Sounds like an approach well suited to the Gallic Wars
(1) Collateral damage. You either fight a war or you don't. It is an uncivilised activity. You might try to avoid collateral damage (we should try) but it is inescapable. We should turn Raqqa into a car park.
(2) KTA. To win a war you kill more of the enemy than they kill of you. Two Britons have been murdered in the most horrible way imaginable. I expect my government to exact brutal and bloody vengeance. I would quite like Cameron to stand up in the Commons tomorrow and tell me how many of the c***s we have killed. It would not be too many.
(3) Concentrate your enemy and then s*** on them. ISIS would be good people to try experimental munitions out on.
(4) If we are in the game, then we are at war. No poncing around. None of this "for a generation" stuff. there's only about 20,000 of them, we should be able to take them out in six months. Britons who go abroad to fight for them are traitors and should be subject to prosecution under the 1351 Act if they attempt to return. FFS lay about with fire and the sword.
Before I respond from a position of ignorance(not stupidity which was the point I was making to Charles) is this a translation for me of what Charles meant by his reference to the Gallic wars?
[So their quality of life hasn't improved in any real sense, but you are requiring them to change their lifestyle significantly or to fork out a huge sum of money annually to maintain what they had previously.]
Yup, that's the Mansion Tax for you people - be prepared rich people, your quality of life may not improve.
I'm drawing a distinction between the value of something and its worth.
Someone who buys a 4 bedroom house in, say, Dartmouth Park for £400,000 and finds that it is worth £2,500,000 today still lives in a 4 bedroom house in Dartmouth Park. They still live on the same street, see the same people and go to the same shops. Their life has not changed in any meaningful way.
But now it will cost them an additional £5,000 per year in tax.
Yes.
(I did start to type some more... well maybe give me a minute...)
Okay -
I've just heard whine whine whine about the ideologically sound bedroom tax that I don't think my brain just can't really care too much about this hypothetical minus 5k family.
I admit there's plenty of politics of envy involved probably - But I'm all for progressive taxation which basically means taxing the rich more - And I'm sure you're well aware of my bunt economic analysis by now - and Brisky says 2M house = rich.
Residential property is undertaxed.
Increasing taxes will reduce prices, to the benefit of the next generation. It will also encourage the redeployment of capital to more productive uses.
But the mansion tax as devised by the Labour party is an absolutely crazy way to approach something, driven entirely by the politics of envy, perceived dividing lines and trying to make the Tories look bad.
I'd rather that governments did things which were in the interests of the country and its people.
You do know that Osborne and Cable had agreed to introduce a 'mansion tax' in return for getting rid of 50% income tax but were vetoed by Cameron and Clegg.
The details of their 'mansion tax' would have been interesting to know.
But this government has nobody to blame but itself for allowing Labour to set the agenda for high end property taxation.
Sounds like an approach well suited to the Gallic Wars
(1) Collateral damage. You either fight a war or you don't. It is an uncivilised activity. You might try to avoid collateral damage (we should try) but it is inescapable. We should turn Raqqa into a car park.
(2) KTA. To win a war you kill more of the enemy than they kill of you. Two Britons have been murdered in the most horrible way imaginable. I expect my government to exact brutal and bloody vengeance. I would quite like Cameron to stand up in the Commons tomorrow and tell me how many of the c***s we have killed. It would not be too many.
(3) Concentrate your enemy and then s*** on them. ISIS would be good people to try experimental munitions out on.
(4) If we are in the game, then we are at war. No poncing around. None of this "for a generation" stuff. there's only about 20,000 of them, we should be able to take them out in six months. Britons who go abroad to fight for them are traitors and should be subject to prosecution under the 1351 Act if they attempt to return. FFS lay about with fire and the sword.
Before I respond from a position of ignorance(not stupidity which was the point I was making to Charles) is this a translation for me of what Charles meant by his reference to the Gallic wars?
I think Charles was suggesting that what Caesar used to get up to is not necessarily a model for 21st century warfare. I disagree: warfare is a game played for keeps. We should be looking for ways to put ISIS fighters to death, preferably wholesale. I don't think that blowing up the odd Toyota Hiace with a Brimstone missile offers me as a taxpayer good value for money. And for any enemy that is prepared to cut off a living captive's head with a butcher's knife: frankly the laws and usages of war demand that at the very least, we take no prisoners.
Sounds like an approach well suited to the Gallic Wars
(1) Collateral damage. You either fight a war or you don't. It is an uncivilised activity. You might try to avoid collateral damage (we should try) but it is inescapable. We should turn Raqqa into a car park.
(2) KTA. To win a war you kill more of the enemy than they kill of you. Two Britons have been murdered in the most horrible way imaginable. I expect my government to exact brutal and bloody vengeance. I would quite like Cameron to stand up in the Commons tomorrow and tell me how many of the c***s we have killed. It would not be too many.
(3) Concentrate your enemy and then s*** on them. ISIS would be good people to try experimental munitions out on.
(4) If we are in the game, then we are at war. No poncing around. None of this "for a generation" stuff. there's only about 20,000 of them, we should be able to take them out in six months. Britons who go abroad to fight for them are traitors and should be subject to prosecution under the 1351 Act if they attempt to return. FFS lay about with fire and the sword.
Before I respond from a position of ignorance(not stupidity which was the point I was making to Charles) is this a translation for me of what Charles meant by his reference to the Gallic wars?
I think Charles was suggesting that what Caesar used to get up to is not necessarily a model for 21st century warfare. I disagree: warfare is a game played for keeps. We should be looking for ways to put ISIS fighters to death, preferably wholesale. I don't think that blowing up the odd Toyota Hiace with a Brimstone missile offers me as a taxpayer good value for money. And for any enemy that is prepared to cut off a living captive's head with a butcher's knife: frankly the laws and usages of war demand that at the very least, we take no prisoners.
Ah I see. Then I am glad to see that I am not the only one to take this view
Gosford Park A great movie and filled with Hollywood A List from Dame Helen Mirren to Ryan Phillippe and Clive Owen, as well as our national treasures Michael Gambon, Stephen Fry, Tom Hollander and Dame Maggie Smith
Sounds like an approach well suited to the Gallic Wars
(1) Collateral damage. You either fight a war or you don't. It is an uncivilised activity. You might try to avoid collateral damage (we should try) but it is inescapable. We should turn Raqqa into a car park.
