartin721  Reading 03 Jul 15 10.39am |
|
|---|---|
|
Quote leggedstruggle at 03 Jul 2015 10.11am
Quote jamiemartin721 at 03 Jul 2015 9.19am
Quote leggedstruggle at 02 Jul 2015 4.46pm
Quote jamiemartin721 at 02 Jul 2015 4.01pm
Quote leggedstruggle at 02 Jul 2015 1.45pm
kill them The voices in your head? As opposed to the Boy's own Guide to Postmodern Philosophy that appears to be in yours? It wouldn't be gender specific if it was postmodern There is a Girl's own Guide - very similar, but leaves out the bit on how immoral it is for women to have children. You mean Wimmin, women suggests an intimation of an inferiority or subset of men, rather than hairy dungaree wearing vegan clamlappers with a pediliction for knitted ethnic hats.
"One Nation Under God, has turned into One Nation Under the Influence of One Drug" |
|
 Alert a moderator to this post |
 |
| jamiemartin721 Reading 03 Jul 15 10.44am |
|
|---|---|
|
Quote leggedstruggle at 02 Jul 2015 11.40pm
Quote legaleagle at 02 Jul 2015 9.25pm
Quote jamiemartin721 at 02 Jul 2015 12.00pm
Quote TheJudge at 02 Jul 2015 11.33am
Quote jamiemartin721 at 01 Jul 2015 10.57pm
Quote TheJudge at 01 Jul 2015 9.07pm
Quote jamiemartin721 at 01 Jul 2015 4.38pm
Quote TheJudge at 01 Jul 2015 4.24pm
Most of what you say is generally reasonable but I would remind you that the IRA nearly killed the entire Cabinet and there were not really many active IRA members. A similar action would constitute a serious threat to national security I would suggest. They didn't nearly kill the entire cabinet, they managed to bomb the Brighton Hotel and launch a rocket attack on Downing Street. Neither attack would likely have resulted in the loss of the entire cabinet, and civil contingencies exist that can deal with that event anyhow. The number of active IRA members, doesn't really describe the effectiveness or size of the organization. The Provisionals generally had very few active service units in operation at any given time. Those cells would carry out attacks and bombings, but they were supported by other cells that dealt with this like logistical support, intelligence, counter intelligence, operational planning etc that all would then be fed to an ASU. Someone would build the bomb, another group would move it from the bomb maker to the armoury, another group would then supply it to the ASU would would deploy it, and then another group would have set up 'escape plans' for the ASU (and many of these groups would have little or no interaction) - It makes the most of skill sets and allows focused training (and in theory makes it harder to infiltrate) So you might have three active service units on the mainland, of say 15 people in total, but they would be backed by a much larger organization.
Sounds like you wouldn't get twitchy until the IS flag was flying over Parliament. Glad you're not in charge. Not really, I like to understand how things work and operate. I think its vital to understand an enemy, who it is, what it wants, how it functions etc if you want to defeat it. This isn't a conflict that can be won purely on a militarily basis.
Military, psychological, ideological, sociological and economic. The best way to defeat an enemy is to deprive it of its capacity to fight and then its will to fight. Interestingly one of the core foundations of ISIS (at least in Iraq) is the accumulation of a significant portion of the Sons of Iraq, who prior to the US pull out, were operating as a paid support force alongside the US troops. Many of these 'Sons' had prior Iraqi military and Police experience, and were previously involved with the anti-US Insurgency, but they also were fairly well paid by the US and turned out to be effective if somewhat unwilling allies. The US paid better than AL-Qaeda, and the Sons knew who was allied with which factions. In 2009 the US passed all responsibility over to the Iraqi government, who promptly ceased paying the Sons of Iraqi, rendering them unemployed, and so they ended up signing up with Insurgent groups and Sunni Militias again. Then when the Syria civil war began, the Iraqi insurgents and Sunni Militias began supplying the Sunni groups across the border with weapons and training, and as things grew they became more directly involved notably with the group that would become ISIS as it paid well, and had objectives that suited the outcomes sought by Sunni Nationalists. Consequently, ISIS rapidly gained access to a well trained (ex-Iraqi military, police and intelligence) force of about 15,000 or so experienced insurgents, that were well organized inside Iraq, and well established at fighting a guerilla war - allowing ISIS to tip the balance across the border regions in their favour. It also gave the capacity to IS to understand the weaknesses of the existing Iraqi army, and rout it quickly and effectively (as the Sons had been engaged against the Iraqi military for some time, and been collecting intelligence on it).
