The fight against ISIS - the moral highground.

[Breacher]

Been hearing much about the rights and wrongs of the many proposed ways to fight ISIS recently.

 

Among them is the "gloves off, end justifies the means, regardless of legality" approach.

 

But having just honoured the fallen, including those of WW2, I feel its appropriate to remember............

 

ISIS is up there with the Nazi regime in terms of evil.

 

The Nazis ethnically cleansed many of their enemies - we did not stoop so low.

 

The Nazis issued the order that uniformed commando POWs would be executed - we complied with the Geneva Convention.

 

The Nazis used reprisals against civilians when resistance movements engaged the German war machine. We did not when we encountered the German resistance movement.

 

The Nazis shot escaping POWs as a warning to others ( eg "the 50 of The Great Escape) but we did not.

 

The Nazis murdered surrendering soldiers during blitzkrieg as its ethos was not compatible with using resources to guard prisoners. Yet when we invaded in 1944, and speed was the key, we ( with few exceptions ) took prisoners and treated them well.

 

The Nazis used civilians of occupied territory as slave labour. We did not.

 

Just a few examples of how you can fight a war with integrity and retain the moral highground.

 

I want to see ISIS smashed. I am happy for combatants to be engaged by whatever means. But I hope we remember we are better them and wont let us drag them down to their level.

[brown dog]

I think it's key to understand the difference between the legalities of'war' and your misapplication of the European human rights nonsense to the conduct of war.

 

Educate yourself a little more about a tiny part the conduct of UK in the winning of WW2. Read this: http://www.bbc.co.uk/history/ww2peopleswar/timeline/factfiles/nonflash/a6651858.shtml

 

Best I don't mention Bomber Command, Dresden or allude to the concept of 'total war'. We'll skip over the myriad examples of events such as our Destruction of Caen and the French civilians living there just to facilitate a break out from the Normandy bridgehead.

 

I think, I'm not sure, but I think we also killed one or two Germans in places like France, North Africa and Italy, extra judicially and without any form of courtroom proofs, just for 'being the enemy'. Sounds crazy doesn't it? We actually, without trial, took on and killed the enemy! Blimey, we even won as a result.

[Montey]

Plus 1 with Brown Dog didn't we sink the French Fleet with the loss of life so the Germans couldn't get thier hands on it.

[Breacher]

Thats why I used the "with a few exceptions" phrase. I am aware that records show a few unofficial executions from D-day on.

 

Tell me where I mention the Human Rights Act ?

 

I say again - lets smash ISIS. Lets engage the combatants with a hellstorm of violence.

 

But its possible to do that within the rules of war. And thus retain the moral highground against these evil barbarians.

 

As to the examples re mass aerial bombing - it was done by all sides and considered to be geneva convention compliant.

[Breacher]

Ok - so, the examples of Nazi war crimes I gave in OP - do you think they were ok because it was total war ? Or do you think they were war crimes ?

[brown dog]

No one's advocating war crimes. It's clear that you are unable to discriminate between the Law of Armed Conflict and the Human Rights Act

[Breacher]

Again - where did i mention human rights act ?????? Where ??????

 

So we are agreed that committing war crimes is no ok then ?

 

Well, thats all I ever argued for !!!

 

Smash ISIS but do it within the accepted rules of war thus not sinking to their level.

[Breacher]

Well, you say nobody is advocating war crimes. But the general gist of the debate online ( here and elsewhere ) is that anybody who even tries to discuss the response is accused of being PC or milquetoast or even worse on Murican fcuk yeah forums.

[tackb]

sadly I think this will always be an issue when the various factions fighting are doing so with different moral values and rules ?

 

I'm of the opinion for what it's worth that we should remove the politician's from war fighting , once the decision has been made to take military action then I think the most qualified people should be left to do the fighting as they see fit and in my opinion that is the military.

 

a slightly simplistic view I know but one thing I know for sure is so far we don't seem to be achieving any goals , maybe it's time to fully commit ?

 

war looks a horrid and violent business and moral high ground is a nice thought but very difficult to maintain along with winning.

[les]

Ok - so, the examples of Nazi war crimes I gave in OP - do you think they were ok because it was total war ? Or do you think they were war crimes ?

 

 

From the Nazi's point of view, they were OK - from any other point of view, they weren't, so any debate about the finer points of war will always end in a stalemate. "Total war" against any terrorist organisation will never succeed. It's just the nature of the beast. It makes for good headlines, but that's about it.

[gbal]

Guys-it's not going to be easy to cover everything in a few paragraphs.

 

Morality is determined by motives as much as actions-selfish personal reasons rate pretty low,appeals to peers/cultural authorities a bit higher (but "obeying orders' failed as a Nurenberg defence), appeals to the sanctity of human life are nearer the top....

