Tunisia Terrorism - It's time to get tough
Register | Edit Profile | Subscriptions | Forum Rules | Log In | RSS Feed
legaleagle  03 Jul 15 2.36pm |
|
|---|---|
|
Quote jamiemartin721 at 03 Jul 2015 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....
Enough of this woosy bleeding heart "hearts and minds" tosh!It's taking the "Great" out of Great Britain
|
|
 Alert a moderator to this post |
 |
| TheJudge 03 Jul 15 2.42pm |
|
|---|---|
|
Quote legaleagle at 03 Jul 2015 2.36pm
Quote jamiemartin721 at 03 Jul 2015 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....
Enough of this woosy bleeding heart "hearts and minds" tosh!It's taking the "Great" out of Great Britain Nasty eh ? Electrocution's a doddle.
|
|
| Alert a moderator to this post |
|
| jamiemartin721 Reading 03 Jul 15 3.15pm |
|
|---|---|
|
Pockets and prospects I don't actually think you can win the 'hearts and minds' of people if you've been involved in killing their family, friends and neighbours. They're always going to bear a grudge. You might be able to win a few over, or be 'better than they thought' but your still a representative of the nation that dropped a 500lb bomb on granddads house. But over time, people like to earn a decent income, have a few oportunties and know that their kids future isn't choosing sides in a genocide.
"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 7.01pm |
|
|---|---|
|
Quote TheJudge at 03 Jul 2015 2.42pm
Quote legaleagle at 03 Jul 2015 2.36pm
Quote jamiemartin721 at 03 Jul 2015 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....
Enough of this woosy bleeding heart "hearts and minds" tosh!It's taking the "Great" out of Great Britain Nasty eh ? Electrocution's a doddle.
I freely admit you will know much more than me about the ins and outs of electrocuting people and the ease of doing so. As for Kenya,long term outcome,the corrupt elite in secure control post independence having taken over the elite farms and homes the torture was to "protect" from being seized, the same people responsible for so many of the country's problems today,including funnily enough results of failure over decades to win "hearts and minds" of the muslim minority in the north as "equal participants" in the national project...But then it was us who "taught them" how "tribalism" was a useful device to exacerbate divisions to divide and rule funny old world...
Edited by legaleagle (03 Jul 2015 7.19pm)
|
|
| Alert a moderator to this post |
|
| legaleagle 03 Jul 15 7.06pm |
|
|---|---|
|
Quote jamiemartin721 at 03 Jul 2015 3.15pm
Pockets and prospects I don't actually think you can win the 'hearts and minds' of people if you've been involved in killing their family, friends and neighbours. They're always going to bear a grudge. You might be able to win a few over, or be 'better than they thought' but your still a representative of the nation that dropped a 500lb bomb on granddads house. But over time, people like to earn a decent income, have a few oportunties and know that their kids future isn't choosing sides in a genocide.
It was,arguably and for example, crucial to the British "success" in the Malaya "emergency".
|
|
| Alert a moderator to this post |
|
 Stirlingsays 04 Jul 15 4.35am |
   |
|---|---|
|
Quote legaleagle at 03 Jul 2015 2.36pm
Maybe we should recommission our "torture" techniques from the early 1950's in Kenya which I believe even then classified official records described as "Gestapo techniques":rape, castration, amputation, electrocution...
Enough of this woosy bleeding heart "hearts and minds" tosh!It's taking the "Great" out of Great Britain Cultural change along with faint hearts and state sponsored fifth columnists did that a long time ago.
'Who are you and how did you get in here? I'm a locksmith. And, I'm a locksmith.' (Leslie Nielsen) |
|
| Alert a moderator to this post |
 |
| Stirlingsays 04 Jul 15 4.56am |
|
|---|---|
|
Quote jamiemartin721 at 03 Jul 2015 3.15pm
Pockets and prospects I don't actually think you can win the 'hearts and minds' of people if you've been involved in killing their family, friends and neighbours. They're always going to bear a grudge. You might be able to win a few over, or be 'better than they thought' but your still a representative of the nation that dropped a 500lb bomb on granddads house. But over time, people like to earn a decent income, have a few oportunties and know that their kids future isn't choosing sides in a genocide. Jamie, it sounds like you are about to launch into Sting's 'Russians'. Also Jamie, all the egalitarians on their side will think like you won't they.....They won't have a side because they view themselves as above such petty human conflict. The second world war left families with massive losses, as a population time heals....The hatred aspect is there but over-stated. The jobs and opportunities aspect isn't. Opposition is the nature state of the human condition. Only those use to relative wealth could think otherwise. They have never had to fight to protect their possessions and consider them a right....Quite amusing really considering most of human history. Opposition is the natural state, the best humanity can look to is the fair trading and production of resources between states and the maintenance of alliances and defense.
