[Closed] A final solution to the Daesh problem - no pudding

And there was me thinking 'shoot them in the leg and ask them politely not to detonate the explosive vest they are wearing' 😯

Ha! I wondered just how long it would be before the rabid right wing would make political capital from Paris 13/11, by deliberately misinterpreting the considered comments of a man who thinks before he speaks and refuses to be drawn into manic death and retribution fever. Well done! Stay classy

Careful there V8, you'll get splinters in your bum sitting on the fence like that.

better than talking out it 😉

Talking out of the fence?

Still, it seems that Jihadi Jez has managed to U turn on his own position again, another victory for plain speaking politics.

One hopes he will one day reach the consistency and clarity of thought you demonstrate

Don't really do fences. I do call a spade a spade though... Misinterpreting reasonable words about a mass killing that the bodies are still warm from, to score cheap political points is pretty damn scummy. IMHO, of course.

I hope so Junky, if he did then he could write them down on a piece of paper

[IMG] [/IMG]

...to score cheap political points is pretty damn scummy. IMHO, of course.

You only have to look at the likes of who's doing it.

Jihadi Jez 🙄

Hahaha - ninfan proves Godwin's Law on the 9th post! Jamba has his work cut out to regain his crown!!

I wondered just how long it would be before the rabid right wing would make political capital from Paris 13/11

Nothing of the sort - Jeremy was talking about what should happen when there is an attack in the UK. Only you are trying to bring Paris into this.

deliberately misinterpreting the considered comments of a man who thinks before he speaks

With considered thinking like he has shown, you can easily see how he managed to achieve the lofty heights of 2 A-Levels at grade E followed by not managing to complete a degree in Trade Union Studies. He certainly isn't tainted by having done PPE at Oxford.

refuses to be drawn into manic death and retribution fever

Quite, at most anything an ( almost certainly rabidly-right-wing ) police-person will need to do is Shoot To Mildly Disconcert, or if the terrorist is wearing a suicide vest, pull out all of the stops and Shoot To Tickle.

Oh and this has been said of the Rabidly-right-wing Labour* MP Chris Leslie:

“The Prime Minister is right that the police and security services need our full support at this time, but shouldn’t it be immediately to everyone – to everyone – that the police need the full and necessary powers, including the proportionate use of lethal force if need be, to keep our communities safe.”

And the Tory-Beast Labour* MP Emma Reynolds said:

“Does the Prime Minister agree that full responsibility for the attacks in Paris lies solely with the terrorists, and that any attempt by any organisation to somehow blame the west or France’s military intervention in Syria is not only wrong, disgraceful but also should be condemned.”

* Labour as in [s]New[/s] [b][i]Non-Lunatic[/i][/b] Labour

I really do despair of, and for humanity. It seems that a massive escalation of the conflict in Syria (where no one even is sure who is killing who, and we sure as hell have no idea how to fix) is the logical and popular response to Paris 13/11. Because indiscrimate bombing of pretty much everyone (and their uncles brothers, mothers, childeren etc) isn't at all going to unite the disparate factions of all Syrians in a common hatred of the 'Roman armies' of the West. It's not even in line with Christian teaching FFS, not that I count myself as one.

Publicly pointing out the futility and self defeating nature of these actions is tantamount to treason, and will get you roundly mocked in the gutter press, apparently. IT'S WHAT ISIS WANT, FFS!!! Get a grip of yourselves and grow up. This is playground politics being played with high explosives and AK47s.

Bless- Jeremy has changed his mind:

[url= http://www.bbc.com/news/uk-politics-34840708 ]http://www.bbc.com/news/uk-politics-34840708[/url]

Maybe he listened to a shadow minister who said:

“I am trying to respect the mandate he has but I felt physically sick, I just couldn’t stand it. He is not fit to be our leader or in any senior position in this country”

Hahaha - ninfan proves Godwin's Law on the 9th post

I just think it's amusing that someone actually followed Cameron's memo, not to call them Islamic State, 🙂
Cranberry you are a Tory press office sockpuppet controlled by Grant Shapps/Michael Green and I claim my free universal credit voucher.

Fwiw Corbs was wrong on this one IMHO

Quite, at most anything an ( almost certainly rabidly-right-wing ) police-person will need to do is Shoot To Mildly Disconcert, or if the terrorist is wearing a suicide vest, pull out all of the stops and Shoot To Tickle

I wonder if people would mock Chamberlain so much if we'd lost?

Point of fact,

Pick a party and defend them for ever whilst condemning the other side

proves Godwin's Law

Chamberlain wasn't a nazi, I never mentioned any nazis - therefore I invoke hendersons corollary.

I wonder if people would mock Chamberlain so much if we'd lost?

Well, it was him who declared war on Germany, so probably even more so.

Ya, JC (not Jesus Christ) thinks too much ... over anal-ytical.
😆

Publicly pointing out the futility and self defeating nature of these actions is tantamount to treason, and will get you roundly mocked in the gutter press, apparently. IT'S WHAT ISIS WANT, FFS!!!

That doesn't, of its self, make it the wrong thing to do.

“Does the Prime Minister agree that full responsibility for the attacks in Paris lies solely with the terrorists, and that any attempt by any organisation to somehow blame the west or France’s military intervention in Syria is not only wrong, disgraceful but also should be condemned.”

Amazing. 😐

This lot would be really rubbish at RCAs. 😕
We really do seem to be witnessing the radicalisation of our own political system. They are actively refusing to learn from the lessons of history, mere days after Armistic Day. Absolutely shocking behaviour.

from spectator

shadow Europe minister Pat McFadden, attacked STW

We are not neutral

Ah...the attacks in France, what a great opportunity to use them to express disapproval at what some idiot thinks Corbyn may or may not do.

The families of 129 people be damned.

And bombing the crap out of the middle east has really worked out well for us over the past thirty-five years.

I just think it's amusing that someone actually followed Cameron's memo, not to call them Islamic State,

The internal communications system can't be working at the moment, because I didn't get that memo 😉

Actually, I'd seen the French pointing out that we shouldn't give a bunch of vicious, pig-ignorant thugs the status of being a state and it chimed with my personal belief that we should be ruthlessly taking the piss out of the people who join facist groups. We really need some one to point and laugh at them the way that Chaplain did in The Great Dictator.

For the record, I am not Grant Schapps, though the one true sign that someone [b]is[/b] Grant Schapps is that they sometimes deny being Grant Schapps.

express disapproval at what some idiot thinks Corbyn may or may not do.

TV: "On the wider question of principle, you are putting yourself forward to be prime minister one day. People will want to know, and they are entitled to know, if you, in theory, would ever support military action against islamic extremists?"

JC: "Well, I'm not saying I would or I wouldn't..."

😆

Will you cut tax credits?
"Yes I mean no..oh **** off"

They all lie

We all lie

Indeed, but somehow Corbyn finds a form of words that makes him look like a ****.

He and Cameron were both asked the same ludicrous "police shoot to kill" question. Cameron gave a professional factual answer referring to the current rules of engagement which nobody could fault. Corbyn managed an answer that seemed to dignify the question and make it sound like he would rather see Policemen killed than criminals.

Both of them have the same view which is the existing rules are correct, and should not be changed, yet Corbyn can't find an effective way to say it. Other professional politicians can.

True to an extent but this approach means we end up with PR savvy politicians like Blair and cameron and not principled politicians

Applies across the political divide

if we are not careful we will end up with, ever more, US style politics

TBH most if us would agree with this - even if we woudl also agree that the police should shoot terrorists in the UK

“I’m not happy with the shoot-to-kill policy in general – I think that is quite dangerous and I think can often be counterproductive. I think you have to have security that prevents people firing off weapons, where they can. There are various degrees of doing things as we know … but the idea you end up with a war on the streets is not a good thing. Surely you have to work to try and prevent these things happening, that’s got to be the priority.”

He is not actually against it hence the when they can comment it accepts they cannot always do this.

If the electorate wont accept grown up answers we will get soundbite answers that they dont mean and we dont believe. I know which i prefer , again irrespective of party hue.