 

It's pretty complex too,if we look at "Human Rights" legislation internationally,and you can do a PG law degree in "The law of armed conflict'....one (of many) texts is "The law of armed conflict:an operational approach" by six US experienced military/academic authors-it's 600+ pages, but not immune from some criticism of US bias at the expense of the wider international concerns.

 

Not so simples,but the fine detail is not the issue-just as it was not in the past.

 

It's complicated by different ideas of authorirties-the christian one has changed perhaps a little more than the muslim. Mother Teresa tried "Give your best,despite the other side.For in the end,it is between you and god.It was never between you and them"....I'd at least add an amendment : "...never just between..."

It is a poor basis for operational action,of course...given the profound nature of the 'religious' divide,as interpreted by extremists.Long term,it may be that Muslims generally come to accept that this life actually matters as much as any expected Paradise (acccepting this idea has not weakened christian behaviour. I could see some support for this positive view of this world in the refugees fleeing conflict zones-they want a decent life on this earth-not what Isis has demanded.

Of course, Jihadis exploit the chaos and disagreement that immigrants raise-they thrive on a disorganised Europe-both operationally and as evidence that that life is worthless,compared to Paradise..( available one way ticket for martyrs...)

 

OK : education (hearts and minds) maybe the long term solution. It won't do for now.

 

Since 'saturation bombing' been mentioned,it seems on balance,Somme to Okinawa,and especially Dresden,that heavy damage inflicted prior to assault seldom leads to walk throughs (Hiroshima/Nagasaki it did-the trade off was reduced military casualties on both sides,weighed against imprecisely predictable but in the events very large civilian casualties.It's still discussed.)

Note 'preemptive strikes by the British when French warships did not accept the alternatives-hand over/neutral ports) had a very much more moral strategic defence (losing the war) than local shooting of allied prisoners of war,who were no more than a minor inconvenience-motives matter.)

Whether the allies won because of rule bending or just more clout is debateable,but it's unlikely that eventually it was not superior man/material power that was decisive-there was overwhelming UK/commonwealth,US and Russian power.

 

The issue is really about what kind of military response will kill confirmed Jehadists/Isis hard core,with minimised 'collateral damage'. At some point,Paton.Montgomery et al were right-on the ground combat is unavoidable-so do it decisively (they were well aware it would not be a joy ride to Berlin,to mop up a few disoriented civilians,who had survived the aerial attack. The Wehrmacht remained a formidable opponent (anyone indulging in the current fashion of refering to the German forces as "Nazi' should be encouaged to view "Romel" and "Valkyrie" several times.

 

This is not just pedantic,or a sense of fairness-it is a fundamental and capital error to underestimate your opponent.

 

This mistake is perpetrated daily-Isis need defeating,but name calling is counterproductive,when it suggests a lesser morale,or lesser commitment,and thus deflects from a proper understanding of the enemy strength,and weakness-and how to win. £ into the cyber war is to be welcomed,before Isis sophistication there is as effective as Isis can be elsewhere ( funding,eg). But not the main objective.

[brown dog]

I'm very concerned to read that a police dog has been killed in today's operations against untried 'alleged' terrorists in Paris. What were the French police thinking? Dogs are najis. What a terrible affront that they would choose to use a najis animal near these poor innocents. I hope the civil rights lawyers pick this awful human rights violation up - and no wonder there was a gunfight; the french police have only themselves to blame.

[gazzarM1]

What does one do with a cancer ? One does ones best using all available means to get rid of it . IIRC I read about the estimated number of jihadis loitering with plenty of intent at being somewhere in the region of 200 million throughout the world.

That gentlemen is a large cancer .....we need to get busy.....

[gbal]

Gaz,maybe a little high.Depends what is meant...

CIA estimated up to 30K fighters;Syrian Human Rights 50k in Syria;Russian General Staff 70k;other estimates ,up to 200k if support included.

 

Based on the general figures for US/K in Helmand,somethiung like at least 100k would be needed to control a population of 4million (Iraq is twice Syria).

All variably imprecise (Kurds go for the higher figures).

 

Can't be 200m in Syria/Iraq though...worldwide....more ,but how many more in any projected Caliphate?

 

We cannot necessarily depend on Tacitus' estimate from Roman times either -in 100 men,10 should not be there,80 are targets,ten might be effective-one a warrior. Nor will every opponent be an extreme Jihadist....heaven bent on death/glory.

 

Seems logistically doable as far as ammo goes....

[banus02]

do we really want to see more of our young men and women come back injured or dead for these people ,I think not keep up the bombing and spying and cut out the leaders even use a nuclear strike to thin them out ,we can deal with the fall out at least we could have a life with out fear

[gbal]

Gaz,maybe a little high.Depends what is meant...

CIA estimated up to 30K fighters;Syrian Human Rights 50k in Syria;Russian General Staff 70k;other estimates ,up to 200k if support included.

Based on the general figures for US/K in Helmand,somethiung like at least 100k would be needed to 'control' a population of 4million (Iraq is twice Syria).