The failure to do so by the US/their S. Vietnamese allies (some would say puppets) was a pertinent factor in the way things went.Some felt the British did a better job in Malaya during the "emergency" and a pretty abysmal job in Kenya.There are those who think Bloody Sunday (and ensuing investigation) and Internment were disasters in terms of the broader big picture in unnecessarily alienating "hearts and minds".
Or you could simply stop right wing groups from protesting outside of Mosques that have nothing to do with extremism and the intimidation of muslims by groups like the EDF and Britain First, and report on Muslim responses to outrages as thoroughly as the 'nationalist tubthumping that counts as journalism in the tabloids. I haven't met a muslim yet who was keen on Sharia law being introduced.
"One Nation Under God, has turned into One Nation Under the Influence of One Drug" |
|
| Alert a moderator to this post |
|
| leggedstruggle Croydon 03 Jul 15 10.54am |
|
|---|---|
|
Quote jamiemartin721 at 03 Jul 2015 10.44am
Quote leggedstruggle at 02 Jul 2015 11.40pm
Quote legaleagle at 02 Jul 2015 9.25pm
Quote jamiemartin721 at 02 Jul 2015 12.00pm
Quote TheJudge at 02 Jul 2015 11.33am
Quote jamiemartin721 at 01 Jul 2015 10.57pm
Quote TheJudge at 01 Jul 2015 9.07pm
Quote jamiemartin721 at 01 Jul 2015 4.38pm
Quote TheJudge at 01 Jul 2015 4.24pm
Most of what you say is generally reasonable but I would remind you that the IRA nearly killed the entire Cabinet and there were not really many active IRA members. A similar action would constitute a serious threat to national security I would suggest. They didn't nearly kill the entire cabinet, they managed to bomb the Brighton Hotel and launch a rocket attack on Downing Street. Neither attack would likely have resulted in the loss of the entire cabinet, and civil contingencies exist that can deal with that event anyhow. The number of active IRA members, doesn't really describe the effectiveness or size of the organization. The Provisionals generally had very few active service units in operation at any given time. Those cells would carry out attacks and bombings, but they were supported by other cells that dealt with this like logistical support, intelligence, counter intelligence, operational planning etc that all would then be fed to an ASU. Someone would build the bomb, another group would move it from the bomb maker to the armoury, another group would then supply it to the ASU would would deploy it, and then another group would have set up 'escape plans' for the ASU (and many of these groups would have little or no interaction) - It makes the most of skill sets and allows focused training (and in theory makes it harder to infiltrate) So you might have three active service units on the mainland, of say 15 people in total, but they would be backed by a much larger organization.
Sounds like you wouldn't get twitchy until the IS flag was flying over Parliament. Glad you're not in charge. Not really, I like to understand how things work and operate. I think its vital to understand an enemy, who it is, what it wants, how it functions etc if you want to defeat it. This isn't a conflict that can be won purely on a militarily basis.
Military, psychological, ideological, sociological and economic. The best way to defeat an enemy is to deprive it of its capacity to fight and then its will to fight. Interestingly one of the core foundations of ISIS (at least in Iraq) is the accumulation of a significant portion of the Sons of Iraq, who prior to the US pull out, were operating as a paid support force alongside the US troops. Many of these 'Sons' had prior Iraqi military and Police experience, and were previously involved with the anti-US Insurgency, but they also were fairly well paid by the US and turned out to be effective if somewhat unwilling allies. The US paid better than AL-Qaeda, and the Sons knew who was allied with which factions. In 2009 the US passed all responsibility over to the Iraqi government, who promptly ceased paying the Sons of Iraqi, rendering them unemployed, and so they ended up signing up with Insurgent groups and Sunni Militias again. Then when the Syria civil war began, the Iraqi insurgents and Sunni Militias began supplying the Sunni groups across the border with weapons and training, and as things grew they became more directly involved notably with the group that would become ISIS as it paid well, and had objectives that suited the outcomes sought by Sunni Nationalists. Consequently, ISIS rapidly gained access to a well trained (ex-Iraqi military, police and intelligence) force of about 15,000 or so experienced insurgents, that were well organized inside Iraq, and well established at fighting a guerilla war - allowing ISIS to tip the balance across the border regions in their favour. It also gave the capacity to IS to understand the weaknesses of the existing Iraqi army, and rout it quickly and effectively (as the Sons had been engaged against the Iraqi military for some time, and been collecting intelligence on it).
