Page 3 of 3 FirstFirst 1 2 3
Results 21 to 26 of 26

Thread: Horrible attack on mosque in Egypt

  1. #21
    Join Date
    May 2011
    Posts
    13,954
    Thanks
    3,362
    Thanked 3,265 Times in 2,497 Posts
    Blog Entries
    2
    Quote Originally Posted by Patman Post View Post
    I'm not convinced either Bush or Blair were OTT blatant about going into battle, slitting throats and bombing innocents to shouts of "God is Great". Or getting their followers to do those things either with the promises of riches and peace in the hereafter. And try as hard as I can, even as someone with anti Iraq War sentiments, and having read a bit about it, the media comments and writings I recall on Blair and Bushes Christian beliefs were all reports by other people ó even Paxman never got Blair to agree that he and Bush prayed together...
    Being elected politicians of powerful countries with international support, they didn't need to go round slitting throats and saying 'God Is Great' because they had armies of good men and women at their disposal to go and do their dirty work for them.

    You are quite right that there was back-tracking by both on the God thing, because they discovered how controversial it was. Nevertheless, I have shown a film of Bush being interviewed and a report of Blair's words on Parkinson. And the reports by other people are corroborative, authoritative and compelling, even if each doesn't stand up on its own.
    It's amazing how common this narcissism is: I disagree with person A, and I also disagree with person B, therefore A and B are identical - Daniel Hannan

  2. #22
    Join Date
    Oct 2009
    Location
    Pixels on your screen
    Posts
    6,427
    Thanks
    920
    Thanked 880 Times in 646 Posts
    All terrifically interesting stuff.
    Now, what was the OP about? Oh yes, an IS attack on an Egyptian Mosque and my assertion that there's only one way to deal with fanatical adherents to IS.
    And Orla Guerin's ridiculous commentary suggesting there is a better way.

    As far as I am concerned the only good IS operatives are dead ones and those who have totally renounced their ideology.
    As RD says, you can't kill an idea, but you can kill all the evil people who actively follow it and murder all in their pathway.

  3. #23
    Join Date
    May 2011
    Posts
    13,954
    Thanks
    3,362
    Thanked 3,265 Times in 2,497 Posts
    Blog Entries
    2
    Quote Originally Posted by Barry View Post
    All terrifically interesting stuff.
    Now, what was the OP about? Oh yes, an IS attack on an Egyptian Mosque and my assertion that there's only one way to deal with fanatical adherents to IS.
    And Orla Guerin's ridiculous commentary suggesting there is a better way.

    As far as I am concerned the only good IS operatives are dead ones and those who have totally renounced their ideology.
    As RD says, you can't kill an idea, but you can kill all the evil people who actively follow it and murder all in their pathway.
    Well, I would be absolutely delighted to hear that every single IS operative was dead.

    However, that is not a thing that anyone is likely to achieve, however hard-line they go, and since their movement thrives on martyrdom, I suspect it would be counter-productive overall. I am happy to be proven wrong on that, as I am not an expert in counter-terrorism, but I don't suppose you are either.

    I didn't really understand what was so ridiculous about Orla Guerin's commentary. I get that you don't agree with it - but to suggest there might other ways of dealing with a threat that might work better is not ridiculous.
    It's amazing how common this narcissism is: I disagree with person A, and I also disagree with person B, therefore A and B are identical - Daniel Hannan

  4. #24
    Join Date
    May 2016
    Posts
    870
    Thanks
    59
    Thanked 90 Times in 79 Posts
    Quote Originally Posted by Patman Post View Post
    Thatís the difference between a Pacifist and a Peacemaker ó the latter will not shy away from openly using arms to ultimately subdue conflict...

    Didn't Colt manufacture one?

  5. #25
    Join Date
    Apr 2014
    Posts
    3,114
    Thanks
    287
    Thanked 858 Times in 637 Posts
    Quote Originally Posted by Barry View Post
    As far as I am concerned the only good IS operatives are dead ones and those who have totally renounced their ideology.
    As RD says, you can't kill an idea, but you can kill all the evil people who actively follow it and murder all in their pathway.
    Sounds good in theory, doesn't it? But who are we going to ask to do it, though? Under what conditions and under what RoEs? Who is going to decide where the combat area ends and society's better judgement begins? Where does military law end and "civilian" concerns begin? Who is going to be the final arbiter? The men on the ground? Or the press "reporters", the politicians, and the social media back home? This country doesn't exactly have a good recent track record when it comes to putting our armed forces on the pillory for circumspect political reasons, does it? Notwithstanding the financial implications of massively reduced capabilities.