(2) KTA. To win a war you kill more of the enemy than they kill of you. Two Britons have been murdered in the most horrible way imaginable. I expect my government to exact brutal and bloody vengeance. I would quite like Cameron to stand up in the Commons tomorrow and tell me how many of the c***s we have killed. It would not be too many.
(3) Concentrate your enemy and then s*** on them. ISIS would be good people to try experimental munitions out on.
(4) If we are in the game, then we are at war. No poncing around. None of this "for a generation" stuff. there's only about 20,000 of them, we should be able to take them out in six months. Britons who go abroad to fight for them are traitors and should be subject to prosecution under the 1351 Act if they attempt to return. FFS lay about with fire and the sword.
What Honest John Lilburne said.
Enough of this footling. We need to tackle Islamism by showing them that we love life more than they love death - by killing ALL OF THEM, and doing it with daunting skill. Yes, civilians will die, but 100,000s have died in Syria already. Yes, it will suck in 1000s of teenie Western jihadists, but that's good - we get to kill them in one place, thereby saving time, grief, money and the lives of westerners on western streets.
This geopolitical stramash has been brewing for decades. ISIS want to take it outside. We should oblige.
They have done us a service by attempting to set up a country, and therefore concentrating their forces in a (relatively) small area of the middle east. Something Al Qaeda has been obviously avoiding doing. As you say, we should oblige them.
Sounds like an approach well suited to the Gallic Wars
(1) Collateral damage. You either fight a war or you don't. It is an uncivilised activity. You might try to avoid collateral damage (we should try) but it is inescapable. We should turn Raqqa into a car park.
(2) KTA. To win a war you kill more of the enemy than they kill of you. Two Britons have been murdered in the most horrible way imaginable. I expect my government to exact brutal and bloody vengeance. I would quite like Cameron to stand up in the Commons tomorrow and tell me how many of the c***s we have killed. It would not be too many.
(3) Concentrate your enemy and then s*** on them. ISIS would be good people to try experimental munitions out on.
(4) If we are in the game, then we are at war. No poncing around. None of this "for a generation" stuff. there's only about 20,000 of them, we should be able to take them out in six months. Britons who go abroad to fight for them are traitors and should be subject to prosecution under the 1351 Act if they attempt to return. FFS lay about with fire and the sword.
What Honest John Lilburne said.
Enough of this footling. We need to tackle Islamism by showing them that we love life more than they love death - by killing ALL OF THEM, and doing it with daunting skill. Yes, civilians will die, but 100,000s have died in Syria already. Yes, it will suck in 1000s of teenie Western jihadists, but that's good - we get to kill them in one place, thereby saving time, grief, money and the lives of westerners on western streets.
This geopolitical stramash has been brewing for decades. ISIS want to take it outside. We should oblige.
Hang on Sean weren't you the one just decrying the close them all in and let them kill each other strategy on the grounds of we couldn't do it? I submit it will be easier to shut them in and let them eat each other ( figuratively or literally) than go in and exterminate them ourselves
Sounds like an approach well suited to the Gallic Wars
(1) Collateral damage. You either fight a war or you don't. It is an uncivilised activity. You might try to avoid collateral damage (we should try) but it is inescapable. We should turn Raqqa into a car park.
(2) KTA. To win a war you kill more of the enemy than they kill of you. Two Britons have been murdered in the most horrible way imaginable. I expect my government to exact brutal and bloody vengeance. I would quite like Cameron to stand up in the Commons tomorrow and tell me how many of the c***s we have killed. It would not be too many.
(3) Concentrate your enemy and then s*** on them. ISIS would be good people to try experimental munitions out on.
(4) If we are in the game, then we are at war. No poncing around. None of this "for a generation" stuff. there's only about 20,000 of them, we should be able to take them out in six months. Britons who go abroad to fight for them are traitors and should be subject to prosecution under the 1351 Act if they attempt to return. FFS lay about with fire and the sword.
What Honest John Lilburne said.
Enough of this footling. We need to tackle Islamism by showing them that we love life more than they love death - by killing ALL OF THEM, and doing it with daunting skill. Yes, civilians will die, but 100,000s have died in Syria already. Yes, it will suck in 1000s of teenie Western jihadists, but that's good - we get to kill them in one place, thereby saving time, grief, money and the lives of westerners on western streets.
This geopolitical stramash has been brewing for decades. ISIS want to take it outside. We should oblige.
They have done us a service by attempting to set up a country, and therefore concentrating their forces in a (relatively) small area of the middle east. Something Al Qaeda has been obviously avoiding doing. As you say, we should oblige them.
You know of course that we won't. ISIS are far too useful a scarecrow to shutdown. With ISIS in view there is no end to the civil liberties the bastards can try and justify stealing from us
Travelling to Afganistan and being all buddy, buddy with the troops won't stop them remembering how some returning troops were treated.
Yawn. Its how the incompetent army treated its own soldiers. In fact Cameron wrote apologising for the dumb army bureaucrats and Sergeant Lee Nolan was offered the chance to keep his army job which he apparently turned down. Even the Mirror is forced to admit that he gets a lump sum of £93,000 as opposed to £76,000.
Sounds like an approach well suited to the Gallic Wars
(1) Collateral damage. You either fight a war or you don't. It is an uncivilised activity. You might try to avoid collateral damage (we should try) but it is inescapable. We should turn Raqqa into a car park.
(2) KTA. To win a war you kill more of the enemy than they kill of you. Two Britons have been murdered in the most horrible way imaginable. I expect my government to exact brutal and bloody vengeance. I would quite like Cameron to stand up in the Commons tomorrow and tell me how many of the c***s we have killed. It would not be too many.
(3) Concentrate your enemy and then s*** on them. ISIS would be good people to try experimental munitions out on.
