No, my point regarding the publicity was that it should be made this public every time 1 of these terrorists return. This has blown up quite rightly imo when others have returned before her with little mention or media coverage. Where are these terrorists now? Are they living freely among us after serving light sentences? I find it hard to believe the security forces have the resources to keep a track on everyone of them? It'a scary situation and 1 the government had 5 years to plan for, they knew these people would be coming back at some point.
Shamima Begum, IS teen wants to come back to the UK
- Thread starter Tommy
- Start date
You are defending Shamima in some telling ways, you ended up questioning the Yazidis genocide and you said something along the lines of "ISIS is just another group, that is grabbing some land" on the last few pages. You constantly defend ISIS and their vision of a social order by making ridiculous comparisons. "Saudis kill people in Yemen and thats why the US is as bad as ISIS." Da feck!? You don't even understand whats so bad about ISIS or generally speaking, their ideology. They are a totalitarian cult that is willing to commit the worst kinds of atrocities against anyone who doesn't follow their extremely specific ideas and they aspire to have global reach. One has to submit to them not just militarily or politically, but every aspect of one's life or they'd do horrible things. The atrocities, that they committed weren't just part of a violent revolutionary/military phase, but represent their actual vision of society.
The bigger picture is that you are spreading Islamist narratives/memes/ideas on all sorts of issues. You aren't all that far away from how ISIS looks at the wider realm of (international) politics. The positive is, that you are usually quite straight-forward about it and you don't go though great extend to hide it behind fancy language. Just own it and don't hide behind bullshit excuses. You usually don't do that either.
Fair point, it was actions, not just views, and completely agree with your second paragraph.
Javid is full of crap. She isn't going to commit an atrocity here unless the Tories cut the funding to maintain MI6's monitoring of her.
So how would land based tactics* in an military force of relatively limited professional ability** reduce civilian casualties compared to precision airstrikes?
* they would be using small arms, mostly 'unguided' weaponry and limited ISTAR capabilities. Also, the ability to conduct medium to deep operations if ISIS logistics and command structures are severely limited with this type of force who can only really cincebteare on the front line
** with the best will in the world, it's difficult to train a new force completely from scratch to get to the standard of an established military force. Also throw the challenges of embedding an ethical based doctrine that restricts the use of kinetic force in civilian areas, into a disperate collection of military units that made up the Free Syrian Army
They can’t monitor everyone who comes back, they’re having a hard enough time monitoring all of the ones that are already here and busy plotting and planning. She isn’t likely to be a problem on her own but highly likely to be a problem if she is in contact with other jihadis.
Yes, we the UK. I'm sure they have a rigorous set of rules, same way America has a set of rules that means any male over the age of 15 near a target is legitimate, or rules that means Israeli snipers can murder Gazans who are 200 meters away across a field in medical uniform.
The rules of engagement are written so in defence of murder, our nation can say we followed the rules
Isis are just another group grabbing land, how is that even a controversial concept? People go through revolution because they have a different vision of society than the status quo. They weren't doing anything that hasn't been done many times before.
feck who you want, live as you want, do as you want, my ideology is the opposite of Isis. But I won't pretend that we Westerners are saints whilst they are sinners
How many have come back though really?
At least monitor the high profile ones to avoid the shitshow and right wing call to arms if she fecks up.
I know, murder is soo funny
400
We don’t know exactly, which is a huge problem for the intelligence services.
Isis took to the cities as cover from airstrikes, which means all the war becomes engagement within heavily populated areas. Less fear of air strikes means more engagement away from cities
Tell me about it. Your posts are killing me.
Tough to know how hardcore they were too I guess.
I wonder what the domestic to the likes of Orwell who went to Spain to fight the fascists? Not equating the two before anyone flips.
The mercenary thing is weird.
So ISIS hadn't taken any urban areas of cities before foreign airstrikes began? Also, were they just going to leave the cities alone and take densely populated areas? That's a real stretch
Still don't see how a reality low tech land war by a relatively low capability military, is going to be less costly than precision airstrikes against practically any ISIS target
Javid assures Parliament “I assure this house the majority have been assessed to pose no or a low-security status"
Well, your plan would lead to collateral damage as well, so... yeah. That’s tough.
The short answer is: You’re correct. It wouldn’t be.
There were only ever x number of fighters. If facing destruction by air power that means all of them would retreat to the best place to fight away from airstrikes, dense cities. Less air power, more fighting outside urban areas, fewer to kill when the fight does end up in the city
We precisely blew up buildings containing some fighters and unknown numbers of civilians.
Mozza’s posts stem from the belief that political crimes/violence/atrocities committed by non-Western and especially Muslim peoples are ultimately a product of “our” actions, our violence and brutalization of “them”. It’s a worldview in which “they” can only respond to “our” acts, either by submitting as puppets or rebelling with brutal violence. Their basic powerlessness in this world renders them incapable of any autonomous actions. So “we” are not only guilty of our own crimes, but also theirs.
Which is why something like the Yazidi genocide has him coming out with such embarrassing nonsense, scrambling to fit random assertions around this worldview. Because it can’t reasonably be rationalized with reference to the West. It’s an attack on a long persecuted non-Western religious minority justified explicitly with reference to a tradition and ideology completely indigenous to the conceptual world ISIS emerged from and operate within. And given that, we have to accept that the perpetrators of these crimes - which are in intent of a magnitude to rival or even exceed the very worst of humanity - have an agenda which is completely autonomous/independent of whatever actions the West has taken. That’s earth-shattering for his worldview, so instead ISIS and its crimes must be minimized/played down/relativized away - “just another group”/“not genocide”/“no worse than us” - while those of us who accept the reality of ISIS must be motivated by racism/Islamophobia.
I think joining in on a genocide, whether actually doing the killing or not, is up there with murder, yeah. It's accomplice to genocide at best. Facilitating a genocide?
Just came across this.
Thanks for your response.
It seems we have vert differing views on military operations and the military strategy of ISIS. I don't think we are going to reconcile them on this thread
An international court/tribunal is an interesting idea.
"Precision" airstrikes aren't as accurate we've been led to believe. They are highly susceptible to atmospheric interference and, even when on target, can still injure or kill non-combatants who are nearby.
There are not the perfect solution and come with risks. Decision to use them are generally based on a risk-reward basis. The reward being the removal on certain military targets that could cause even more harm to the populace and wider world
Take them to The Hague?
I don’t know how it would work. It probably wouldn’t. But it would be good if the victims of ISIS got to tell their stories to the world in front of their tormentors.
I'm no lawyer and not close to an expert here (especially not with all the nuances of terrorism laws) but my thinking was she could charged as a criminal accessory to dozens and dozens of murders and other crimes so it could be much more than just the 3-5 years I think I saw earlier based on just the 'member of a terrorist organization' type law?
And the risk being that it perpetuates a faceless killer.
@Mozza sounds about ripe for radicalization if he was the right age.
It's a subject or a question complex enough for a law student to dedicate a nice bachelor's thesis to it. Skip to page 59 and start reading at the quoted text in the spoiler to get an impression.
Thanks, I’ll have a look.
It’s not his fault. He was brainwashed. Western world bad.
Western world bad does not mean Eastern world good. I think we are equally bad. You are the one who's brainwashed
Age is no barrier.
To summarise some random elements if you're tired like I am now: in terms of an ad hoc or hybrid tribunal there's the problem that you need a resolution in the UN security council, which can be quite hard to get. Then in practical terms there's the potential problems with logistics, and money of course because setting up something like that ain't exactly cheap.
The ICC in The Hague tends to be quite slow and rigid, focusing on the most 'major players' so to speak. I think it took 10 years to finish their first trial? Its aims are very noble, but presumably you will hardly get loads of convictions.
They could also simply be brought to trial in Syria or Iraq under the national law there, at least that will be ruthless. Probably a bit too ruthless according to most European standards though.
Then there's the option of simply bringing them to trial in their own countries, which might actually be not such a bad idea, but the public opinion is obviously not in favour of that at all right now.
Wonder if he thinks Israel's occupation of Palestine is justified because of the Six day war and it's consequences.