You put your finger on a very interesting point. Currently in France, there is a debate on the transfer of the state of emergency in the civil law
General / Off-Topic Another van attack
- Thread starter Robin of Spiritwood
- Start date
You put your finger on a very interesting point. Currently in France, there is a debate on the transfer of the state of emergency in the civil law
The Germans did the same and even worse with the systematic elimination of the civilian population in Russia and other countries. And the concentration camps. We can also talk about the V1 and V2 on the London town ? Please, do not compare Isis with Churchill ...
Last edited:
They're not trained for it Patrick. The skillset of the soldier is impressive, but it is simply not the skillset of the police officer.
Soliders are trained to meet threats with immediate and lethal force. Have you ever seen an army used against protesters or seen military make an arrest? Soldiers are trained to protect themselves and their fellow soldiers first, clean up the blood later. And soldiers are not trained in, for example, investigative work or dealing with someone who has mental health issues.
A properly trained civilian police force are trained in descalation of threats. In attempting to preserve life, even the life of criminals, rather than destroy it. They're trained in dealing with people who might be suicidal or who might be desperate if backed into a corner. They're trained at dealing with crowds in a manner which is safe and will minimize risks, not aggravate risks.
We tend to think of these professions, police and army, as being similar, but the fact is they're miles apart from each other. The police are like vetinarians, trained to treat animals. The army are like butchers, trained to cut animals to ribbons.
Now if you're absolutely desperate, a butcher might be able to help you with an injured animal, as they do know some animal anatomy. But if you fill your streets with butchers to help heal the wounded animals you're going to get a bloody mess.
Yes, but in the case of terrorists, the French policemen shoot like the military, without asking any question. By transferring the state of emergency into the civil law, I wanted indicate the domains concerning the surveillance, the phone tapping, the arrest, the search, the put in custody, interrogation etc ... directly accessible by the police without the authorization of an investigating judge. If this step is concretized one day, who knows what the next one will be ...
Last edited:
Terrorism is not an act of war. It's an asymetric tactic, carried out from hiding. It usually neither attacks infrastructure on a relevant scale nor does it have to use military equipment (Trucks, IEDs, small calibre guns, blade weapons are not military equipment).
Some countries have problems with terrorism on a scale like that although that'd be more an insurgency/uprising, ours do not belong to those. Terrorism in our countries is a civil offense.
Soldiers are without doubt useful as static guards in certain situations, but they're certainly not some allround measure against terrorism. Soldiers are a mean to protect and fight threats from the outside of a country. Terrorism is often a threat from within. We have intelligence services and law enforcement to handle that.
Funnily enough, the Taliban fund themselves through drugs. ISIS funds/funded itself by selling oil from the captured oil fields (now who bought that, totally not looking at a country starting with T and ending with urkey). So in a certain way, ISIS and other terror organizations can be considered cartels.
ISIS is a dead man walking. The coalition forces and the joint forces of Russia and the Syrian regime have shattered their little pipedream of a caliphate in Syria and Iraq.
What those terrorist attacks intend to do is provoke a reaction against muslims in general. And if that happens, the one comitting them suddenly can cite a 'rightful cause' for their side. "Look they discriminate Muslims and lock them up. We have to fight them."
1. We don't do that. We fight terrorism with the legal means we have, without granting law enforcement and intelligence services (let alone the military) any extralegal competences. Terrorism overall affects the public opinion in a country.
2. Wouldn't work. Apart from that it'd circumvent the very basics of our western values and the human rights.
3. Doesn't work either. There have been attacks in the US, with quite a number of casualties too. No country is immune against radicalization through the internet.
We're in a state of heightened alert, but not in a state of emergency.
Or Japan would just say "Ok?" and wait for New Zealand to do something. That's essentially what Syria and Israel have done for the past 50 years. There's no need for the defender to draw out and spread forces over thousands of kilometres to give away the advantage of terrain and preparation.
In this scenario the goal of Japan isn't to conquer and occupy New Zealand nor is it its goal to decimate the military forces of NZ. Its goal is simply to defend its own territory and population.
All we do by this is to drag out this Conflict and allow ISIS to cause more and more Damage.
Worse. By dragging it out and not accepting ISIS as an Full Enemy. We divert the Conflict onto Cultural and Religious Issues thus demonizing the Muslime in our Country because people start seeing Islam as Enemy rather than ISIS.
If we dont start seeing ISIS as the Enemy Country it is. We are pretty much begging for our people to do the same and thus consider this an Racial/Religious War rather than an Enemy Country.
We need to Start Protecting People from Attacks. And we need to Send our Military to Crush ISIS once and for all to Cut off the Source of these Attacks.
This is not the Polices Job anymore
But more halfdone intervention won't solve a problem caused by halfdone intervention.
The number of troops you'd need to put on the ground to resolve the situation in Syria is going to be at least as high as the numbers of troops used for the invasion of Afghanistan and Iraq. That'd be possible with the NATO, but not with the EU battlegroups or the armies of the regular member states, since they'd be way to fractured to cooperate efficiently.
Additional difficulties is that this would be only a semi-asymmetrical warfare as there is with the Syrian Regime at least one opponent who has the backing from a superpower and was supplied with modern weapon systems.