Firstly Corbyn is not principled in the slightest. He's not announced any serious policy yet, but we can guess than most of the policies he holds dear will be dropped. (Discussed at length on the Corbyn thread.)

Regarding the case in point it wasn't a grown up answer, unless by grown up you mean elderly person with Altzheimers. The answer was utterly unclear in spite of the blatent fact we know he won't be changing the rules when in power because they're the only sane rules you could have.

We're used to politicians giving unhelpful and vague answer but usually its to help their cause not to give themselves an electoral kick in the bollocks.

Clearly he is principled hence his stance on nukes and THIS issue - you can remain a blinkered hater ranting about the elderly and Alzheimer's but in all honestly it makes you look pretty disrespectful and a touch unbalanced

By all means hate him but at least keep it vaguely related to reality as its really not hard to get his meaning*, though you can disagree with his view, even for a tory hater

* I love the way you failed to grasp his meaning but he is the one with "issues"

“The Prime Minister is right that the police and security services need our full support at this time, but shouldn’t it be immediately to everyone – to everyone – that the police need the full and necessary powers, including the proportionate use of lethal force if need be, to keep our communities safe.”

I would also say that saying undramatic, complex and unpopular things is the sign of a principled person. He's been banging away at these unpopular positions for thirty years, which is not the sign of a populist. You could of course say that his principles are awful

loving the push for 13/11,

you really think the population is ready for two prime numbers?

I'm not going to get further lured into a discussion about Corbyn. There's a whole thread for that.

On the specific issue we're talking about (what they said, not who they are), Cameron was clear, succinct and said something voters will like.

Corbyn, who must have the same policy on this as Cameron, found a vague of words that don't represent his policy and will not be popular.

I'm not going to get[s] further lured into a discussion about Corbyn. There's a whole thread for that.[/s] respond to the points that i am biased, my attacks personal and my claims of unprincipled run counter to the facts. However I am going to say I love dave and corbyns a tit

FTFY

If you are not prepared to defend what you say, but then will still repeat it after this [ 🙄 ] then dont join in with internet chat based forums
You were rude and contradictory at least this time you only contradicted yourself.

"Corbyn, who must have the same policy on this as Cameron, found a vague of words that don't represent his policy and will not be popular."

Well, okay. It seems like your criticism is one of style, not substance. Fair enough but it's a bit like holding up score cards after an ice dancing routine. Blair would have got straight 5.0s (even from the tough Bulgarian judges) but I'm not sure I'd want to go back to that...

😆

I think Konabunny has nailed it.

Besides, I'd take a principled socialist who hasn't abused his expenses privileges and who questions the sanity in sinking £160bn into nuclear weapons we'd be insane to use over that of a pig-molester anytime, especially when the porcine-prodder in question is letting big business get away with billions in unpaid taxes whilst blaming the state of the nation's finances on the poor and the sick.

Jean Charles de Menezes's opinion would be ?

Jean Charles de Menezes' death was tragic, and a complete failure of operational inteligence, communication and command in the heat of the moment, but it was legal by the rules of engagement that our armed police adhere to. At the inquest it was found that the police officers in question had an honestly held belief that a bomb detonation was imminent and that they employed the minimum force required to neutralise that threat and protect the lives of themselves and the public.

I'd take a principled socialist who hasn't abused his expenses privileges and who questions the sanity in sinking £160bn into nuclear weapons we'd be insane to use over that of a pig-molester anytime, especially when the porcine-prodder in question is letting big business get away with billions in unpaid taxes whilst blaming the state of the nation's finances on the poor and the sick.

[img] [/img]

What he/she says +1

 

At the inquest it was found that the police officers in question had an honestly held belief that a bomb detonation was imminent and that they employed the minimum force required to neutralise that threat and protect the lives of themselves and the public.

they gave an open verdict and not a lawful killing so you are being somewhat disingenuous in your description of what the inquest found

@ V8

So we already have proportionate shoot to kill policy, its just it's application can be a bit "random" mmmmm.......ok

Stephen Waldorf, Harry Stanley and James Ashley etc etc.

or is Cameroon wanting to get a bit carried away 007stylie

I thought Corbyn was referring to the Northern Ireland sort of "shoot to kill" policy.