    Then there is the emotional and human cost? If someone asked you to shoot a dog tomorrow, could you do it without a trace of emotion? Because to get down and dirty, you'd have to put men on the ground. What about those who have surrendered, or those who are only back players? Not everyone who is an enemy fights you with a gun in their hands. What are you going to do with them? What about the wounded who can't fight back, or the dubious cases who you know damn well are players but plead black is white for their life? Someone has to put a round in their head? There isn't any one of them who won't have to live with all that coming back to them again and again for the rest of their lives - that's assuming they get home in the first place.

    In assault operations, SOPs used to say to put two rounds into any body on the ground, dead or alive. The reason I say dead or alive is because you don't know. And no one is waiting to find out. Its what is euphemistically talked about as "no prisoners" order. Except it isn't. You can roll that "dead body" over and find out if he's really dead. And if a claymore then blows both your legs off, that's tough. Or you can make sure and nail it first. Its simply the supreme pragmatic approach to the unknowns of trying to assault an enemy held position. In those cases, the wine bar experts won't have to lose their legs or their life if the decision turns out to be the wrong one.

    But that's where it ends. Once the objective is secure and you end up with a yard full of defeated humanity in various states of health, snot down their face, piss stains down their legs, and with eyes and bits of limb missing, it will take a special kind of c**t to finish the job. As has been remarked numerous times on this forum, we are "better" than them. Its not that. Its that most blokes won't be able to face doing it.

  6. The Following 4 Users Say Thank You to DeppityDawg For This Useful Post:

    Barry (28-11-2017), Major Sinic (28-11-2017), uganda (28-11-2017), viking (28-11-2017)

  7. #26
    Join Date
    Oct 2007
    Location
    Newport, South Wales
    Posts
    7,753
    Thanks
    1,080
    Thanked 895 Times in 749 Posts
    Blog Entries
    4
    Quote Originally Posted by DeppityDawg View Post
    Sounds good in theory, doesn't it? But who are we going to ask to do it, though? Under what conditions and under what RoEs? Who is going to decide where the combat area ends and society's better judgement begins? Where does military law end and "civilian" concerns begin? Who is going to be the final arbiter? The men on the ground? Or the press "reporters", the politicians, and the social media back home? This country doesn't exactly have a good recent track record when it comes to putting our armed forces on the pillory for circumspect political reasons, does it? Notwithstanding the financial implications of massively reduced capabilities.

    Then there is the emotional and human cost? If someone asked you to shoot a dog tomorrow, could you do it without a trace of emotion? Because to get down and dirty, you'd have to put men on the ground. What about those who have surrendered, or those who are only back players? Not everyone who is an enemy fights you with a gun in their hands. What are you going to do with them? What about the wounded who can't fight back, or the dubious cases who you know damn well are players but plead black is white for their life? Someone has to put a round in their head? There isn't any one of them who won't have to live with all that coming back to them again and again for the rest of their lives - that's assuming they get home in the first place.

    In assault operations, SOPs used to say to put two rounds into any body on the ground, dead or alive. The reason I say dead or alive is because you don't know. And no one is waiting to find out. Its what is euphemistically talked about as "no prisoners" order. Except it isn't. You can roll that "dead body" over and find out if he's really dead. And if a claymore then blows both your legs off, that's tough. Or you can make sure and nail it first. Its simply the supreme pragmatic approach to the unknowns of trying to assault an enemy held position. In those cases, the wine bar experts won't have to lose their legs or their life if the decision turns out to be the wrong one.

    But that's where it ends. Once the objective is secure and you end up with a yard full of defeated humanity in various states of health, snot down their face, piss stains down their legs, and with eyes and bits of limb missing, it will take a special kind of c**t to finish the job. As has been remarked numerous times on this forum, we are "better" than them. Its not that. Its that most blokes won't be able to face doing it.
    That was, i believe, a major factor in schwarzkopf calling a halt to "eye raq round one" with the job half done and the head man still breathing.
    --
    "The Inland Revenue is not slow, and quite rightly, to take every advantage which is open to it under the Taxing Statutes for the purposes of depleting the taxpayer's pocket. And the taxpayer is in like manner entitled to be astute to prevent, so far as he honestly can, the depletion of his means by the Inland Revenue"

    Lord Clyde: "Ayrshire Pullman Motor Services V Inland Revenue, 1929"

Similar Threads

  1. Finsbury Mosque attack
    By albertcornercrew in forum War, Conflicts & Terrorism Forum
    Replies: 0
    Last Post: 19-06-2017, 08:40 AM
  2. A horrible premonition
    By lankou in forum United Kingdom Politics & Political Forum
    Replies: 1
    Last Post: 13-07-2016, 10:19 AM
  3. 19th Century Working Men's Club to be turned into Mosque
    By Nicholas in forum Religion, Faith and Spirituality
    Replies: 15
    Last Post: 20-08-2010, 08:27 PM

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •