ISIS
Are we not calling them ISIS anymore?
Has Archer been round?
True fact: 1 in 4 Brits are now TERRORISTS
One in four Brits could be facing imminent arrest by the Metropolitan Police after apparently falling foul of the boys in blue's astonishing new definition of a terrorist. As we revealed earlier this week, simply viewing a beheading video is enough for the cops to label you a card-carrying threat to public safety. Now it …
-
-
Friday 22nd August 2014 10:40 GMT Bloakey1
Re: ISIS
No. They are now known as IS i.e. Islamic State, they seem to morph and change on a regular basis.
There are a few suspects and Jubayer Chowdhry and Shahool Islam are currently heading towards an interview with some nice people from the Stratford branch of the Met and also by some suited rum coves who hang around in a green building on the Thames. they might know or have contact with this chap.
Personally I think that we are now hindered by common law and the Geneva convention and we can no longer effectively deal with these people. In the event that I was "the man" I would release 2 REI and 2 REP {1.} from the constricts of law, Geneva convention etc. (2.) and let them loose upon IS, ISIS, ISIL etc. we did the job recently in Mali and all was good so it could be done again.
1. Second Foreign Legion Infantry Regiment and Second Foreign Legion Parachute Regiment.
2. Terrorist are not bound by it and the playing field could be levelled somewhat.
-
Friday 22nd August 2014 11:10 GMT NumptyScrub
Re: ISIS
quote: "2. Terrorist are not bound by it and the playing field could be levelled somewhat."
Yes, because committing atrocities in the name of stopping atrocities has always worked out well, hasn't it? Not to mention that it's a perfectly stable moral platform to claim "well they did it first!" when asked why you've broken several international conventions on the humane treatment of people.
We have 2 choices here:
a) take the moral high ground, and show by example why we are right and they are not, i.e. not stooping to their level, and not giving in regardless of whatever atrocities are committed.
b) go full retard (as defined in Tropic Thunder) and decide that genocide of all Muslims is the only way to "stop terrorism", and carpet nuke the entire Middle East region into glass whilst sending all local Muslims to concentration camps (which were invented by the British, so it's not out of character for us to use them again). This will not stop terrorism, by the way, it will simply foster more radical hatred amongst the inevitable survivors, and push them to more horrific atrocities.
3 guesses which one I would prefer...
-
-
Friday 22nd August 2014 12:21 GMT Anonymous Coward
Re: ISIS
And also, 'concentration camp' just means getting lots of a certain demographic together. So "concentrating" them.
In the British camps the captives died because of poor management of waste and supply of food/water/medicine. Look at refugee camps- logistics are hard, especially for people who don't want to be there.
The Nazi ones people automatically think of were also used to concentrate a demographic- the people the Nazis didn't like- but they were deliberately tortured, raped, murdered, and generally war-crimes-ed in an organised, deliberate way.
One's bad- not looking after the welfare of people who probably weren't even a threat- and the other's evil- actively doing evil harm to people.
-
Sunday 24th August 2014 11:07 GMT TDog
Re: ISIS
The Nazis ran at least two different forms of camps that routinely killed people and distinguished very carefully between them. There were death camps (extermination camps) in which the sole process was to kill the inhabitents (Treblinka II or Sobibor for example) and concentration (work) camps e.g. Auschwitz I (not II) where arbitrary killing occurred as well as mass exterminations, often claimed to be done due to "overcrowding".
They also ran a series of POW camps in which, in general they obeyed the Geneva conventions if you were a citizen of a country that was a cosignatory. If you weren't then look at how the Germans treated Russian POW's.
Comparing these to the inefficient, bloody awfully ran "concentration camps" in which a large number of Boer women and children died misses the fundamental factor of intent. The Nazis and Germans intended to kill the inhabitants and indulged in wholesale slaughter - we (the Brits of which I am one) had no such intention.
Nor did we invite the equivalent of Dr Mengele to experiment on our captives.
In the 1960's in Malaysia the Briggs plan (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Malayan_Emergency) demonstrated clearly and effectively how to run concentration camps.
Old Fart
-
-
Friday 22nd August 2014 15:56 GMT Loyal Commenter
Re: ISIS
Concentration camps were (IIRC) first used by the Spaniards in their colonial wars in the Caribbean.
Concentration camps, in terms of rounding a group of people up and putting them in one place, have been used throughout recorded history by pretty much everyone. The term Concentration Camp was coined by the British Empire during its escapades in Africa during the late nineteenth / early twentieth century. The Spanish camps in Cuba prior to this were used under 'Reconcentrado' policy, which probably contributed to the coining of this term, but these were not referred to specifically as 'concentration camps'.
-
-
-
Thursday 4th September 2014 17:15 GMT Stevie
Re: without Wikipedia...
Or you could just read The History of the Peloponnesian War.
Or play the two-person Strategos wargame that came packaged with Imperial Governor, for those times when you couldn't scare up three or more would-be dominators of the Mediterranean Theatre.
Wikipedia is faster, Strategos is more fun and THOTPW more historical, innit? You pays your drachma you takes your chance.
-
-
-
Friday 22nd August 2014 18:56 GMT Anonymous Coward
Re: ISIS
"Concentration camps were (IIRC) first used by the Spaniards in their colonial wars in the Caribbean".
As a history graduate with a continuing interest in the subject, I feel very reluctant to accept any claim of "the first" on such a matter.
I suspect similar institutions have existed ever since enough space was cleared for an enclosed area and material provided for a fence. Certainly around 413 BC, after the Athenian expedition to conquer Syracuse was comprehensively defeated, the Syracusans imprisoned the few Athenian soldiers who survived in their silver mines and worked them to death. Perhaps the critical date - about 4,000 BC? - was when prisoners were no longer eaten, but merely detained (and occasionally beaten or tortured for the amusement of the guards). As for "who invented the concentration camp", who didn't? I wouldn't like to guess. Who was that nasty ruler in "The Scorpion King"? Oh yes, Memnon. Might have been him.
(For extra credit, please note that it's *incorrect* to claim that "democracies never wage war on one another". Athens and Syracuse were the first two democracies on record, and they fought a vicious war to the death - as it happened, of Athens).
-
-
Friday 22nd August 2014 11:56 GMT Anonymous Coward
Re: ISIS
Muslim != Terrorist extremist psychopath
All Muslims? Seriously? It's "thinking" like that that just creates more terrorists. Just as not every Christian goes on cinema rampages with an AK47; and not every Buddhist sets themselves/monasteries alight; not all Muslims are psychopaths.
If you treat all Muslims like they're going to break out into jihad and dodgy raps at any second, you're going to create resentment and -in the end- create the conditions to create more terrorists.
The vast majority of Muslims just want to be left alone to get on with things, same as the vast majority of everybody else.
Neither of your choices are actually choices. The truth -as ever- lies somewhere between the two extremes.
-
Friday 22nd August 2014 12:59 GMT Anonymous Coward
All Muslims terrorist?
Knowing (and having worked with) a fair number of Muslims I have to agree - I have never met a single one that has anything but disgust for radical Islam and terrorism.
That said, having read the Qu'ran a few times I also have to point out that (despite it's excellent prose and lofty ideals in places) it is not possible to follow the Qu'ran properly and be anything but a radical.
Whereas at their core Christianity and Buddhism *by their written precepts* (and I know opinion on their 'canon' varies) restrict themselves to the personal/spiritual and as far as they involve themselves in the secular mainly teach separation, the Qu'ran teaches engagement in the political - including actual specific proportional values for the opinions/votes of non-believers, protection taxes for non-believers in Islamic jurisdictions, and legal precepts based upon Islamic values.
Islam as practiced generally is not evil and neither are it's adherents. Islam practiced properly according to the Qu'ran on a widespread basis would be a real problem for Western systems as, again unlike the others, it explicitly involves itself in the political/legal workings of society (imagine the old Holy Roman Empire but with modern scale/comms/power).
-
Friday 22nd August 2014 19:02 GMT Anonymous Coward
Re: All Muslims terrorist?
"Whereas at their core Christianity and Buddhism *by their written precepts* (and I know opinion on their 'canon' varies) restrict themselves to the personal/spiritual and as far as they involve themselves in the secular mainly teach separation, the Qu'ran teaches engagement in the political..."
Which doesn't explain why so many people down the ages have been killed, maimed and tortured by Christians and - yes, even Buddhists. Unfortunately, many adherents to (and even leaders of) religions depart rather widely from the prescriptions of their holy books (if any).
Although Jews, Christians, and Muslims all have the Old Testament to fall back on, which gives quite explicit and detailed instructions on unprovoked aggressive war, systematic and extremely effective genocide, rape, and enslavement.
-
-
-
Friday 22nd August 2014 13:11 GMT LucreLout
Re: ISIS
@NumptyScrub
The problem is that neither of the options you've outlined will work. We've been doing option number 1 for rather a long time and it isn't working. Option number 2 is unlikely to work any better.
Unless we in the West can figure out a viable 3rd option, then the only pragmatic thing we can do is set a date by which option 1 must deliver meaningful progress / succeed, or move onto option 2. Doing the same thing repeatedly and expecting a different outcome n all that.....
-
Friday 22nd August 2014 13:33 GMT Anonymous Coward
Re: ISIS
I don't think we've tried option 1; We've got caught offering bribes, selling weapons, helping our current favourite fight against the others, propping up despots, getting involved in wars we don't understand, using them as tools to fight our enemies etc. etc.
I don't think we've tried taking the moral high ground for a long time, if ever.
-
This post has been deleted by its author
-
Saturday 23rd August 2014 18:23 GMT Anonymous Coward
Re: ISIS
"I don't think we've tried taking the moral high ground for a long time, if ever."
Morality is relative. You can't take a moral high ground against an adversary whose moral code is different from yours. What you consider to be the high ground they could consider to be low ground and vice versa.
Take the matter of facing certain defeat. Some cultures see surrender in this case as a practical nod to the situation. In return, the winner must treat the loser with respect. In other cultures, it's the opposite: concession is considered shameful, and "death before dishonour" to them is the preferred route and has real meaning to them.
Here's a question to pose: How do you deal with an enemy for whom Mutual Assured Destruction is a winning scenario?
-
-
Friday 22nd August 2014 18:58 GMT BongoJoe
Re: ISIS
Option 1 is never going to work. We know that it's not going to succeed and IS are not going to stpp being bastards because we're playing by the Queensbury Rules.
Which leads us to Option 2. I can't honestly think of a third option. If we go that way then we have to accept that the West is at war with Islam. And then what to do? Internment for every Muslim? Close every mosque?
I would like to see a third option but can't imagine one. The first option isn't working and is never going to work and it's going to be seen as a weaness by IS. And there's no way that I would want Option 2 but, honestly, is there going to be a least worse solution?
I really hope that there is.
-
Saturday 23rd August 2014 09:37 GMT Al fazed
Re: ISIS
Free opium supplies for their school kiddies, Bonfires of Ganja bales lit on Saturdays and built down wind of mosques, LSD and flouride in their water supply, Free Entry tickets for Glastonbury 2015 for anyone converting to consumerism, sponsored Primark factories, open Job Clubs ?
Al Fazed
-
-
-
Friday 22nd August 2014 20:23 GMT Anonymous Coward
take the moral high ground
I applaud your high principles, let me know how that works out for you when they decide to leave their caliphate and want to kill YOUR family because they don't believe in ISIL's particular version of sky fairy.
They've effectively declared war on all of us so as far as I'm concerned the legitimate response is for the western nations to declare total war against them and kill them all while they are boxed up nice and tight where they can be got at efficiently.
You are right in that they will come back with a grudge and want to kill us all but what's the difference to the present situation? We'll just have to rinse and repeat as required.
Thinking we won't have to exterminate them sooner or later is just wishful thinking, they really aren't interested in having a dialogue about their "feelings" they just want to kill us all.
-
-
Saturday 23rd August 2014 07:23 GMT Peter2
Re: Geneva convention
Regarding the geneva convention of civilised warfare prohibiting putting terrorists up against a wall and shooting them, actually it doesn't.