Last but not least, who's going to foot the bill for this? Not only for the cost of the initial invasion and the occupying of the syrian territory (don't get yourself caught up in the pipedream that you'd be able to 'just' take out the cities occupied by ISIS. As long as there's a power vacuum throughout Syria, they'll simply pop up elsewhere and the whole thing starts again), you also need to include the costs for rebuilding and redeveloping the Syrian infrastructure and economy, as well as the supplement of pretty much everything you need to get a state with improvised agencies halfways running. That's something that'd take decades of investment, with not more than a slim chance of sucess if you take a look at Afghanistan and Iraq.
The United States, which are without doubt the dominant economic and military power on the planet weren't up to that task, which created the entire situation in the ME at least partly and I doubt very much that we'd do it better. Not to mention that both these wars were nightmares for the diplomatic corps and for the reputation of the US in the world.
No, an invasion of Syria and another 'war to stop war' are a horrible idea. In the end you'd help the extremists more than you'd help yourself.
Fund our police and intelligence services properly and let them do their job, they're fairly good at it.
As Fuzzy said, further escalation by the use of military forces isn't the way to go.
Last edited:
Feel Free to lol.
I am German. I know very well the Crimes that my Country committed.
Albeit I have to Correct you there.
The Concentration Camps etc were not meant to Terrorize but were meant for Genocide. Which is much worse.
An The V1-V2 (V stands for "Vergeltungswaffe" which means Revenge Weapon. Was only used AFTER the Terrorbombings
Unfortunately this does not change Churchills Crimes in the slightest
And unlike him Germany Paid for these and the responsible people were Hanged and worse
So if you wish to discuss that go ahead. *gg*
Funny.
Looks like that Soldier in Brussels had exactly the needed Skillset.
He did perfectly the thing that he was supposed to do.
The Terrorist Attacked and he Shot him.
Case closed.
Exactly what you post Soldiers for
Mate.
Soldiers are not supposed to be doing Bag Controls or put Tickets on Peoples Cars.
They are Guards.
They have only one Job.
If an Terrorist Runs amok K.I.L.L him
1.
Yes and No.
People tend to Forget. But Terrorism was Born from Military Sabotage and Guerillia Tactics.
And it is in Fact a Military Tactic.
It has been used effectively in WW2 as well as in the Cold War.
And this Tactic is in General based on a Simple Principle.
Use Propaganda and Underground Networks to Recruit Local Sympathizers and Fanatics.
Train these Recruits in Military Tactics and the use of Weapons.
Possibly provide Weapons and other Equipment.
And have then have them Independently Attack Targets to throw the Enemy into disarray.
This is an Military Tactic Carried out by ISIS against us right now.
Not every Cheap Recruit will get Military Training or Military Weapons.
But the Networks in the Backround which are Recruiting them are far more than just some random Couch Rebel.
They are very often Trained in Terrorist Camps and have Access to Weapons and other stuff of Military Grade including Money and Communication Technology.
The guy with the Knife or the Pistol is not the one who gets Military Equipment. He is a Suicide Pawn.
Its the Guys behind them which Recruit, Brainwash and Train them which are Military Grade.
2.
And thats all they are supposed to do.
Guard Duty.
Nobody expects Soldiers to take over Policing Duties.
The Soldier in Brussels did just that as well.
He Guarded the Place and thanks to that no further Casualties were caused.
Also
Cartels Operate in an Country where their Actions are Outlawed.
Difference between Criminals and an Enemy Power. Is that the Enemy Power has Control over its Territory and thus makes the Laws there.
While Criminal Organizations usually dont make the Laws in their Territory and will hide.
ISIS is an Country. Not an Cartel.
As Harsh as it is. But ISIS Actions are not Illegal. Because they are the ones Ruling there and have no Outlawed it.
You can Agree with it or not. But thats the Fact under which these Cities down there Life.
3.
That so ?
Latest Estimates by NATO Military States that ISIS Numbers have hardly Decreased.
ISIS has lost some of the Territory they gained Early on. But this War is far from over.
With current Forces. Experts expect this War to last 10-15 Years
Because neither side can really make any Decisive Strikes.
Iraq Army is faar too weak.
The Kurds now got Turkey in their back Attacking them.
Syria is faced with both Rebels and ISIS and thus cant really land a Decisive blow either.
Currently nothing is decided there. ISIS has taken some Losses but its far from Defeated because the Coalition barely adds any Force there.
And the Main Fighting Force of the Coalition Forces. The Kurds are Attacked by the NATO Member Turkey right now.
And yes. They incite hatred.
And thats exactly what they will succeed with if we keep letting them do what they want.
4.
A.
Thats basicly Ignoring it.
We handle Terrorism like it was some Pick Pocket.
German Police has Pistols and some SMGs. And has Light Kevlar Vests capable of taking Pistol Calibre Hits.
If Faced with an AK-47 they will look very Stupid.
B.
Correct. But thats exactly what will happen if we dont start doing something. Its already happening in Hungary and about to happen in the UK.
C.
Correct. But as you see the US does it anyways. And many here Demand the same.
5.
France in Fact is lol.
So is the UK.
We are under Attack.
And of course that bunch of Idiots Equipped with 1950s Equipment might not be an actual Threat in a War.
But even an Idiot with a Musket can Kill People you know.
We should stop playing Cool just because our Enemy is Inferior to us.
6.
Erm.
Israel has taken quite a bit of Territory. And has been using Military Forces everywhere the entire time.
Including AAA against Artillery and Mortal Attacks.
And yes. We can see well how good Syria is doing obviously......
I would prefer to do things differently than Syria.
Or do you want to wait until ISIS has taken Half of our Country before you react ?
7.
Funding Police and putting em up is above Method C. Its what the USA has been doing.
As you already said and as I also say. Doesnt work. Doesnt solve anything. It only turns us into an Police State.
And lol.
Halfdone Intervention ? That wasnt even half.... thats more like maybe a quarter or less.
And thats exactly the Problem I am complaining about.
You will NEVER bring this Situation to a Close with Half Baked rubbish Interventions.
We need to do a Full Scale Intervention. Crush ISIS entirely and remove all of them from any position of Power.
We made this Mistake in Afgahnistan already.
Minimal Budget and Minimal effects.
The Cities are effectively in the Talibans Hands and for most part they can do as they want with the people.
Of course this way they will never be Defeated.
If you want to end this. You have to go in. Crush all of ISIS. And then Protect the Cities from ISIS until the Local Government Forces have Full Control of the State and can Ensure Protection themselves.
If you just keep some Mini Base there which can barely Run a Daily Patrol around the City. You can just as well leave it be. Because you wont get anything under Control this way.
Sometimes in Life. You are at this point.
You got a Problem. This Problem gets worse the longer you wait.
Fixing it is expensive and hurts.
But I learned something in my Life.
In this case the Best is to get it done and over with.
Because waiting will not solve the Situation.
Solving it only gets ever more Expensive and ever Harder.
But we are Waiting. We are trying to get this under control with minimal efforts. And for many Years now it has showed to be entirely ineffective.
How much longer do you suggest we sit here waiting ?
Minonian
Banned
Agreed, but when an animal trying to cut you to ribbons, what you can possibly do? And mind you! We are not talking about one single animal but an entire herd of animal who can't come to his senses.
The core, the "demon's head" the most heavily indoctrinated, most fanatics meant to be destroyed or locked away for a lifetime without hope to ever leave and continue, or indoctrinate others. The rest? More or less can be dealt with it.
Last edited:
Military terror tactics are far from what ISIS manages to get together over here. What you describe is employed by intelligence services to collect information and sabotage the enemy in times of war. What the IS does is not attacking targets which make military sense and the only military goal, that'd reason their actions is provoking a reaction either against Muslims in general or against our own freedoms and rights, and even that is a long shot.
Yes, sometimes those terrorists have been trained abroad in terror camps. While that's not unusual, it's not standard either. It's also not something that's going to be solved by having military on the streets or in Syria. The only way you can limit this specific part of the problem is by introducing tighter border controls on the borders of the Schengen area and on the EU borders. The only way to do that is to strengthen the EU and Frontex, which is completely fine by me.
The military equipment of the IS in Syria is completely irrelevant. Those attacks here aren't carried out with military equipment, therefore it's not needed to answer with military equipment here.
2.
And thats all they are supposed to do.
Guard Duty.
Nobody expects Soldiers to take over Policing Duties.
The Soldier in Brussels did just that as well.
He Guarded the Place and thanks to that no further Casualties were caused.
Also
Cartels Operate in an Country where their Actions are Outlawed.
Difference between Criminals and an Enemy Power. Is that the Enemy Power has Control over its Territory and thus makes the Laws there.
While Criminal Organizations usually dont make the Laws in their Territory and will hide.
ISIS is an Country. Not an Cartel.
As Harsh as it is. But ISIS Actions are not Illegal. Because they are the ones Ruling there and have no Outlawed it.
You can Agree with it or not. But thats the Fact under which these Cities down there Life.
As I've said, it makes sense to deploy soldiers to guard stationary objects in certain situations. It's also allowed under German Law.
What I don't want is this becoming a permanent state of affairs. I'm not afraid enough of some terrorist a******* to tolerate that.
Another thing: ISIS is not a country, much less an independent nation. It's a group of fanatics who have occupied parts of the territory of two actual independent states and suppress the population in said territories by using excessive force. They're not lawful there, much less are they accepted where they are, neither by the population of those countries nor by the world. Calling them a country, a nation or a state is simply an exaggeration and factually wrong.
ISIS' actions are illegal in national as well as in international law.
.
Russian estimates of their troop strength in 2014 were around 70.000.
US estimates of their troopstrength in early 2016 were 25000 at max and US estimates later in 2016 estimated their troops at 20000 max. That's not 'hardly decreased'.
That is also .
Now, almost a year later Iraqi forces are on the final push into Mosul, while coalition forces stand in the east, the west and the north of Raqqa.
Feel free to compare it yourself: https://isis.liveuamap.com/de
With current Forces. Experts expect this War to last 10-15 Years
Because neither side can really make any Decisive Strikes.
Iraq Army is faar too weak.
The Kurds now got Turkey in their back Attacking them.
Syria is faced with both Rebels and ISIS and thus cant really land a Decisive blow either.