(4) If we are in the game, then we are at war. No poncing around. None of this "for a generation" stuff. there's only about 20,000 of them, we should be able to take them out in six months. Britons who go abroad to fight for them are traitors and should be subject to prosecution under the 1351 Act if they attempt to return. FFS lay about with fire and the sword.
Before I respond from a position of ignorance(not stupidity which was the point I was making to Charles) is this a translation for me of what Charles meant by his reference to the Gallic wars?
I think Charles was suggesting that what Caesar used to get up to is not necessarily a model for 21st century warfare. I disagree: warfare is a game played for keeps. We should be looking for ways to put ISIS fighters to death, preferably wholesale. I don't think that blowing up the odd Toyota Hiace with a Brimstone missile offers me as a taxpayer good value for money. And for any enemy that is prepared to cut off a living captive's head with a butcher's knife: frankly the laws and usages of war demand that at the very least, we take no prisoners.
Sounds like an approach well suited to the Gallic Wars
(1) Collateral damage. You either fight a war or you don't. It is an uncivilised activity. You might try to avoid collateral damage (we should try) but it is inescapable. We should turn Raqqa into a car park.
(2) KTA. To win a war you kill more of the enemy than they kill of you. Two Britons have been murdered in the most horrible way imaginable. I expect my government to exact brutal and bloody vengeance. I would quite like Cameron to stand up in the Commons tomorrow and tell me how many of the c***s we have killed. It would not be too many.
(3) Concentrate your enemy and then s*** on them. ISIS would be good people to try experimental munitions out on.
(4) If we are in the game, then we are at war. No poncing around. None of this "for a generation" stuff. there's only about 20,000 of them, we should be able to take them out in six months. Britons who go abroad to fight for them are traitors and should be subject to prosecution under the 1351 Act if they attempt to return. FFS lay about with fire and the sword.
Before I respond from a position of ignorance(not stupidity which was the point I was making to Charles) is this a translation for me of what Charles meant by his reference to the Gallic wars?
I think Charles was suggesting that what Caesar used to get up to is not necessarily a model for 21st century warfare. I disagree: warfare is a game played for keeps. We should be looking for ways to put ISIS fighters to death, preferably wholesale. I don't think that blowing up the odd Toyota Hiace with a Brimstone missile offers me as a taxpayer good value for money. And for any enemy that is prepared to cut off a living captive's head with a butcher's knife: frankly the laws and usages of war demand that at the very least, we take no prisoners.
Assuming my shaky latin translation is correct that jus in bello is law in war then no they should expect none. They are not signatory to any of the treaties such as the geneva convention as far as I know so there is nothing to stop us executing them on capture
Sounds like an approach well suited to the Gallic Wars
(1) Collateral damage. You either fight a war or you don't. It is an uncivilised activity. You might try to avoid collateral damage (we should try) but it is inescapable. We should turn Raqqa into a car park.
(2) KTA. To win a war you kill more of the enemy than they kill of you. Two Britons have been murdered in the most horrible way imaginable. I expect my government to exact brutal and bloody vengeance. I would quite like Cameron to stand up in the Commons tomorrow and tell me how many of the c***s we have killed. It would not be too many.
(3) Concentrate your enemy and then s*** on them. ISIS would be good people to try experimental munitions out on.
(4) If we are in the game, then we are at war. No poncing around. None of this "for a generation" stuff. there's only about 20,000 of them, we should be able to take them out in six months. Britons who go abroad to fight for them are traitors and should be subject to prosecution under the 1351 Act if they attempt to return. FFS lay about with fire and the sword.
What Honest John Lilburne said.
Enough of this footling. We need to tackle Islamism by showing them that we love life more than they love death - by killing ALL OF THEM, and doing it with daunting skill. Yes, civilians will die, but 100,000s have died in Syria already. Yes, it will suck in 1000s of teenie Western jihadists, but that's good - we get to kill them in one place, thereby saving time, grief, money and the lives of westerners on western streets.
This geopolitical stramash has been brewing for decades. ISIS want to take it outside. We should oblige.
Hang on Sean weren't you the one just decrying the close them all in and let them kill each other strategy on the grounds of we couldn't do it? I submit it will be easier to shut them in and let them eat each other ( figuratively or literally) than go in and exterminate them ourselves
Sounds like an approach well suited to the Gallic Wars
(1) Collateral damage. You either fight a war or you don't. It is an uncivilised activity. You might try to avoid collateral damage (we should try) but it is inescapable. We should turn Raqqa into a car park.
(2) KTA. To win a war you kill more of the enemy than they kill of you. Two Britons have been murdered in the most horrible way imaginable. I expect my government to exact brutal and bloody vengeance. I would quite like Cameron to stand up in the Commons tomorrow and tell me how many of the c***s we have killed. It would not be too many.
(3) Concentrate your enemy and then s*** on them. ISIS would be good people to try experimental munitions out on.
(4) If we are in the game, then we are at war. No poncing around. None of this "for a generation" stuff. there's only about 20,000 of them, we should be able to take them out in six months. Britons who go abroad to fight for them are traitors and should be subject to prosecution under the 1351 Act if they attempt to return. FFS lay about with fire and the sword.
What Honest John Lilburne said.
Enough of this footling. We need to tackle Islamism by showing them that we love life more than they love death - by killing ALL OF THEM, and doing it with daunting skill. Yes, civilians will die, but 100,000s have died in Syria already. Yes, it will suck in 1000s of teenie Western jihadists, but that's good - we get to kill them in one place, thereby saving time, grief, money and the lives of westerners on western streets.
This geopolitical stramash has been brewing for decades. ISIS want to take it outside. We should oblige.
Hang on Sean weren't you the one just decrying the close them all in and let them kill each other strategy on the grounds of we couldn't do it? I submit it will be easier to shut them in and let them eat each other ( figuratively or literally) than go in and exterminate them ourselves
One of the most basic tenets of military strategy is to concentrate your enemy. That allows you to concentrate your own forces and, in former times, to bring them to pitched battle on your own terms. To get terrorists to concentrate is a huge step forward. You can then deal death wholesale.
Sounds like an approach well suited to the Gallic Wars
(1) Collateral damage. You either fight a war or you don't. It is an uncivilised activity. You might try to avoid collateral damage (we should try) but it is inescapable. We should turn Raqqa into a car park.
(2) KTA. To win a war you kill more of the enemy than they kill of you. Two Britons have been murdered in the most horrible way imaginable. I expect my government to exact brutal and bloody vengeance. I would quite like Cameron to stand up in the Commons tomorrow and tell me how many of the c***s we have killed. It would not be too many.
(3) Concentrate your enemy and then s*** on them. ISIS would be good people to try experimental munitions out on.
(4) If we are in the game, then we are at war. No poncing around. None of this "for a generation" stuff. there's only about 20,000 of them, we should be able to take them out in six months. Britons who go abroad to fight for them are traitors and should be subject to prosecution under the 1351 Act if they attempt to return. FFS lay about with fire and the sword.
Before I respond from a position of ignorance(not stupidity which was the point I was making to Charles) is this a translation for me of what Charles meant by his reference to the Gallic wars?
I think Charles was suggesting that what Caesar used to get up to is not necessarily a model for 21st century warfare. I disagree: warfare is a game played for keeps. We should be looking for ways to put ISIS fighters to death, preferably wholesale. I don't think that blowing up the odd Toyota Hiace with a Brimstone missile offers me as a taxpayer good value for money. And for any enemy that is prepared to cut off a living captive's head with a butcher's knife: frankly the laws and usages of war demand that at the very least, we take no prisoners.
Assuming my shaky latin translation is correct that jus in bello is law in war then no they should expect none. They are not signatory to any of the treaties such as the geneva convention as far as I know so there is nothing to stop us executing them on capture
Sounds like an approach well suited to the Gallic Wars
(1) Collateral damage. You either fight a war or you don't. It is an uncivilised activity. You might try to avoid collateral damage (we should try) but it is inescapable. We should turn Raqqa into a car park.
(2) KTA. To win a war you kill more of the enemy than they kill of you. Two Britons have been murdered in the most horrible way imaginable. I expect my government to exact brutal and bloody vengeance. I would quite like Cameron to stand up in the Commons tomorrow and tell me how many of the c***s we have killed. It would not be too many.
(3) Concentrate your enemy and then s*** on them. ISIS would be good people to try experimental munitions out on.
(4) If we are in the game, then we are at war. No poncing around. None of this "for a generation" stuff. there's only about 20,000 of them, we should be able to take them out in six months. Britons who go abroad to fight for them are traitors and should be subject to prosecution under the 1351 Act if they attempt to return. FFS lay about with fire and the sword.
What Honest John Lilburne said.
Enough of this footling. We need to tackle Islamism by showing them that we love life more than they love death - by killing ALL OF THEM, and doing it with daunting skill. Yes, civilians will die, but 100,000s have died in Syria already. Yes, it will suck in 1000s of teenie Western jihadists, but that's good - we get to kill them in one place, thereby saving time, grief, money and the lives of westerners on western streets.
This geopolitical stramash has been brewing for decades. ISIS want to take it outside. We should oblige.
Hang on Sean weren't you the one just decrying the close them all in and let them kill each other strategy on the grounds of we couldn't do it? I submit it will be easier to shut them in and let them eat each other ( figuratively or literally) than go in and exterminate them ourselves
Frankly I think we should avoid Germ warfare. While I am sure government scientists are competent people I know enough about microbiology to know that once released into the environment that any bets are off regarding mutations in the future
Sounds like an approach well suited to the Gallic Wars
(1) Collateral damage. You either fight a war or you don't. It is an uncivilised activity. You might try to avoid collateral damage (we should try) but it is inescapable. We should turn Raqqa into a car park.
(2) KTA. To win a war you kill more of the enemy than they kill of you. Two Britons have been murdered in the most horrible way imaginable. I expect my government to exact brutal and bloody vengeance. I would quite like Cameron to stand up in the Commons tomorrow and tell me how many of the c***s we have killed. It would not be too many.
(3) Concentrate your enemy and then s*** on them. ISIS would be good people to try experimental munitions out on.
(4) If we are in the game, then we are at war. No poncing around. None of this "for a generation" stuff. there's only about 20,000 of them, we should be able to take them out in six months. Britons who go abroad to fight for them are traitors and should be subject to prosecution under the 1351 Act if they attempt to return. FFS lay about with fire and the sword.
Before I respond from a position of ignorance(not stupidity which was the point I was making to Charles) is this a translation for me of what Charles meant by his reference to the Gallic wars?
I think Charles was suggesting that what Caesar used to get up to is not necessarily a model for 21st century warfare. I disagree: warfare is a game played for keeps. We should be looking for ways to put ISIS fighters to death, preferably wholesale. I don't think that blowing up the odd Toyota Hiace with a Brimstone missile offers me as a taxpayer good value for money. And for any enemy that is prepared to cut off a living captive's head with a butcher's knife: frankly the laws and usages of war demand that at the very least, we take no prisoners.
Assuming my shaky latin translation is correct that jus in bello is law in war then no they should expect none. They are not signatory to any of the treaties such as the geneva convention as far as I know so there is nothing to stop us executing them on capture
As I understand it, there is no compulsion to accept an enemy's surrender. Once you have done so, however, you should treat them honourably.
FPT. @Paul_Mid_Beds "The inbuilt labour advantage seems to be significantly due in part to Liberals holding formerly safe tory seats and this bias will be much reduced in 2015."
That is an often forgotten, and I think very underestimated point when looking at the chances of Conservatives coming out on top as the largest party or with a small majority at the next GE. I live in a Scottish constituency which was formerly a Conservative seat, and is now currently held by the Libdems. And while that certainly did not stop the Conservatives from becoming the largest party in 2010, the failure to regain seats like mine from the Libdems last time certainly stopped the Conservatives from winning that elusive majority.
If there is even a small swing to the Conservatives up here in Scotland, and as a result they do manage to regain the odd Libdem seat like mine, they will then be looking to win a majority rather than remain the largest party in the 2015 GE. Back in the 1992 GE, the only seat that the Conservatives gained from Labour was my old constituency of Aberdeen South. And again, back then the big issue was the economy and which of the two main parties was best placed to protect it. A topic that has already been hotly debated up here in Scotland over the last few months during the Independence campaign.