Spies, saboteurs and anybody engaging in combat who is not in uniform (other than civilians spontaneously rising up against invading troops to defend their homes who have not had time to organise into units and arrange appropriate uniforms or identifying marks) are not protected by the Geneva conventions. They would therefore be subject to execution if the law of the land allowed it.
-
Saturday 23rd August 2014 08:56 GMT BristolBachelor
Re: Geneva convention
I suspect that the original poster was refering to the requirement (request?) to not simply bomb the fuck out of whole areas containing "civilians". The murdering/maiming aught to be constrained to the "enemy combatants".
Personally I don't see anything civilised about a list of rules for who it is ok murder. From this I don't understands about "innocents" being murdered (probably because I don't understand the concept of being "guilty of being on a list of those ok to be killed). While I'm at it, why do the press then go on to say "...including women and children" - wtf? is it suddenly ok to murder men? It's only a problem if you murder women or children?
-
-
Saturday 23rd August 2014 13:48 GMT Anonymous Coward
@ iRadiate - Easy to say
That's right of course, depends who the enemy is though doesn't it?
These vermin are NOT the Wehrmacht or the Red Army, they're just a large armed gang that have been stupid enough to go from insurgent to conventional war type operations without a real military infrastructure.
Any modern large mechanised military (once the gloves come off) would squash them flat like the cockroaches they are. Please don't quote the "highly trained ex-Saddam army troops" horseshit either, because, well, they did such a fantastic job against against the Yanks in the Gulf war didn't they?
However, I'm guessing your snide inference with the easy to say thing was that I don't know what it means to fight in a war.
Sorry to disappoint, I've been infantry at the pointy end of a few nasty little wars over the last couple of decades from central Africa to Somalia to Afghanistan amongst others and I can tell you it's not too difficult to crush these type of vermin once they come out in the open as they are now.
You just need lots of ordnance and the will to use it properly.
-
-
-
Saturday 23rd August 2014 10:56 GMT Jaybus
Re: ISIS
Third option. Fight religious idiocy with religion. Get an Israeli agent to pose as a prophet predicting that Allah will destroy Mecca for the sins of the jihadist if they don't stop killing people. Some months later launch a 20,000 kg lump of pig iron into low Earth orbit with guidance rockets attached. Cause said lump of pig iron to re-enter and direct it to strike Mecca, thus fulfilling the prophecy and allowing the "prophet" to build a following. With luck, a jihadist will kill the prophet and ensure a lasting new anti-jihad religion.
-
-
Friday 22nd August 2014 12:37 GMT Anonymous Coward
Re: ISIS
An escalated response by the state is exactly what they seek - see 'What terrorists want' by Louise Richardson. And besides, are they terrorists or a group staging a military coup for religious reasons? I understand that the majority of deaths amongst the people going out to join the fight are due to fighting between the various factions. Do you go to paradise if you are shot by the wrong type of Muslim?
-
Friday 22nd August 2014 11:10 GMT Simon Harris
Re: ISIS
"Are we not calling them ISIS anymore?"
According to that bastion of truth, Wikipedia, since they were formed in 2004 they've been called all sorts of things...
Early 2004 Jamāʻat al-Tawḥīd wa-al-Jihād, "The Organization of Monotheism and Jihad" (JTJ)
Oct. 2004 Tanẓīm Qāʻidat al-Jihād fī Bilād al-Rāfidayn, "The Organization of Jihad's Base in the Country of the Two Rivers" and described by the West as "Al-Qaeda in Iraq" (AQI)
Jan. 2006 "Mujahideen Shura Council"
Oct. 2006 Dawlat al-ʻIraq al-Islāmīyah, "Islamic State of Iraq" (ISI)
Apr. 2013 "Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant", also known as "Islamic State of Iraq and al-Sham" (ISIL/ISIS)
June 2014 "Islamic State" (IS)
The last name change to piss of the US who had decided to settle on calling them ISIL in May 2014 (that reason's probably not strictly true!)
If nothing else, at least they're keeping their stationers in work reprinting letter-heads for them at regular intervals!
-
Biting the hand that feeds IT