not a lawful killing

a complete failure of operational intelligence, communication and command

well the jury rejected the lawful killing option so whatever we want to say claiming its lawful is not a reasonable position to claim as the only jury to pass a judgment rejected this option

They gave no reason for the judgement as juries dont get asked

The reason you raise was not one of the questions asked either so ai m not sure what evidence you are using to reach that conclusion

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Death_of_Jean_Charles_de_Menezes#Inquest

So we already have proportionate shoot to kill policy, its just it's application can be a bit "random" mmmmm.......ok

A 'shoot to kill policy' is a very different beast, and could basically legitimise the summary execution of citizens in the streets; I truly hope that it could never happen here.

So its still a "leap of faith" to assume, that arming our police and sending them out with a "shoot to kill" mandate, is going to make the citizens of this country any safer. Innit ?

But I wouldn't have shown the restraint, that the armed officers showed, in arresting Michael Adebolajo and Michael Adebowale

@junkyard, I apologise. My use of the word 'legal' in my original post was incorrect; more properly I should have said 'correct' within the framework of information that the officers had available to make their decision. The failing is that they were clearly supplied with very poor information, hence my assertions re. Command, Intel and comms.

A remarkably civil discussion of facts ...how very un STW 😉

I dont disagree with your later/other post FWIW and it was a dogs dinner of an operation but it seems unlikely they did a shoot to kill and did do a shoot to stop a terrorist - the reality for the victim and his family is this distinction is irrelevant

So its still a "leap of faith" to assume, that arming our police and sending them out with a "shoot to kill" mandate, is going to make the citizens of this country any safer. Innit ?

But I wouldn't have shown the restraint, that the armed officers showed, in arresting Michael Adebolajo and Michael Adebowale

@junkyard, agreed, the same tragic outcome for Menezes and his family.

It is important to recognise that whilst 'shoot to stop' may well (and often does) result in death, it is still [b]not[/b] 'shoot to kill'.

I wonder if people would mock Chamberlain so much if we'd lost?

@v8 Jez was overwhelmed by a torrent of critism from the Labour Party. Sadly sooner or later the broader membership will understand he's a liability to the cause.

Met are recruiting additional 700+ armed officers. Still woefully inadequate and as the Surrey Police commissioner says our police need proper automatic weapons and single shot rifles and handguns aren't going to get the job done.

@v8 if yiu shoot to stop a terrorist with a suicide belt, what happens next ? How about sending in Jez to carry out first aid / the arrest / discuss the issue with his new "friend" ?

@v8 if yiu shoot to stop a terrorist with a suicide belt, what happens next ? How about sending in Jez to carry out first aid / the arrest / discuss the issue with his new "friend" ?

our police need proper automatic weapons and single shot rifles and handguns aren't going to get the job done.

Nope

Why is it we "can't let ISIS win" by fearing terrorists but we can let ISIS win by turning ourselves into a police state.

P.S. Armed police rarely ever arrive in time to prevent these acts.

P.S. Armed police rarely ever arrive in time to prevent these acts.

[quote=kimbers ]I just think it's amusing that someone actually followed Cameron's memo, not to call them Islamic State

You write that as if Cameron is the only world leader calling them Daesh - what exactly is the objection people have to using that name?

Just found this, it explains exactly [i]why[/i] the term Daesh should be used by everyone, especially the media:
https://www.freewordcentre.com/blog/2015/02/daesh-isis-media-alice-guthrie/

“I’m not happy with the shoot-to-kill policy in general – I think that is quite dangerous and I think can often be counterproductive. I think you have to have security that prevents people firing off weapons, where they can. There are various degrees of doing things as we know … but the idea you end up with a war on the streets is not a good thing. Surely you have to work to try and prevent these things happening, that’s got to be the priority.”

That reads to me like confusion between armed police/military RoE and extra-judicial killing, like the SAS (allegedly) in Gibraltar back in the 80s, if not in JC's mind then in the press. There's no such thing as a shoot to NOT kill policy, except for some marksmen under certain circumstances that I can't imagine applying to an armed attack/suicide bomber. If you're legally opening fire in the defence of your life or others, the object is to kill the other party. Clearly it would be better if things didn't get to that stage as JC says, but the police have to be empowered if they do, as he also says.