'Who are you and how did you get in here? I'm a locksmith. And, I'm a locksmith.' (Leslie Nielsen) |
|
| Alert a moderator to this post |
|
| suicideatselhurst crawley 04 Jul 15 8.51am |
|
|---|---|
|
Quote jamiemartin721 at 02 Jul 2015 9.17am
Quote suicideatselhurst at 02 Jul 2015 12.30am
Quote Stirlingsays at 02 Jul 2015 12.10am
Quote jamiemartin721 at 01 Jul 2015 10.50am
Quote TheJudge at 01 Jul 2015 10.01am
Both the previous posts are showing a little naivety I believe. Make no mistake, this is an us or them situation and like in most conflicts, what is fair will come second to what wins. If people start dying in numbers in Britain, the gloves will be off if they are not already. Its a threat, but in terms of a real threat to national security, stability of the nation and the British way of life its fairly minimal. Its a serious matter, and one we need to remain focused on, but if we keep wetting our knickers in any conflict when the enemy causes casualties, civilian or military, we're only going to end up losing. We're in a war, and its inevitable that people will die, that cannot be avoided. Acting as if its 1939, the Army is in retreat and the Germans are at the door, every time we suffer an attack ultimately will end up feeding into a defeat. Turning every casualty into a media story hampered the long term ambitions in Afghanistan and Iraq, and the same will apply to the war on terror. Terrorist groups invariably see themselves as a vanguard movement, their aim is to create reprisals and repression of those they claim to represent, marginalizing those people, and drawing them onto their side of the fence (ultimately radicalizing them). Its a long war situation, there isn't an easy way out, because even if we crushed IS militarily in Syria and Iraq, their affilates and ideological supporters have essentially become the new Al-Qaeda franchise. Eventually IS will likely end up destroyed, and its survivors will form a new organization that will declare war on the west and so on. Usually these kinds of conflicts run to 20-30 years before either petering out, negotiated settlements or being overtaken by social changes (or a combination of all these). Each generation of terrorist group becomes more efficient and effective than its predecessor, as it learns from its failures. I think you both make good points. Jamie's point about media outcries over casualties speaks of a cultural mindset of western democracies which have avoided large scale conflicts for over fifty years. There is a touch of the demise of the Roman empire about it, where the longer Rome went without a real external threat the more distant it became from even recognizing when it needed to fight to protect its interests. To sum it up simplistically, in the end Rome fell because it forgot what it took to remain a superpower......Essentially this has been repeated throughout history since. I see the way the western media deal with conflict as a small reminder of this......They see it through the eyes of people who have forgotten that all they have....All the privilege they take for granted....Was ultimately won by people who died violently in the dirt. Ultimately, it always comes down to that.....As is the nature of cellular life.....As is the nature of man.
After war is done, we should mourn the dead and tell their stories, so that their sacrifice can live on. But if we'd told the individual stories of the Blitz and Dunkirk and focused on the tragedy. As Stalin said, the loss of one is a tragedy, the loss of millions a statistic. If we grieve for each person lost, we'd never get from our beds. Its why the US lost in Vietnam, because the reality of the war back home, was about 55,000 dead Americans, not military gains. Had that 'not taken hold' the US might well have ground the NVA and VC et al to a stalemate following the Tet Offensive.
Theres someone in my head ... But its not me X/Box game Tag bazcpfc1961, clan (HMS) |
|
| Alert a moderator to this post |
|
| TheJudge 04 Jul 15 9.29am |
|
|---|---|
|
Quote legaleagle at 03 Jul 2015 7.01pm
Quote TheJudge at 03 Jul 2015 2.42pm
Quote legaleagle at 03 Jul 2015 2.36pm
Quote jamiemartin721 at 03 Jul 2015 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....
Enough of this woosy bleeding heart "hearts and minds" tosh!It's taking the "Great" out of Great Britain Nasty eh ? Electrocution's a doddle.
I freely admit you will know much more than me about the ins and outs of electrocuting people and the ease of doing so. As for Kenya,long term outcome,the corrupt elite in secure control post independence having taken over the elite farms and homes the torture was to "protect" from being seized, the same people responsible for so many of the country's problems today,including funnily enough results of failure over decades to win "hearts and minds" of the muslim minority in the north as "equal participants" in the national project...But then it was us who "taught them" how "tribalism" was a useful device to exacerbate divisions to divide and rule funny old world...