Sounds like an approach well suited to the Gallic Wars
(1) Collateral damage. You either fight a war or you don't. It is an uncivilised activity. You might try to avoid collateral damage (we should try) but it is inescapable. We should turn Raqqa into a car park.
(2) KTA. To win a war you kill more of the enemy than they kill of you. Two Britons have been murdered in the most horrible way imaginable. I expect my government to exact brutal and bloody vengeance. I would quite like Cameron to stand up in the Commons tomorrow and tell me how many of the c***s we have killed. It would not be too many.
(3) Concentrate your enemy and then s*** on them. ISIS would be good people to try experimental munitions out on.
(4) If we are in the game, then we are at war. No poncing around. None of this "for a generation" stuff. there's only about 20,000 of them, we should be able to take them out in six months. Britons who go abroad to fight for them are traitors and should be subject to prosecution under the 1351 Act if they attempt to return. FFS lay about with fire and the sword.
What Honest John Lilburne said.
Enough of this footling. We need to tackle Islamism by showing them that we love life more than they love death - by killing ALL OF THEM, and doing it with daunting skill. Yes, civilians will die, but 100,000s have died in Syria already. Yes, it will suck in 1000s of teenie Western jihadists, but that's good - we get to kill them in one place, thereby saving time, grief, money and the lives of westerners on western streets.
This geopolitical stramash has been brewing for decades. ISIS want to take it outside. We should oblige.
Hang on Sean weren't you the one just decrying the close them all in and let them kill each other strategy on the grounds of we couldn't do it? I submit it will be easier to shut them in and let them eat each other ( figuratively or literally) than go in and exterminate them ourselves
One of the most basic tenets of military strategy is to concentrate your enemy. That allows you to concentrate your own forces and, in former times, to bring them to pitched battle on your own terms. To get terrorists to concentrate is a huge step forward. You can then deal death wholesale.
Again my suggestion was to allow people to enter....merely not to leave
Another Guardianista says "we mustn't bomb ISIS coz blah" yet offers no serious alternative.
Everyone agrees we should arm the Kurds (if Turkey lets us) but that won't win the war. Iraq is about to fall. Baghdad is now in ISIS artillery range. ISIS are sweeping up to the Turkish border. Meanwhile, the useful idiots of the Left march on.
There was a lovely story in the Guardian earlier about ISIL raping an eight year old girl and her mother, then cutting their hearts out and leaving them on the bodies. Always amazes me how much time the average morally crusading, deeply religious soldier has for rape. No warring, praying or land-conquering, however time-consuming, gets in the way of a good, old fashioned child rape. These zealots are no better or any more intelligently advanced than your ordinary, garden paedophile or child murderer. They just use religion as convenient cover for their mental sickness.
ISIS thrive BECAUSE they are evil. Their transgressive, we-will-do-anything, F*ck You and Rape Your Mother quality is intrinsic to their appeal. Same with the the Nazis. They are teenage nihilism with tanks and, one day, maybe missiles. Unless we stop them.
Cameron's attempt to bomb Assad to help ISIS has to be one of the most imbecilic acts any British government has ever attempted.
Except that was not what Cameron was trying to do. You can argue (wrongly IMHO) that bombing Assad would have helped ISIS, but that was not his intention.
The warmongers of summer 2013 were fools.
Be big enough to admit it.
Cameron's intention at the time was to help out his wife's latest fashionable cause ie Syrian refugees. I doubt Cameron, with his well know lack of interest in details, even bothered to find out who ISIS was. All he wanted to know was Assad=bad and so was to be bombed.
Before I respond from a position of ignorance(not stupidity which was the point I was making to Charles) is this a translation for me of what Charles meant by his reference to the Gallic wars?
I think Charles was suggesting that what Caesar used to get up to is not necessarily a model for 21st century warfare. I disagree: warfare is a game played for keeps. We should be looking for ways to put ISIS fighters to death, preferably wholesale. I don't think that blowing up the odd Toyota Hiace with a Brimstone missile offers me as a taxpayer good value for money. And for any enemy that is prepared to cut off a living captive's head with a butcher's knife: frankly the laws and usages of war demand that at the very least, we take no prisoners.
Assuming my shaky latin translation is correct that jus in bello is law in war then no they should expect none. They are not signatory to any of the treaties such as the geneva convention as far as I know so there is nothing to stop us executing them on capture
As I understand it, there is no compulsion to accept an enemy's surrender. Once you have done so, however, you should treat them honourably.
So you simply don't capture any.
When we are at war with an enemy we are at a disadvantage when we will not go to his lengths to win. However there is an argument that says if they think they can surrender and be treated well they may do so more readily. I am not convinced however as I see it and please anyone feel free to offer an opinion
1) kill all captives = no surrender but less people ready to fight in the first place
vs
2) treat all captives well = people willing to surrender when it looks bleak but more willing to fight in the first place.
JohnLilburne Rorke's Drift? Would they have fought on so long if they had a chance of surrendering?
Probably not, but there is a difference between accepting the surrender of an enemy that surrenders wholesale, and where individuals seek to surrender. Sometimes you do not have the facilities to quarter prisoners. For example, plenty of German prisoners were "taken to the rear" during the Dunkirk campaign and "shot attempting to escape" (see Simon Sebag-Montefiore's very good book on the campaign). And there is always a purpose in instilling terror into the enemy.
"No new coalition without tax hikes for middle classes, Nick Clegg warns David Cameron" - I thought all Liberals were middle class - who is Clegg appealing to?
In Brazil Dilmo Roussef has 41% with almost 90% of votes counted and will face a run-off against Aecio Neves who won 35%, Marina Silva finished third in the end with 22%
Here is a suggestion. Only propaganda but that can turn a war,
Every port and airport displays a big poster of the life expectancy of jihadists,
Each poster contains in small print all the details of known jihadists who have travelled out and what dates they died if they have done so.
The beauty of this of course is if you get the papers to cooperate none of it even need be true and you even have an actually decent public security defence to get the papers in line.