The failure to do so by the US/their S. Vietnamese allies (some would say puppets) was a pertinent factor in the way things went.Some felt the British did a better job in Malaya during the "emergency" and a pretty abysmal job in Kenya.There are those who think Bloody Sunday (and ensuing investigation) and Internment were disasters in terms of the broader big picture in unnecessarily alienating "hearts and minds".
Or you could simply stop right wing groups from protesting outside of Mosques that have nothing to do with extremism and the intimidation of muslims by groups like the EDF and Britain First, and report on Muslim responses to outrages as thoroughly as the 'nationalist tubthumping that counts as journalism in the tabloids. I haven't met a muslim yet who was keen on Sharia law being introduced. You should get out more then. How many people have EDF (EDL?) and Britain First killed? We didn't stop extremists 'protesting' in Royal Wotton Bassett. Your call for bans is presumably limited to silencing right wing groups only?
mother-in-law is an anagram of woman hitler |
|
| Alert a moderator to this post |
|
| leggedstruggle Croydon 03 Jul 15 10.55am |
|
|---|---|
|
Quote jamiemartin721 at 03 Jul 2015 10.39am
Quote leggedstruggle at 03 Jul 2015 10.11am
Quote jamiemartin721 at 03 Jul 2015 9.19am
Quote leggedstruggle at 02 Jul 2015 4.46pm
Quote jamiemartin721 at 02 Jul 2015 4.01pm
Quote leggedstruggle at 02 Jul 2015 1.45pm
kill them The voices in your head? As opposed to the Boy's own Guide to Postmodern Philosophy that appears to be in yours? It wouldn't be gender specific if it was postmodern There is a Girl's own Guide - very similar, but leaves out the bit on how immoral it is for women to have children. You mean Wimmin, women suggests an intimation of an inferiority or subset of men, rather than hairy dungaree wearing vegan clamlappers with a pediliction for knitted ethnic hats.
Why bring Camila Batmanghelidjh into this?
mother-in-law is an anagram of woman hitler |
|
| Alert a moderator to this post |
|
 The Sash  Now residing in Epsom - How Posh 03 Jul 15 11.03am |
  |
|---|---|
|
Quote leggedstruggle at 03 Jul 2015 10.55am
Quote jamiemartin721 at 03 Jul 2015 10.39am
Quote leggedstruggle at 03 Jul 2015 10.11am
Quote jamiemartin721 at 03 Jul 2015 9.19am
Quote leggedstruggle at 02 Jul 2015 4.46pm
Quote jamiemartin721 at 02 Jul 2015 4.01pm
Quote leggedstruggle at 02 Jul 2015 1.45pm
kill them The voices in your head? As opposed to the Boy's own Guide to Postmodern Philosophy that appears to be in yours? It wouldn't be gender specific if it was postmodern There is a Girl's own Guide - very similar, but leaves out the bit on how immoral it is for women to have children. You mean Wimmin, women suggests an intimation of an inferiority or subset of men, rather than hairy dungaree wearing vegan clamlappers with a pediliction for knitted ethnic hats.
Why bring Camila Batmanghelidjh into this?
As far as the rules go, it's a website not a democracy - Hambo 3/6/2014 |
|
| Alert a moderator to this post |
 |
| leggedstruggle Croydon 03 Jul 15 11.06am |
|
|---|---|
|
Quote jamiemartin721 at 03 Jul 2015 10.38am
Quote leggedstruggle at 03 Jul 2015 9.48am
Quote legaleagle at 03 Jul 2015 1.17am
An interesting point of view.You would have been invaluable in assisting the US with its counter-insurgency strategy in Vietnam. If you want to change the subject to Vietnam, they could have tried to win the hearts and minds of the communists by introducing a one-party state, gulags, the worship of Ho Chi Minh, the collectivisation of farmland (6,000 peasants massacred during a revolt), land 'reform' (at least 120,000 executed), rent 'reduction' (at least 200,000 executed). ARVN, US and Allies caused between 420 and 1m civilian deaths. The South Vietnamese government, during the war, ordered the deaths of 50-200,000 people (the US 4-10,000 people). Willbanks and Levy's research suggests as many as 220,000 civilian deaths were counted as 'VC casualties' rather than civilian casualties. A result of the use of Agent Orange was nearly half a million child birth defects. Turns out war and civil war is never nice. The figures I quoted are the tip of the iceberg. Suffice to say that the Vietnam communist regime launched the usual bloodbath, along with the usual total repression of peoples' freedoms, along with the emperor-style worship of the glorious pastry-cook leader, along with the the usual insane 'economics'.
mother-in-law is an anagram of woman hitler |
|
| Alert a moderator to this post |
|
| jamiemartin721 Reading 03 Jul 15 12.25pm |
|
|---|---|
|
Quote leggedstruggle at 03 Jul 2015 11.06am
Quote jamiemartin721 at 03 Jul 2015 10.38am
Quote leggedstruggle at 03 Jul 2015 9.48am
Quote legaleagle at 03 Jul 2015 1.17am
An interesting point of view.You would have been invaluable in assisting the US with its counter-insurgency strategy in Vietnam. If you want to change the subject to Vietnam, they could have tried to win the hearts and minds of the communists by introducing a one-party state, gulags, the worship of Ho Chi Minh, the collectivisation of farmland (6,000 peasants massacred during a revolt), land 'reform' (at least 120,000 executed), rent 'reduction' (at least 200,000 executed). ARVN, US and Allies caused between 420 and 1m civilian deaths. The South Vietnamese government, during the war, ordered the deaths of 50-200,000 people (the US 4-10,000 people). Willbanks and Levy's research suggests as many as 220,000 civilian deaths were counted as 'VC casualties' rather than civilian casualties. A result of the use of Agent Orange was nearly half a million child birth defects. Turns out war and civil war is never nice. The figures I quoted are the tip of the iceberg. Suffice to say that the Vietnam communist regime launched the usual bloodbath, along with the usual total repression of peoples' freedoms, along with the emperor-style worship of the glorious pastry-cook leader, along with the the usual insane 'economics'. Civil war massacres, shocking. Whatever will they think of next. Wow its so fortunate that Western Nations only ever employed good honest totalitarian allies and absolutely never did anything naughty or bad in order to promote their interests abroad....
"One Nation Under God, has turned into One Nation Under the Influence of One Drug" |
|
| Alert a moderator to this post |
|
| legaleagle 03 Jul 15 2.07pm |
|
|---|---|
|
Quote jamiemartin721 at 03 Jul 2015 9.36am
Quote legaleagle at 02 Jul 2015 9.25pm
Quote jamiemartin721 at 02 Jul 2015 12.00pm
Quote TheJudge at 02 Jul 2015 11.33am
Quote jamiemartin721 at 01 Jul 2015 10.57pm
Quote TheJudge at 01 Jul 2015 9.07pm
Quote jamiemartin721 at 01 Jul 2015 4.38pm
Quote TheJudge at 01 Jul 2015 4.24pm
Most of what you say is generally reasonable but I would remind you that the IRA nearly killed the entire Cabinet and there were not really many active IRA members. A similar action would constitute a serious threat to national security I would suggest. They didn't nearly kill the entire cabinet, they managed to bomb the Brighton Hotel and launch a rocket attack on Downing Street. Neither attack would likely have resulted in the loss of the entire cabinet, and civil contingencies exist that can deal with that event anyhow. The number of active IRA members, doesn't really describe the effectiveness or size of the organization. The Provisionals generally had very few active service units in operation at any given time. Those cells would carry out attacks and bombings, but they were supported by other cells that dealt with this like logistical support, intelligence, counter intelligence, operational planning etc that all would then be fed to an ASU. Someone would build the bomb, another group would move it from the bomb maker to the armoury, another group would then supply it to the ASU would would deploy it, and then another group would have set up 'escape plans' for the ASU (and many of these groups would have little or no interaction) - It makes the most of skill sets and allows focused training (and in theory makes it harder to infiltrate) So you might have three active service units on the mainland, of say 15 people in total, but they would be backed by a much larger organization.
Sounds like you wouldn't get twitchy until the IS flag was flying over Parliament. Glad you're not in charge. Not really, I like to understand how things work and operate. I think its vital to understand an enemy, who it is, what it wants, how it functions etc if you want to defeat it. This isn't a conflict that can be won purely on a militarily basis.