Currently nothing is decided there. ISIS has taken some Losses but its far from Defeated because the Coalition barely adds any Force there.
And the Main Fighting Force of the Coalition Forces. The Kurds are Attacked by the NATO Member Turkey right now.
And yes. They incite hatred.
And thats exactly what they will succeed with if we keep letting them do what they want.
The syrian civil war, yes. Unless someone makes a major intervention it's estimated to last that long. The Iraqi army is certainly not the most glorious army out there and neither the bravest. Yet they advance steadily against ISIS, as do kurdish and syrian government forces.
Exaggerating ISIS strength to justify an intervention in Syria isn't the way to go.
How many terrorist attacks with AK-47 have there been in Germany?
France is. The UK is not. The last british state of emergency was in 1974 for a pretty, pretty dumb reason.
Overestimating your enemies is as dangerous as underestimating them, if not more dangerous. Terrorist attacks are tragic, but ultimatively they don't pose a threat to our nations, much less to our society. We're neither weak nor afraid enough to let that happen.
During the six days war in a gigantic preemptive strike, which made sense back then.
Since then (apart from the Jom-Kippur war in 1973) they've basically fought a sitting war on the Golan heights, with little escalation even if both nations are officially still in a state of war.
Proper funding of the police doesn't turn us into a police state. What a ridiculous argument. Giving too many competences and giving up basic rights turn us into a police state.
You say it: We made this mistake in Afghanistan already. Yet you actively propose to repeat it in Syria.
It's not as easy as "Send a taskforce and crush ISIS.". Welcome to reality. As long as there's civil war and a power vacuum are in Syria those groups will keep popping up no matter how often you shoot them back into the stone age.
That's exactly why an intervention would need to be directed against all sides of the conflicts. You'd need to disarm both rebels and regular army, to resolve the ongoing conflict which provides the setting and breeding ground for terrorist groups.
I'm sure they'll be delighted when the US and the Europeans come to bring 'peace' to their country. Then how do you counterfinance such an operation and the follow-up?
Rebuilding and redevelopment need to be done or the next conflict will come as soon as the occupiers leave.
Much of the reasoning you base your justification for an intervention on is non-existent. The only thing we would achieve is being caught up in another battlefield in the middle east and that's something neither the US nor the EU have an interest in.
Even if we could resolve the situation in Syria the threat of the IS and its affiliated groups wouldn't be over. You'd need far more than one intervention to clear out their hotspots.
If we invade Syria on that reason, we would also need to invade Lybia, Mali, Nigeria, Afghanistan(again), Pakistan and the Phillipines. What a fun outlook on the future.
Last edited:
1.
An Enemy Country even if it were only Armed with Muskets is an Enemy Country and needs to be Dealt with accordingly.
Ignoring it only serves to needlessly increase the Danger.
It also serves Greatly to Support ISIS. Because it gives Racists something to Propagate Hatred which in return drives Muslims into ISIS hands as Recruits.
2.
The moment your the Power making the Laws and Ruling an Area you effectively are an Country.
You can deny that all you want but thats the fact we got.
ISIS is making the laws and even collecting the Taxes. They are the Government in these Areas right now.
3.1
Fallacy.
Your using Russian Estimates vs US Estimates from different times.
US Intelligence in 2014 estimated only 9-18k CIA estimated up to 31k
https://warontherocks.com/2015/02/how-many-fighters-does-the-islamic-state-really-have/
Which is roughly the same as 2016 and 2015
https://www.usatoday.com/story/news...hters-new-estimate-25000-iraq-syria/79775676/
Russian and US are different sources with different measures.
You cant use em for progression estimates.
3.2
Nice Map.
And Mosul.
You mean the same they already attacked in 2015 ?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mosul_offensive_(2015)
See Mate. The Map is nice and all but says almost nothing cause the Front has been going back and forth all the time.
Some Cities have Changed owner 4-5 times by now.
3.3
Kurdish Forces are Currently in War with Turkey and are Hard pressed. They aint doing anything steady.
And no Mate. Talking it down is not the way to go.
Because nobody has been doing steady progress against ISIS here.
Your own Example comes there to tell you that most clearly because Mosul has been Attacked in 2015-2016 and is now also in 2017 again attacked.
And I would not be Surprised if its still in ISIS hands in 2018 again.
4.
None in Germany yet.
3 in Europe since 2015
And dont worry we will get them sooner or later as well.
5.
On Paper yes.
But just so you know.
Soldiers have been Escorting and Supporting the Police for both London and Manchester Attacks.
6.
Again. Only on Paper.
They are not actually at War because if Syria were to Attack Israel the USA would Bomb them to Nirvana.
If you want to go by the Paper State I guess you also think Trumps Muslim Ban is not Muslim Ban
Because on Paper it actually isnt.
7.
Then what do you want to Fund ?
You said Fund Police and Intelligence.
Now. Intelligence to prevent Terrorism needs most of all more Surveillance Coverage.
And Police to deal with Terrorists mostly needs more Competences, better Equipment and more Manpower.
Thats Generally what leads to a Police State.
Which is Logical. Because the entire sense of increasing Police is to get mover coverage and more control.
And control is actually the keyword to Police state. Because Police States are not called that because the Police drives around with Tanks like in the USA.