Edited by legaleagle (03 Jul 2015 7.19pm) So you are suggesting what ? It would have been better to exterminate all of them ?
|
|
| Alert a moderator to this post |
|
| legaleagle 04 Jul 15 10.20am |
|
|---|---|
|
Ultimately,in the early 1950's Kenya example,the approach (and its balance) we adopted arguably did more harm than good and is another reason in support of why seeking to win "hearts and minds" of a general local populace or part of the populace, as part of the "psychological warfare" part of any "counter-insurgency" situation is not some "woosy liberal nonsense" but is very important, as is having an overall long-term thought through strategy. It is also an important part of lessening the risk of such a situation arising or expanding."Traditional military" aspects are of course not irrelevant per se but often ,while appearing superficially attractive, on their own coupled with "strong arm" aspects can lessen the prospects of long term success. Similar lessons can be learned from looking at Central and Latin America in the 20th century, Malaya was an example of where we possibly got it more "right" (the odd massacre aside),as opposed to a rather more mass level of alienating the entire local populace by recourse amongst other things to way OTT "security" and questioning "techniques" of the many. What we face today IMO with "violent salafist jihadism" is not precisely like classic colonial-type insurgency situations,not least because of its spread in pockets over a wide area globally and not being solely confined to people and events thousands of miles away,but if you strip out the specific ideological element,it has many similarities in terms of the "psychological" aspects of countering (including not exacerbating and incubating) it as opposed to just the more traditional military/police aspects.This is all the more so given modern technology such as the growth of things like social media and its effect on the "battle for hearts and minds" Just an opinion Adios Edited by legaleagle (04 Jul 2015 10.52am)
|
|
| Alert a moderator to this post |
|
| TheJudge 04 Jul 15 11.51am |
|
|---|---|
|
Quote legaleagle at 04 Jul 2015 10.20am
Ultimately,in the early 1950's Kenya example,the approach (and its balance) we adopted arguably did more harm than good and is another reason in support of why seeking to win "hearts and minds" of a general local populace or part of the populace, as part of the "psychological warfare" part of any "counter-insurgency" situation is not some "woosy liberal nonsense" but is very important, as is having an overall long-term thought through strategy. It is also an important part of lessening the risk of such a situation arising or expanding."Traditional military" aspects are of course not irrelevant per se but often ,while appearing superficially attractive, on their own coupled with "strong arm" aspects can lessen the prospects of long term success. Similar lessons can be learned from looking at Central and Latin America in the 20th century, Malaya was an example of where we possibly got it more "right" (the odd massacre aside),as opposed to a rather more mass level of alienating the entire local populace by recourse amongst other things to way OTT "security" and questioning "techniques" of the many. What we face today IMO with "violent salafist jihadism" is not precisely like classic colonial-type insurgency situations,not least because of its spread in pockets over a wide area globally and not being solely confined to people and events thousands of miles away,but if you strip out the specific ideological element,it has many similarities in terms of the "psychological" aspects of countering (including not exacerbating and incubating) it as opposed to just the more traditional military/police aspects.This is all the more so given modern technology such as the growth of things like social media and its effect on the "battle for hearts and minds" Just an opinion Adios Edited by legaleagle (04 Jul 2015 10.52am)
Trying to retrospectively judge policy and decry the draconian tactics of previous administrations is of little use. Yes, lessons can be learned from history but circumstances are rarely the same,although they might appear superficially so, and personalities are not the same.
|
|
| Alert a moderator to this post |
|
| legaleagle 04 Jul 15 12.25pm |
|
|---|---|
|
IMO,only a person with extreme tunnel vision and a single frame of reference outlook who hasn't (perhaps my fault) understood what I am saying about "counter-insurgency" could possibly think I am suggesting any problems arising from "violent salafist jihadism" are all "our fault".That's regardless of whether my actual points and opinions (which is all they are) have any objective merit or not. It may (or may not) be inherently and in every case a dog eat dog world.That would make us both dogs and no hope of acting other than as dogs. Some dogs may be smarter than others at avoiding having the whole of the other dog's "pack" alienated (where this may be avoidable or can be mitigated )and rounding on them in a frenzy at the same time. I've put my opinion.You are perfectly entitled to your opinion.But,there is little point debating along completely different frames of reference and questions. Now, adios. Edited by legaleagle (04 Jul 2015 12.35pm)
|
|
| 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.