Military, psychological, ideological, sociological and economic. The best way to defeat an enemy is to deprive it of its capacity to fight and then its will to fight. Interestingly one of the core foundations of ISIS (at least in Iraq) is the accumulation of a significant portion of the Sons of Iraq, who prior to the US pull out, were operating as a paid support force alongside the US troops. Many of these 'Sons' had prior Iraqi military and Police experience, and were previously involved with the anti-US Insurgency, but they also were fairly well paid by the US and turned out to be effective if somewhat unwilling allies. The US paid better than AL-Qaeda, and the Sons knew who was allied with which factions. In 2009 the US passed all responsibility over to the Iraqi government, who promptly ceased paying the Sons of Iraqi, rendering them unemployed, and so they ended up signing up with Insurgent groups and Sunni Militias again. Then when the Syria civil war began, the Iraqi insurgents and Sunni Militias began supplying the Sunni groups across the border with weapons and training, and as things grew they became more directly involved notably with the group that would become ISIS as it paid well, and had objectives that suited the outcomes sought by Sunni Nationalists. Consequently, ISIS rapidly gained access to a well trained (ex-Iraqi military, police and intelligence) force of about 15,000 or so experienced insurgents, that were well organized inside Iraq, and well established at fighting a guerilla war - allowing ISIS to tip the balance across the border regions in their favour. It also gave the capacity to IS to understand the weaknesses of the existing Iraqi army, and rout it quickly and effectively (as the Sons had been engaged against the Iraqi military for some time, and been collecting intelligence on it).
The failure to do so by the US/their S. Vietnamese allies (some would say puppets) was a pertinent factor in the way things went.Some felt the British did a better job in Malaya during the "emergency" and a pretty abysmal job in Kenya.There are those who think Bloody Sunday (and ensuing investigation) and Internment were disasters in terms of the broader big picture in unnecessarily alienating "hearts and minds". I generally think that Hearts and Minds tends to be obfuscated from the reality on the ground and political agendas. Realistically the Taliban and IS aren't winning hearts and minds, but providing stability, employment and prospects. Its notable that IS has flourished in the badlands of Northern Iraq, Syria and Libya, all three countries (or in the case of Iraq regions). A large portion of IS fight because IS pays them well enough to (ex-Iraqi military and Iraqi Sunni insurgents). The enemy of my enemy is quite a common practice in insurgencies, rebellions and civil wars. I was talking about "hearts and minds" generally,not just specific to Syria/Iraq. Economic and social factors have always been an important part of the "hearts and minds" aspects of "counter insurgency",ie land reform, economic/social prospects and stability(for example,as in not burning down/dropping bombs on villages wholesale).
|
|
| Alert a moderator to this post |
|
| legaleagle 03 Jul 15 2.09pm |
|
|---|---|
|
Quote leggedstruggle at 03 Jul 2015 9.48am
Quote legaleagle at 03 Jul 2015 1.17am
An interesting point of view.You would have been invaluable in assisting the US with its counter-insurgency strategy in Vietnam. If you want to change the subject to Vietnam, they could have tried to win the hearts and minds of the communists by introducing a one-party state, gulags, the worship of Ho Chi Minh, the collectivisation of farmland (6,000 peasants massacred during a revolt), land 'reform' (at least 120,000 executed), rent 'reduction' (at least 200,000 executed). Again,an interesting opinion.I am now even more convinced that with your terms of reference and analysis, you would have been a perfect complement to the US' counter insurgency strategists in Vietnam.
|
|
| Alert a moderator to this post |
|
Jimenez  SELHURSTPARKCHESTER,DA BRONX 03 Jul 15 2.16pm |
|
|---|---|
|
Quote jamiemartin721 at 03 Jul 2015 10.39am
Quote leggedstruggle at 03 Jul 2015 10.11am
Quote jamiemartin721 at 03 Jul 2015 9.19am
Quote leggedstruggle at 02 Jul 2015 4.46pm
Quote jamiemartin721 at 02 Jul 2015 4.01pm
Quote leggedstruggle at 02 Jul 2015 1.45pm
kill them The voices in your head? As opposed to the Boy's own Guide to Postmodern Philosophy that appears to be in yours? It wouldn't be gender specific if it was postmodern There is a Girl's own Guide - very similar, but leaves out the bit on how immoral it is for women to have children. You mean Wimmin, women suggests an intimation of an inferiority or subset of men, rather than hairy dungaree wearing vegan clamlappers with a pediliction for knitted ethnic hats.
Pro USA & Israel |
|
| Alert a moderator to this post |
|
| Jimenez SELHURSTPARKCHESTER,DA BRONX 03 Jul 15 2.17pm |
|
|---|---|
|
'Hearts & Minds' I loath that phrase!!
Pro USA & Israel |
|
| Alert a moderator to this post |
|
| legaleagle 03 Jul 15 2.29pm |
|
|---|---|
|
Not the best phrase,I agree.But,the one in most common usage and which aptly encapsulates the necessary ingredients,perhaps
|
|
| Alert a moderator to this post |
|
Login / Register
All images and text on this site are copyright © 1999-2023 The Holmesdale Online, unless otherwise stated.
Web Design by Guntrisoft Ltd.