Its because the Police is present everywhere and controls everything. Which is however exactly what additional Funding goes to because the most obvious target of additional funding is Manpower and more Police on the Streets.
8.
I think your Misunderstanding heavily what I am saying.
Task Force ?
I am talking about Sending 10-20 Divisions.
100-200.000 Soldiers which will be Stationed there for 10-20 Years.
The reason why Afgahnistan Failed. Is because the few thousand Troops we had there were not even enough to Enforce the Law. Much less prevent the Taliban from openly having Gigantic Drug Fields to Finance themselves and Training Camps to keep their Soldiers trained.
If you want to end this. You need to stop thinking that this is something that we can solve with some small Task Force or by Ignoring it.
If you want to end this. You need to get the Entire Area under Control and Occupy it. Making sure that all Oil Fields are Firmly in Government Hands and that all Drug Fields and other Income Sources for Terrorists are Destroyed and removed.
And yes exactly.
You need far more to Clear out the Hotspots
And thats exactly the thing.
What we have been doing is just bomb them out but never smoking out the nests. So the moment we leave they come back.
Heck they came back before we left actually. In Afgahnistan it was so bad that our Soldiers there essentially were camping in their Bases and did not dare to touch the Warlords Drug Fields because they were with like 2000 Soldiers against 10.000 Terrorists in their respective area....
And who talks about Invading these Countries.
Half of them are BEGGING US FOR HELP.
And yes Nice Outlook for the Future.
But and thats the Keypoint.
Do you think this Outlook for the Future gets better by just continuing what we are doing now ?
You think if we just wait longer they will go away ???
Mate the longer we wait the worse it will get and the more stuff comes around.
if we had Ended this 20 years ago properly. It would have been over with just 50-100k Soldiers Occupying the Area until the Government is working enough to slowly take over.
By now I would assume we will need to have around 300-500k Soldiers in overall which we need to spread around to keep things under control after we defeated them.
And if we wait another 20 years we will likely be at an lvl where they have so many Hotspots that we will need 1-2 Million Soldiers.
Until at some Point they will be Strong enough to Fight us Head On.
Mate get this Straight.
Everyone knows that going to War is nothing anyone wants.
But delaying it just makes it worse.
This is like water leak in the pipe.
You can ignore it cause its just dripping a bit.
You can tape it to slow down the dripping.
But the longer you wait the bigger the hole becomes.
And if you dont replace the damn pipe properly you will one day wake up and your Bathroom will be under Water cause the Pipe ripped apart.
20 years ago this Pipe was dripping a bit.
10 years ago it was dripping quite alot already
5 years ago the hole became so big that we already had a small but pretty steady fountain from the pipe.
And the only thing we keep doing is putting tape around it which holds for a few days before its back again.
Thats what we did right now again. And so we went back from Fountain to steady Dripping through the tape.
But we all know this Tape will burst and in 10 years the Fountain will be 3 times as big.
Its time we Replace this Damn Pipe.
I know its annoying. The damn Craftsmen is Expensive as hell and will cut the Bathroom for several days to get the Damn Pipe out of the wall which will be super annoying.
But the alternative is that we wait until the pipe Bursts. And then the Craftsmen wont be any Cheaper Mate
Can you stop with the pretense that ISIS is a military threat to us? They're not. They're not a country either. If we'd count every insurgent/terrorist group occupying a bit of land in Syria and elsewhere as an independent country, we'd have a metric ton of countries.
We're not ignoring the threat of terrorism nor does it give rise to racism as much as you state. The rise of the far-right was not caused by terrorists, but by the refugee/migrant crisis. Not considering the fact that most people should've realized by now that populists have no easy solutions either, if they have any at all.
Do you know what really drives people into the hands of terror organizations? Going to their country, blowing their sh*t up and shooting their people. You want to wage a war against ISIS, we get it. Would such a war be justified? Probably. Would it be beneficial for us or the people down there? Doubtful. You cannot win an asymmetrical war in a country where you're not wanted. You'd need methods of unrestricted warfare for that, which we have thankfully banned.
Addressed above. Ruling over a piece of land doesn't make it a country.
Both your articles confirmed what I said though. Maybe you should've read them.
From warontherocks:
From USAtoday:
A demoralized force fails an offensive? Colour me surprised ... not.
This war is past the phase where the fronts change rapidly. ISIS has not even small territorial gains by now, that's pretty obvious once you actually get into the subject.
Yes, urban combat against an entrenched enemy takes a lot of time, patience and nerves if you don't want to kill civilians or your own people en masse. The remaining IS fighters in Mosul are encircled. Their little self declared capital is almost surrounded too. They have terrorized the population in those territories for years now and little to no backing there.
Turkey and the Kurds is such a thing. They're at war, but not in the zones where you claim. Take another look at the map. The area occupied by turkish forces is further in the west towards the mediterrean sea. The clashes are mainly there and in the south-east of Turkey themselves. As if the US would let Turkey interfere and bomb kurdish troops anywhere near hotspots like Raqqa or Mosul.
We'll see. Committing and preparing a terror attack is a lot harder than you think.
The british government has still not declared a state of emergency. What you see there is called cooperation between authorities due to a major incident.
6.