If you are not prepared to defend what you say

I am delighted to defend what I say and fully accept the obligation to do so. The case has been fully made and discussed in the Corbyn thread so you can read it there. If you feel there was something missing from that I'm happy to address it, but I'm not going to cut and paste it into this thread when you can read it there.

Well, okay. It seems like your criticism is one of style, not substance.

On this issue, yep, purely style.

However I am going to say I love dave and corbyns a tit

I haven't encountered a hysterical emotional outburst as good as that since my sister hit puberty, well done!

Fair enough but it's a bit like holding up score cards after an ice dancing routine. Blair would have got straight 5.0s (even from the tough Bulgarian judges) but I'm not sure I'd want to go back to that...

Yep, Blair would have got straight 5s. Best political communicator in living memory AFAIC by quite a margin. An election winning machine. Whether we want to go back to that depends on what you mean by "that". If you mean destabilizing the middle east and killing millions, most people would agree, if you mean we don't want to go back to Labour Governments perhaps less people would agree.

Just found this, it explains exactly why the term Daesh should be used by everyone, especially the media:
https://www.freewordcentre.com/blog/2015/02/daesh-isis-media-alice-guthrie/

Good find, every day's a school day. If there's a way of referring to Daesh that pisses them off, I'm all in favour of using it!

“Meanwhile a Shadow minister has told the BBC: I am trying to respect the mandate he has but I felt physically sick, I just couldn’t stand it. He is not fit to be our leader or in any senior position in this country”.

Fair point, but he should have resigned before making it.

I think you have to have security that prevents people firing off weapons, where they can...and so on

I don't think Corbyn is talking just about the security forces here. I think his general point is that is better to use intelligence and our police forces to as much as we can to make sure it doesn't get to the point of shooting on street,by anyone, terrorists and police alike. Which seems reasonable

There's nothing even vaguely controversial about what he said. It's yet another smear concocted by the establishment (including his own MPs). Sad.

I think his general point is that is better to use intelligence and our police forces to as much as we can to make sure it doesn't get to the point of shooting on street,by anyone, terrorists and police alike. Which seems reasonable

That can't be right - we need to bomb someone!! Anyone!!! ([i]In extremis[/i] we can bomb EVERYONE with Trident - that will sort it).

http://www.liveleak.com/view?i=b6c_1447660445

There's nothing even vaguely controversial about what he said. It's yet another smear concocted by the establishment (including his own MPs). Sad.

Cameron, answered the same question by simply stating the current rules are ok. Corbyn could easily have said that.

Instead a couple of days after a terrorist atrocity someone asks him about what is current police policy and has been for years and he offers the soundbite: "not happy".

Yes, anyone who researches all his words will see what he meant but how many of his target voters who are so disinterested they don't vote are going to research the full text of his words? Not many.

What you're saying is that he needs to pander to the infantile, cretinous standards of 'debate' that go on in our national press, because people like you are going to make an issue out of what he says even where there isn't one. Marvellous.

My conclusion was that when Kuenssberg used the phrase "shoot to kill" she set off a pavlovian reaction in Corbyn's mind. For him the phrase meant the alleged concept of police and military lethal ambush or even summary execution which led to events like Loughgall, Gibraltar and the cases examined by Stalker in the 80s. The phrase was used again post Stockwell, albeit in a slightly different, tactical context. As such, whether Kuenssberg meant to or not, she triggered an awful realisation in his mind that he may, one day, be asked to sanction the use of preemptive lethal force based on intelligence and identification of suspects. Whatever your views of him, he bolloxed the answer, and on a day when politicians were falling over themselves to offer determined and resolute soundbites to a public hellbent on hearing promises of bloody revenge, he decided to give a considered, albeit somewhat fluffed response. Another nail in his coffin, hammered home the next day by his own party. How this will affect his ability to whip the party on the forthcoming vote remains to be seen.

I think his general point is

If you're left trying to figure out what someone's general point is, then they are a poor communicator, and you have to question their ability as a politician, let alone as a potential prime minister.

Like it or not, as PM you are going to have to make some tough decisions, some of them will, regrettably, involve snap decisions where either path is fraught with disaster, and it's simply not good enough to say "well, I wouldn't start from here" or "let's think about it" - the classic example being the decision order a raid on terrorists in a hostage/loss of life situation. If there was another Iranian embassy siege tomorrow, would Jeremy give the order to go in? Could he give the order to shoot down an airliner that didn't respond, or would he dither and try to worm his way round the question?

It's already been pointed out that Corbyn could have easily batted off the interviewers question, this ought to be bread and butter stuff for a potential prime minister - instead what Corbyn tried was classic sophistry, for all his 'principles' he is trying so hard to be right on and not be tied down on issues that he appears to be unable to make a simple decision - again this leads you to question his ability as a politician, let alone as potential prime minister

What you're saying is that he needs to pander to the infantile, cretinous standards of 'debate' that go on in our national press, because people like you are going to make an issue out of what he says even where there isn't one. Marvellous.

If by that you mean politicians will be more successful if they manage their output to the media sensibly, then yes, I think recent history in the UK has shown that.

There's nothing wrong with his output to the media, it's the media that's the problem. And you are buying into it/perpetuating it/supporting it.

My conclusion was that when Kuenssberg used the phrase "shoot to kill" she set off a pavlovian reaction in Corbyn's mind. For him the phrase meant the alleged concept of police and military lethal ambush or even summary execution which led to events like Loughgall, Gibraltar and the cases examined by Stalker in the 80s. The phrase was used again post Stockwell, albeit in a slightly different, tactical context. As such, whether Kuenssberg meant to or not, she triggered an awful realisation in his mind that he may, one day, be asked to sanction the use of preemptive lethal force based on intelligence and identification of suspects.

I buy this. The term 'shoot to kill' carries all kinds of connotations which phased him. I'm sure the phrase was chosen deliberately to make the current reasonable ROE seem a bit weird. Any middle ranking Politician in recent years would have handled it easily, as did Cameron. (I watched Ed Milliband answer questions from an Audience of youngsters before the election, it was a bit formulaic but he handled dozens of question of equal difficulty without breaking a sweat - he could have answered questions like this all day long, and he wasn't famous for his media savvy.)

I'm watching BBC news now. They lined up a few smaller party leaders and they all managed to say something fairly sensible that wouldn't excite the media on this topic.

Corbyn could have easily batted off the interviewers question, this ought to be bread and butter stuff for a potential prime minister

This.

There's nothing wrong with his output to the media, it's the media that's the problem.

I think most people would agree with that, I certainly do. With a better media there would be less hysterical reporting of politicians words. What's your point? That in a parallel universe Corbyn would be a success? In a parallel universe Corbyn's physique might make him a 100m sprint record holder, so what?

And you are buying into it/perpetuating it/supporting it.

How?

he case has been fully made and discussed in the Corbyn thread so you can read it there

I think most people would agree with that, I certainly do.

WHy did you describe his reply thus on page one ?

Regarding the case in point it wasn't a grown up answer, unless by grown up you mean elderly person with Altzheimers.

Is this something else you dont have to answer ?

I assume you are just trolling here

WHat I can read you defending what you just said on here about this comment on that other thread

I'm happy to discuss that on this thread, and have been doing so. The issue of Corbyn's lack (of otherwise) of principle has been discussed on the Corbyn thread. You can see a list there which provides the evidence you asked for.

WHy did you describe his reply thus on page one ?

Those are not contradictory views. His answer was appallingly bad as evidenced by a) The fact there are people justifying him who admit they aren't clear on what he said b) the media storm he's brought on himself when other politician can answer similar questions without hicup. At the same time our press are a a crock of **** as evidenced by picking up a paper or switching on the news.

I assume you are just trolling here

In which case you won't answer, because feeding trolls is utterly stupid.

So you are now claiming there is no contradiction between you saying there is nothing wrong with his output even though you described it thus

wasn't a grown up answer, unless by grown up you mean elderly person with Altzheimers.

Best of luck convincing folk these two mean the same thing