Imagine your would be Jihadist queueing for a ferry while looking at posters showing him or her that she is only likely to survive the trip by 15 days or so
@JohnLilburne Shooting unarmed prisoners is ok as long as you don't use knives, and keep quiet about it? We allegedly fight "moral wars" these days, where the idea is to defeat the ideology as well as the enemy.
Thanks for all the nice comments on the last thread re my tip on Treve to win The Arc. Win or lose, punters need encouragement to post. So, in the immortal words of the "Governator",
@JohnLilburne Shooting unarmed prisoners is ok as long as you don't use knives, and keep quiet about it? We allegedly fight "moral wars" these days, where the idea is to defeat the ideology as well as the enemy.
There is no such thing as a moral war. The very idea of such a thing is repugnant, You may fight a just war but never a moral one.
@JohnLilburne Shooting unarmed prisoners is ok as long as you don't use knives, and keep quiet about it? We allegedly fight "moral wars" these days, where the idea is to defeat the ideology as well as the enemy.
There is no such thing as a moral war. The very idea of such a thing is repugnant, You may fight a just war but never a moral one.
As morals are a religous province I feel qualified to add my two pennies here as well
I and my family have served the phantom queen for generations she is a goddess of war. There is no moral war there is only justice
@JohnLilburne Shooting unarmed prisoners is ok as long as you don't use knives, and keep quiet about it? We allegedly fight "moral wars" these days, where the idea is to defeat the ideology as well as the enemy.
I would mostly advocate not taking prisoners in the first place, not shooting people after we have accepted their surrender.
Warfare is not "moral", it is dog against dog. It is about killing more of the enemy than they kill of you. Our reasons for going to war may be "moral" (rather than just an extension of foreign policy) but to do it properly, it is about imitating the action of the beast.
"But when the blast of war blows in our ears, Then imitate the action of the tiger; Stiffen the sinews, summon up the blood, Disguise fair nature with hard-favour'd rage; Then lend the eye a terrible aspect;"
@ZenPagan Morals are religious? Does that mean atheists are immoral?
Most hold morals to lie in the religous domain which is where I drew my authority from. Personally I do not believe them to be solely limited to that domain but there again who am I to fly in the face of public opinion
In Brazil Dilmo Roussef has 41% with almost 90% of votes counted and will face a run-off against Aecio Neves who won 35%, Marina Silva finished third in the end with 22%
In Brazil Dilmo Roussef has 41% with almost 90% of votes counted and will face a run-off against Aecio Neves who won 35%, Marina Silva finished third in the end with 22%
@ZenPagan "morals" predate religion by Milena at least. They are what holds a wolf pack together, or civilizations.
You are claiming wolves have morals? I would like to see you prove that
I would agree that religion != morals however and you can be religious and immoral or moral and irreligious.
I think you have broadened my statement however in your picking at it which was merely to state that while I personally chat to a goddess of War when I pray that even she has never claimed war is a moral duty merely that sometimes it may be a just duty. But then again we were never het up about this concept of sin like you christians zen or otherwise.
Also as a complete aside can I just point out that womens rights is a matrilineal descent society were quite well established till some christians came along
In Brazil Dilmo Roussef has 41% with almost 90% of votes counted and will face a run-off against Aecio Neves who won 35%, Marina Silva finished third in the end with 22%
Wow, that's a huge shock. All the polls suggested it was Dilma V Marina. Back to the drawing board for Brazilian polling companies!
That`s not true. The latest polls (yesterday`s poll) showed this result. There was a surge for Aecio this week, specially after Thursday`s debate.
Ah, I've been drunk or hungover since Friday evening so havent seen any polling more recent than that. Pretty remarkable comeback (or fall for Marina from the initial sympathy surge) in any case.
In Brazil Dilmo Roussef has 41% with almost 90% of votes counted and will face a run-off against Aecio Neves who won 35%, Marina Silva finished third in the end with 22%
Wow, that's a huge shock. All the polls suggested it was Dilma V Marina. Back to the drawing board for Brazilian polling companies!
That`s not true. The latest polls (yesterday`s poll) showed this result. There was a surge for Aecio this week, specially after Thursday`s debate.
Ah, I've been drunk or hungover since Friday evening so havent seen any polling more recent than that. Pretty remarkable comeback (or fall for Marina from the initial sympathy surge) in any case.
Well, I live here, so I must get drunk after this s**t result. If you see the guys who were elected to the Congress, you would cry with me.
Marina made a lot of errors and her party doesn`t have half of the machine and structure that Aécio has. A lot of people didn`t even know Marina`s number. It was expected. The only thing people did not expect was this small difference between Aécio and Dilma. It`s going to be a tough second round.
Neil/Me Indeed, final polls like indyref showed a clear swing back to the status quo, sadly for Marina the sympathy vote after Campos' death declined and she was criticised over u-turns on issues such as gay marriage
@ZenPagan Oh, and morals are expected behavior in a given circumstance. Animals have them, but humans get to rewrite theirs until they find the best ones (or not, as is the usual case)
@ZenPagan Oh, and morals are expected behavior in a given circumstance. Animals have them, but humans get to rewrite theirs until they find the best ones (or not, as is the usual case)
Not at all morals are an absolute. They are however an absolute defined by a single human mind. What I find moral you may find immoral. That does not make you right and me wrong. The only moral code you can live to is that you set yourself and only you can judge yourself a failure, A human court may judge you fail human court standards and your deity may judge you fail theirs however the greatest punishment is failing your own standards and many do
@ZenPagan My world? I believe that there is a god or perhaps many, it is religion I find hard to believe in. They all start with the same idea, then want to kill over the differences they create.
@ZenPagan My world? I believe that there is a god or perhaps many, it is religion I find hard to believe in. They all start with the same idea, then want to kill over the differences they create.
The people of the book have overtaken our little globe. The jew, the christian, the muslim and the Bahai. They are all basically the same religion and like swifts littleendian and bigendian nations they war over nothing but wordings. The rest of us suffer even though we know these people are wrong.