Again. Only on Paper.
They are not actually at War because if Syria were to Attack Israel the USA would Bomb them to Nirvana.
If you want to go by the Paper State I guess you also think Trumps Muslim Ban is not Muslim Ban
Because on Paper it actually isnt.
They're officially in a state of war. There's not much happening in that war since 50 years but they still are. Even if it's only "on paper".
Read up on Anis Amri and the Christmasmarket attack in Germany, then you'll see why I have the opinion that both police and intelligence services need better funding and more manpower. They don't need more competences, the ones they have are completely sufficient.
Unclear wording of my side, sorry. I meant an a good bit bigger than what you had in mind. Because 200.000 won't be near enough to bring a cluster of this scale under control. And now comes the point you're ignoring since two posts: HOW DO YOU FINANCE THAT ****?
The US tried twice and wrecked their debt balance by doing it. Yet you want even bigger operations. Thank god, that war is expensive and in this case unprofitable.
Oh, you were with the Bundeswehr in Afghanistan? Tell me all about it.
And if they don't we just declare them an enemy country and invade anyways? Sounds an awful lot like the US approach.
With 'just' 50.000-100.000 soldiers ... do you even listen to yourself?
That's more than half the personnel we have and it'd pretty much include all our combat troops. And that's not even with the calculated losses and the cost for deployment.
Yet here I am, discussing with someone who wants to go to war.
That analogy is so stupid and plain ignorant that I won't even start, 'mate'.
Last edited:
Feel Free to lol.
I am German. I know very well the Crimes that my Country committed.
Albeit I have to Correct you there.
The Concentration Camps etc were not meant to Terrorize but were meant for Genocide. Which is much worse.
An The V1-V2 (V stands for "Vergeltungswaffe" which means Revenge Weapon. Was only used AFTER the Terrorbombings
Unfortunately this does not change Churchills Crimes in the slightest
And unlike him Germany Paid for these and the responsible people were Hanged and worse
So if you wish to discuss that go ahead. *gg*
Yes, but concerning the camps, hundreds of thousands of Jews hid during the war. They were terrified. They knew more or less the existence of the camps. And for the V2, they were intended only for the civilian populations. If we can not really compare terrorism to the camps and the V2, in the finality and in both cases, the civilian populations were terrorized. Concerning Churchill, The difference is that ISIS is the aggressor. In the case of Churchill, Hitler was the aggressor, although Hitler did not declare the war to the United Kingdom (and France). But this is another story ...
Last edited:
I.ll Apologize for the Mate.
I think I remember you were Female. But it wasnt meant as an offense. Just a habit of mine.
The Analogy if pretty much exactly what happens right now tough
For for my Part would ask you this.
If Albania would Declare War on us.
And then start Sending Agents here to Recruit Local Sympathizers here to Attack us because their Military cant really reach us.
Would you not consider this a Foreign Military Threat ?
If you answered Yes just now.
Maybe you should know that ISIS actually has more Military Power than Albania.
And far bigger Intelligence Network as well.
Think about it.
I for my Part would give that first Statement of your Post right back at you.
Maybe you should stop with the Pretense that there is no Threat to us here.
Refusing to Acknowledge ISIS as an Foreign Military. Will not make it go away.
And Mark my Words. The way we currently handle this. ISIS will still exist in 10 Years and will likely be even Bigger than now.
With that however I.ll also leave it at that.
Its Obvious that we will not find an Agreement over this.
I.ll be marking this down as my Bet and we will see how it develops in the Future Years
Maybe when the Fountain gets bigger in 4-5 Years People will realize that its maybe better to not let the Pipe Bust before replacing it *gg*
As I said.
The Difference here is simply that what Germany did was not Terrorism and not supposed to Terrorize.
Germany had the Target of Genocide. They wanted to Eradicate all Jews.
And no. Actually the V1 were Originally Developed and planned as an Device for Strategic Bombing to Attack Industrial Targets and Infrastructure to weaken the British Economy.
However. During Development it already showed that Accuracy for the V1 was by far not Sufficient for this.
In 1944 Joseph Goebbels (German NS Propaganda Leader), who wanted to use the Weapon for Terror Bombings rather than Strategic Bombing anyways, then changed the Name from "Fi-103 Höllenhund" which means "Fi-103 Hellhound" to "Vergeltungswaffe 1 or V1" which means "Vengeance Weapon 1" And used em for Terror Bombings on the City of London.
Which was a bit of an desperate action in 1944. And mostly stemmed from the Fact that the V1 were simply Fired at London and would hit all over the Place anyways.
Its an Interesting Story actually. I recommend reading it up.
Especially because V1-V2 were pretty much the First Predecessors of our modern Cruise Missiles etc.
I could also say some things on who and why started this War.
Because this is an much longer rat tail than most people think *gg*
But thats something we should really take to another topic.
The Terror Bombings from British and German sides can at least be somewhat be explained as on topic xD.
Funny.
Looks like that Soldier in Brussels had exactly the needed Skillset.
He did perfectly the thing that he was supposed to do.
The Terrorist Attacked and he Shot him.
Case closed.
Exactly what you post Soldiers for
Mate.
Soldiers are not supposed to be doing Bag Controls or put Tickets on Peoples Cars.