All variably imprecise (Kurds go for the higher figures-and they have contact on the ground).

 

Can't be 200m in Syria/Iraq though...worldwide....more ,but how many more in any projected Caliphate? Open season worldwide has not been proposed,yet.

We cannot necessarily depend on Tacitus' estimate from Roman times either -in 100 men,10 should not be there,80 are targets,ten might be effective-one a warrior. Nor will every opponent be an extreme Jihadist....heaven bent on death/glory.

Seems logistically doable as far as ammo goes....

ps-breaking news:

In today's Paris ,RAID police report one trained dog ("Diesel') killed when a female detonated her body bomb,one other supect shot,and seven taken into custody- martyr status declined. Shame about Diesel.

[baldie]

A great shame about the dog.

 

I hope he licked every one of them before he died.

[brown dog]

do we really want to see more of our young men and women come back injured or dead for these people

 

Social media has taken away our perspective.

 

The 450 we lost in afghanistan over more than a decade, whilst each an individual tragedy, would have been a single afternoon's attack in Normandy that would have barely drawn comment.

 

Some truisms endure:

 

[brown dog]

A great shame about the dog.

 

I hope he licked every one of them before he died.

 

Amen.

[gbal]

 

 

Amen.

Unconfirmed report says his last growl through clamped teeth was:


" beau morceau de cul "



Vive le chien Deisel

[Breacher]

One thing for certain is that the Muslim community need to take a long hard look at themselves - they have a big part to play in fighting this evil -

 

2 examples on the news today -

 

The owner of the house concerned in todays firefight and suicide bombing - he said he had been approached a few days ago and asked to housee a couple of guys for a few days. He then says that he had no idea who they were but did them a favour anyway. This sort of "look the other way" when giving safe haven to dodgy individuals is not acceptable.

 

Worse still, one guy in Belgium admitted on live TV that he was asked by one of these scum to cache some AKs a week ago. He declined. Did he go to the police ? No, he waited til now to mention it as an afterthought on TV.

[tackb]

Social media has taken away our perspective.

 

The 450 we lost in afghanistan over more than a decade, whilst each an individual tragedy, would have been a single afternoon's attack in Normandy that would have barely drawn comment.

 

Some truisms endure:

 

sherman 4.png

First day of the Somme..............

[brown dog]

 

Unconfirmed report says his last growl through clamped teeth was:

 

 

" beau morceau de cul "

 

 

 

Vive le chien Deisel

 

He was a warrior dog. I think it'd be something more along the lines of: Fille de pute, j'ai nique ta mère !

[Guest Stacka]

Been hearing much about the rights and wrongs of the many proposed ways to fight ISIS recently.

Among them is the "gloves off, end justifies the means, regardless of legality" approach.

But having just honoured the fallen, including those of WW2, I feel its appropriate to remember............

ISIS is up there with the Nazi regime in terms of evil.

The Nazis ethnically cleansed many of their enemies - we did not stoop so low.

The Nazis issued the order that uniformed commando POWs would be executed - we complied with the Geneva Convention.

The Nazis used reprisals against civilians when resistance movements engaged the German war machine. We did not when we encountered the German resistance movement.

The Nazis shot escaping POWs as a warning to others ( eg "the 50 of The Great Escape) but we did not.

The Nazis murdered surrendering soldiers during blitzkrieg as its ethos was not compatible with using resources to guard prisoners. Yet when we invaded in 1944, and speed was the key, we ( with few exceptions ) took prisoners and treated them well.

The Nazis used civilians of occupied territory as slave labour. We did not.

Just a few examples of how you can fight a war with integrity and retain the moral highground.

I want to see ISIS smashed. I am happy for combatants to be engaged by whatever means. But I hope we remember we are better them and wont let us drag them down to their level.

God every one has to have a lefty in the community.......I wish people who have never experienced war just keep there ill informed opinions to their selves.

 

Either you want us to go and neutralise a threat or you don't. How we go about it is our business. You won't lose sleep about the ins and outs of the physical function of said task so please don't stand on your soap box and preach your ideas.

[Guest Stacka]

One thing for certain is that the Muslim community need to take a long hard look at themselves - they have a big part to play in fighting this evil -

 

2 examples on the news today -

 

The owner of the house concerned in todays firefight and suicide bombing - he said he had been approached a few days ago and asked to housee a couple of guys for a few days. He then says that he had no idea who they were but did them a favour anyway. This sort of "look the other way" when giving safe haven to dodgy individuals is not acceptable.

 

Worse still, one guy in Belgium admitted on live TV that he was asked by one of these scum to cache some AKs a week ago. He declined. Did he go to the police ? No, he waited til now to mention it as an afterthought on TV.

It is a very very complex situation. Again your not privy to all the information, one appreciates your interest in the matter. But just accept ISIS is bad, Muslims are not bad, the threat is home grown, people are trained and funded from Syria.