They argue there is one mountain and this is the path to its peak whereas we know there is one mountain and the routes to its peak are legion
@ZenPagan And all we have for direction is our own moral compass... I actually first heard that line you used over thirty years ago (Irish catholic priest)
@ZenPagan And all we have for direction is our own moral compass... I actually first heard that line you used over thirty years ago (Irish catholic priest)
Then he was a smart priest. We all have free will virtuallly every religion grants us that therefore it is only logical that our only compass is our will and that some shall lose the way.
Omniscience and omnipotence as the people of the book would have it undermines this idea as your god would already know each and every choice of each and every soul therefore there would be no point in the testing of souls except for the potential torment. I would prefer personally not to live under the auspices of such a one and if the christians/islamist/jews/bahai are right and I am wrong then I hope the goddess give me the strenght to spit in his eye and tell him he is an arse
We have just done the annual charity walk with Gavin Barwell MP around the edge of Croydon Central constituency. It's the severalth time we've done it, but for the first time the Map-App-Thingy which Mario has got on his phone was working properly (with his phone running out of battery) so here is the map of it:
It says the time was 6 hours 59 minutes for 18.4 miles, but that's because he paused it while we stopped for lunch. It actually took 7 hours 13 minutes.
We have just done the annual charity walk with Gavin Barwell MP around the edge of Croydon Central constituency. It's the severalth time we've done it, but for the first time the Map-App-Thingy which Mario has got on his phone was working properly (with his phone running out of battery) so here is the map of it:
It says the time was 6 hours 59 minutes for 18.4 miles, but that's because he paused it while we stopped for lunch. It actually took 7 hours 13 minutes.
Congratulations what was the worthy charity and perhaps you might want to put up a donate link
We have just done the annual charity walk with Gavin Barwell MP around the edge of Croydon Central constituency. It's the severalth time we've done it, but for the first time the Map-App-Thingy which Mario has got on his phone was working properly (with his phone running out of battery) so here is the map of it:
It says the time was 6 hours 59 minutes for 18.4 miles, but that's because he paused it while we stopped for lunch. It actually took 7 hours 13 minutes.
Congratulations what was the worthy charity and perhaps you might want to put up a donate link
We have just done the annual charity walk with Gavin Barwell MP around the edge of Croydon Central constituency. It's the severalth time we've done it, but for the first time the Map-App-Thingy which Mario has got on his phone was working properly (with his phone running out of battery) so here is the map of it:
It says the time was 6 hours 59 minutes for 18.4 miles, but that's because he paused it while we stopped for lunch. It actually took 7 hours 13 minutes.
Congratulations what was the worthy charity and perhaps you might want to put up a donate link
IS potentially on the verge of two major successes, one in Syria (Kobane) and strategically more significant but less media covered, in Iraq in the city of Ramadi.
If both fall perhaps those ordering and conducting the airstrikes might like to rethink what they are doing and the tools they are using.
IS potentially on the verge of two major successes, one in Syria (Kobane) and strategically more significant but less media covered, in Iraq in the city of Ramadi.
If both fall perhaps those ordering and conducting the airstrikes might like to rethink what they are doing and the tools they are using.
Sounds like an approach well suited to the Gallic Wars
(1) Collateral damage. You either fight a war or you don't. It is an uncivilised activity. You might try to avoid collateral damage (we should try) but it is inescapable. We should turn Raqqa into a car park.
(2) KTA. To win a war you kill more of the enemy than they kill of you. Two Britons have been murdered in the most horrible way imaginable. I expect my government to exact brutal and bloody vengeance. I would quite like Cameron to stand up in the Commons tomorrow and tell me how many of the c***s we have killed. It would not be too many.
(3) Concentrate your enemy and then s*** on them. ISIS would be good people to try experimental munitions out on.
(4) If we are in the game, then we are at war. No poncing around. None of this "for a generation" stuff. there's only about 20,000 of them, we should be able to take them out in six months. Britons who go abroad to fight for them are traitors and should be subject to prosecution under the 1351 Act if they attempt to return. FFS lay about with fire and the sword.
Before I respond from a position of ignorance(not stupidity which was the point I was making to Charles) is this a translation for me of what Charles meant by his reference to the Gallic wars?
I think Charles was suggesting that what Caesar used to get up to is not necessarily a model for 21st century warfare. I disagree: warfare is a game played for keeps. We should be looking for ways to put ISIS fighters to death, preferably wholesale. I don't think that blowing up the odd Toyota Hiace with a Brimstone missile offers me as a taxpayer good value for money. And for any enemy that is prepared to cut off a living captive's head with a butcher's knife: frankly the laws and usages of war demand that at the very least, we take no prisoners.
Assuming my shaky latin translation is correct that jus in bello is law in war then no they should expect none. They are not signatory to any of the treaties such as the geneva convention as far as I know so there is nothing to stop us executing them on capture
The Geneva Convention requires all signatories to accept an offer to surrender, even if one's opponent is not a signatory. I think that puts one at a disadvantage, when fighting a non-signatory.
IS potentially on the verge of two major successes, one in Syria (Kobane) and strategically more significant but less media covered, in Iraq in the city of Ramadi.
If both fall perhaps those ordering and conducting the airstrikes might like to rethink what they are doing and the tools they are using.
What's the alternative? Ground troops?
Alternatives include: 1) Ground troups 2) Trying to change the balance of power by cutting deals with former enemies (Assad/Iran/Putin) 3) Action against allies who are also supporting ISIS, starting with Saudi Arabia 4) Cutting a deal with ISIS 5) Giving up and going home
Comments
The details of their 'mansion tax' would have been interesting to know.
But this government has nobody to blame but itself for allowing Labour to set the agenda for high end property taxation.
Women just claimed there were no tuition fees before this government and all the fault of the Lib Dems.
No, no tuition fees, you just had to pay £3k UPFRONT before they would let you through the door, but they weren't tuition fees.
Then the idiots start banging on about the situation in Scotland, and got that wrong too.
So you simply don't capture any.
That is an often forgotten, and I think very underestimated point when looking at the chances of Conservatives coming out on top as the largest party or with a small majority at the next GE. I live in a Scottish constituency which was formerly a Conservative seat, and is now currently held by the Libdems. And while that certainly did not stop the Conservatives from becoming the largest party in 2010, the failure to regain seats like mine from the Libdems last time certainly stopped the Conservatives from winning that elusive majority.
If there is even a small swing to the Conservatives up here in Scotland, and as a result they do manage to regain the odd Libdem seat like mine, they will then be looking to win a majority rather than remain the largest party in the 2015 GE. Back in the 1992 GE, the only seat that the Conservatives gained from Labour was my old constituency of Aberdeen South. And again, back then the big issue was the economy and which of the two main parties was best placed to protect it. A topic that has already been hotly debated up here in Scotland over the last few months during the Independence campaign.
Rorke's Drift? Would they have fought on so long if they had a chance of surrendering?
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-latin-america-29501500
Every port and airport displays a big poster of the life expectancy of jihadists,
Each poster contains in small print all the details of known jihadists who have travelled out and what dates they died if they have done so.
The beauty of this of course is if you get the papers to cooperate none of it even need be true and you even have an actually decent public security defence to get the papers in line.
Imagine your would be Jihadist queueing for a ferry while looking at posters showing him or her that she is only likely to survive the trip by 15 days or so
Shooting unarmed prisoners is ok as long as you don't use knives, and keep quiet about it?
We allegedly fight "moral wars" these days, where the idea is to defeat the ideology as well as the enemy.
"I'll be back!"
It's why I put moral wars in quotes... but it holds true that unless you can defeat the "idea" you are not winning the war, just the battle.
As morals are a religous province I feel qualified to add my two pennies here as well
I and my family have served the phantom queen for generations she is a goddess of war. There is no moral war there is only justice
Warfare is not "moral", it is dog against dog. It is about killing more of the enemy than they kill of you. Our reasons for going to war may be "moral" (rather than just an extension of foreign policy) but to do it properly, it is about imitating the action of the beast.
"But when the blast of war blows in our ears,
Then imitate the action of the tiger;
Stiffen the sinews, summon up the blood,
Disguise fair nature with hard-favour'd rage;
Then lend the eye a terrible aspect;"
Morals are religious? Does that mean atheists are immoral?
I prefer "Wingate" to "Shakespeare"
"morals" predate religion by millennia at least.
They are what holds a wolf pack together, or civilizations.
I would agree that religion != morals however and you can be religious and immoral or moral and irreligious.
I think you have broadened my statement however in your picking at it which was merely to state that while I personally chat to a goddess of War when I pray that even she has never claimed war is a moral duty merely that sometimes it may be a just duty. But then again we were never het up about this concept of sin like you christians zen or otherwise.
Also as a complete aside can I just point out that womens rights is a matrilineal descent society were quite well established till some christians came along
The Picts had the same idea, you normally have a good idea who the mother is....but the father?
Marina made a lot of errors and her party doesn`t have half of the machine and structure that Aécio has. A lot of people didn`t even know Marina`s number. It was expected. The only thing people did not expect was this small difference between Aécio and Dilma. It`s going to be a tough second round.
Oh, and morals are expected behavior in a given circumstance.
Animals have them, but humans get to rewrite theirs until they find the best ones (or not, as is the usual case)
http://www.grimsbytelegraph.co.uk/Labour-s-Austin-Mitchell-praises-Ukip-s-Great/story-23034545-detail/story.html#G65KkXYIOurHUerT.99
That however is ancient history and while we still live in your world we will ever be a small voice speaking truth
The only moral code you can live to is that you set yourself and only you can judge yourself a failure, A human court may judge you fail human court standards and your deity may judge you fail theirs however the greatest punishment is failing your own standards and many do
My world? I believe that there is a god or perhaps many, it is religion I find hard to believe in.
They all start with the same idea, then want to kill over the differences they create.
They argue there is one mountain and this is the path to its peak whereas we know there is one mountain and the routes to its peak are legion
And all we have for direction is our own moral compass...
I actually first heard that line you used over thirty years ago (Irish catholic priest)
'Cameron's attempt to bomb Assad to help ISIS has to be one of the most imbecilic acts any British government has ever attempted.'
To keep on repeating a lie doesn't make it true.
Omniscience and omnipotence as the people of the book would have it undermines this idea as your god would already know each and every choice of each and every soul therefore there would be no point in the testing of souls except for the potential torment. I would prefer personally not to live under the auspices of such a one and if the christians/islamist/jews/bahai are right and I am wrong then I hope the goddess give me the strenght to spit in his eye and tell him he is an arse
Full lineup of major party candidates
Con: Chamali Fernando
Lab: Daniel Zeichner
LD: Julian Huppert
UKIP: Patrick O'Flynn
Greens: Rupert Read
We have just done the annual charity walk with Gavin Barwell MP around the edge of Croydon Central constituency. It's the severalth time we've done it, but for the first time the Map-App-Thingy which Mario has got on his phone was working properly (with his phone running out of battery) so here is the map of it:
http://www.mapmywalk.com/workout/755960185
It says the time was 6 hours 59 minutes for 18.4 miles, but that's because he paused it while we stopped for lunch. It actually took 7 hours 13 minutes.
Major party candidates
Con: Julian Brazier
Lab: Hugh Lanning
LD: James Flanagan
UKIP: Jim Gascoyne
Greens: Stuart Jefferey
https://mydonate.bt.com/fundraisers/gavinbarwellmp
http://www.insurancetimes.co.uk/go-skippy-founder-arron-banks-to-stand-as-ukip-mp/1410163.article
IS potentially on the verge of two major successes, one in Syria (Kobane) and strategically more significant but less media covered, in Iraq in the city of Ramadi.
If both fall perhaps those ordering and conducting the airstrikes might like to rethink what they are doing and the tools they are using.
1) Ground troups
2) Trying to change the balance of power by cutting deals with former enemies (Assad/Iran/Putin)
3) Action against allies who are also supporting ISIS, starting with Saudi Arabia
4) Cutting a deal with ISIS
5) Giving up and going home
https://twitter.com/UKIPWellingboro
http://stevehynd.com/2014/10/03/green-party-membership-at-20000-up-45-in-2014-alone/
https://www.facebook.com/photo.php?fbid=643311449118360