They are Guards.
They have only one Job.
If an Terrorist Runs amok K.I.L.L him
And if those terrorists were working with others any hope of discovering those others are now lost. The chance to learn something about terrorism, bring a prosecution, or interrogate these people is gone.
The military can certainly point their guns at a target and destroy it, and sometimes that's exactly what you want. But that doesn't help you with terrorism. Terrorism is about spreading fear and anger in a civilian population. If the initial terrorist attack is successful, or even if it isn't then the death of the terrorist doesn't matter - the terrorist has still succeeded.
Exactly.
Terrorists are looking to kill people, and you usually don't know who they are until they strike. What you're looking for is a well trained and alert guard, not a killer. You seem to fundamentally misunderstand the nature of the threat. As Becks said:
ISIS as a military organization are definitely close to being destroyed. But ISIS as a brand are growing stronger. Not their weapons, not their troops or squads, but their culture. I saw something recently which blew my mind - ISIS have a music album out.
https://www.discogs.com/Nurullah-Karaçayir-Best-of-Nasheed-2017/release/10407697
It's not just music. It's books, rants, messages, movies, whatever. That stuff is out there in the public domain, effecting people who are vulnerable to such messages and looking for something to belong to. Soldiers are powerless to prevent that, but a decently resourced and trained civil police force can take action.
1,
Well no Offense to you.
But lets assume there was two others which escaped.
Then let me ask you this.
3 Bad Guys Running Amok and killing People.
Or 1 Bad Guy being Killed and the other two Escaping without killing People.
What do you Prefer =?
If you choose 1 I would say lets Remove Police etc alltogether.
Just put Cameras all over all our Festivals. We wont be able to Prevent People from being Killed by Terrorists of course. But we will catch all of the Involved as we can see who scouted the area etc etc
Not a good Idea dont you think ?
2.
No. What you need here is a Guard who can Kill without Hesitation.
If Terrorists start an Attack. You need someone Ready to Take them down with Lethal Force to prevent em from doing any Further Damage.
The Threat we have is not a Criminal who Robbed a Bank and Kills people in his way. Meaning that keeping distance and following him has a lower risk of Casualties than starting a Shootout on the Spot.
Its a guy who has only one Target.
Kill as many People as Possible until your Killed yourself.
And that means the faster we kill that Guy the less Casualties we will have.
I.ll Apologize for the Mate.
I think I remember you were Female. But it wasnt meant as an offense. Just a habit of mine.
The Analogy if pretty much exactly what happens right now tough
Partly my fault. I was in a pretty bad mood yesterday.
A foreign threat, yes. A military threat, no.
It's the job of the intelligence services and the police to defend against and counter subversion. The military only does that for itself as it doesn't have the means nor the task to do this on a nationwide scale. That's an important part of the checks and balances.
Yes, that's both true. But their military power is irrelevant as it is concentrated in Syria. It doesn't affect us here, unlike the subversion you mentioned.
They are a threat, but not one we can fight with military means. Ideas are bulletproof and such.
Of course it'll still exist in 10 years. Not as a regional insurgency, but more like an Al-Quaeda like structure throughout the world. Invading Syria won't change that.
With that however I.ll also leave it at that.
Its Obvious that we will not find an Agreement over this.
I.ll be marking this down as my Bet and we will see how it develops in the Future Years
Maybe when the Fountain gets bigger in 4-5 Years People will realize that its maybe better to not let the Pipe Bust before replacing it *gg*
Yeah, agree to disagree.
1,
Well no Offense to you.
But lets assume there was two others which escaped.
Then let me ask you this.
3 Bad Guys Running Amok and killing People.
Or 1 Bad Guy being Killed and the other two Escaping without killing People.
What do you Prefer =?
If you choose 1 I would say lets Remove Police etc alltogether.
Just put Cameras all over all our Festivals. We wont be able to Prevent People from being Killed by Terrorists of course. But we will catch all of the Involved as we can see who scouted the area etc etc
Not a good Idea dont you think ?
Not quite sure what your point is (my apologies, I've probably not been clear earlier). I am not in any way suggesting that terrorists be released or that, if the choice is shooting them dead and letting them go they should be let go. I am suggesting that a police force is better than soldiers for the task of counter terrorism and that, where there IS a choice, terrorists should be captured alive. I am also suggesting that when it comes to prevention of terrorism and monitoring potential terrorists covertly a civilian police force which knows the community they're dealing with are far, far better than a military force who generally stick out like a handbag on a pooltable.
Police are trained to use lethal force themselves if it is absolutely necessary - as they did in London recently (the attackers had fake bombs strapped to themselves and so the police obviously made the right call). The part you're not focusing on is "absolutely necessary". Not only that, but Soldiers can do little more than clean up the mess, they're certainly not going to be able to prevent terrorism or minimize risk like a police force can.
If you can control the situation you can also prevent further damage. Police can do that better than military. Also, address what I said about the culture of ISIS, what can the military do about that?
Why do you believe terrorists are a bigger threat than violent criminals?
Do me a favour, go look up how many people are killed by violent criminals vs terrorism. More people are killed by ladders than terrorism.
Last edited:
1.
The Point is that I prefer to Protect People rather than Sacrifice them to catch all Terrorists.
If 2 Terrorists Escaped than they at least caused no damage and the Police has Future Chances to Catch em without them doing Harm.
If they had instead struck there we might have catched em. But we would also have faced further Casualties.
2.
Locally the Military can provide Guards.
See Mate I am repeating this once more.
Soldiers are not supposed to do Police Work. They are not going to Investigate or anything else. They are Guards.
You could see them as an Safety Net.
If the Police Fails and an Terror Attack happens. The Soldiers will be there to Deal with it.
Its a much better Solution than waiting for the Police to bring in their few Units that are trained for Dealing with Gunfights.
And its also a much better Solution than Equipping our Police up to Military Standards.
International the Keyword is Protection.
An Army Marches on Supplies and on Recruits.
If we ever want to get ISIS down we need to cut these off.
We need to Protect Cities and People from ISIS so they and their Families are not under ISIS Control and thus serve as their Manpower and Economy.
And this will never happen with just Local Forces because these are too heavily Undermined by the old System and thus are too likely to cave to Corruption and are Infiltrated.
We need to do this ourselves.
3.
Terrorists are not a Bigger Threat than Criminals lol.
In Opposite. Criminals are an much Bigger Threat than ISIS right now.
But see Mate.
That does not change that this Threat needs to be taken care of. And it needs to be taken care if with the Necessary Means.
In our Lignite Mine everyone is part of Firefighting Response.
This Includes that everyone takes basic Classes for Firefighting as well as First Aid and handling Chemicals.
And see mate.
Fires can be very Different. And they need to be handled accordingly.
If you just Spray Water on all Fires you will in 90% of the cases do it right. But in 10% of the cases you might cause it to explode.
In our case the most Notable thing is the Electronic Rooms.
Because they (for a good reason) have different Fire Extinguishers than the remaining Machine.
Because they have CO2 Extinguishers. Instead of Powder ones.
Reason being. That if you try to Extinguish an Fire in the Electrical Connections with an Powder Extinguisher you might not only make things worse because you might connect tons of circuits into each other causing additional fires. But you also might be getting Grilled yourself.
Now pls note. These are Incredible Rare compared to other Fires.
Most of the Fires we got are from Overheating Mechanical Parts which most of all need Cooling to be Extinguished.
But do you think because of that we should just put Water and Powder Extinguishers everywhere as the Electric Fires are rare and make up maybe 1% of the Fires we got ?
A Threat is a Threat.
And it needs to be Dealt with properly.
The Police is there to Deal with Criminals.
Not with Terrorists.
They are Trained to Deal with People which are out for Profit and Escaping.
Not to Deal with People which want to Kill as many People as possible.
For the Police the common thing to see is. That an Attacker will not Fight them unless forced into a corner. But will try to get away.
They are not Trained to Deal with Attackers which are Ambushing and Assaulting them before they even know whats going on.
Are we still banging on about this 70 years later?
I have lived and worked in both the UK and Germany and I can tell you the Germans are a lot more reticent and guilty for the part they played than the British.
Again though, I re-iterate, still? Move on people, move on....
(and no I do not mean forget, for that would be the worst thing, I just mean move on)
Last edited:
Nonsense, most of the elderly have paid in most of their lives, they have paid their dues and RIGHTLY getting their reward for it. Unemployment ESPECIALLY youth and immigrant IS the problem as they have not paid a penny in and are getting it out. Youth and Immigrants use the NHS too, maybe not as much as the elderly but dropping sprogs ain't cheap for the NHS. A recent story of a Nigerian (I think) NHS tourist dropping (admittedly multiple) sprogs cost the NHS 300k ONE woman. Do the math. Also Many working youth and Immigrants get top up benefits and housing and child benefits, they will use other infrastructure like education more then the elderly as well. If you're going to work out the "cost" do it fairly please. And show the elderly some respect.
Last edited:
I also wonder if we'll get anyone saying:
"why did the van driver do this, we need to understand what set him off"
"We need to understand why they hate so much"
"We need to sit down with a cup of tea and chat with them"
and so on and so forth of the pathetic rhetoric spouted by the left over Islamic terrorism and ISIS. Already calls for banning of the far right, yeah ok DRIVE it underground and reap what you sow people. Spudwits are saying to defeat Islamic terrorism we need to tackle far right first....when the rise in far right support is BECAUSE of Islamic terrorism.
Has the left learnt nothing from WW2?!! Treat an indigenous people like poop while an immigrant people prosper is ONLY going to breed resentment and hatred and a rise in the far right. Am I the only one who can see this?
"why did the van driver do this, we need to understand what set him off"
"We need to understand why they hate so much"
"We need to sit down with a cup of tea and chat with them"
and so on and so forth of the pathetic rhetoric spouted by the left over Islamic terrorism and ISIS. Already calls for banning of the far right, yeah ok DRIVE it underground and reap what you sow people. Spudwits are saying to defeat Islamic terrorism we need to tackle far right first....when the rise in far right support is BECAUSE of Islamic terrorism.
Has the left learnt nothing from WW2?!! Treat an indigenous people like poop while an immigrant people prosper is ONLY going to breed resentment and hatred and a rise in the far right. Am I the only one who can see this?
Last edited: