Current news VS Current opinions (part ll)

[Rodney Mills]

I believe there is a problem on-site, that's why this is part ll.





Complete and unabridged, Rodney


BBC news. Sept. 30, 2014
RAF Tornados have now conducted at least five missions over Iraq, and returned five times with their bombs intact.



Why, after more than a month of British reconnaissance flights, access to allied intelligence and intense fighting on the ground does Britain appear to be struggling to find targets?
First, Britain's legally and politically-driven decision to strike only in Iraq, and not Syria, means we cannot strike Islamic State's (IS) main political and economic infrastructure in northern and eastern Syria, nor participate in the much-belated effort to relieve Syrian Kurds in the town of Kobane.
The contrast between intensive US-led bombing across Syria on the one hand and anticlimactic British sorties in Iraq on the other will have been apparent to all.


Second, the nature of targets differs between the two countries. In Syria, the US and its Arab allies struck mostly at fixed sites, such as IS-held military bases, command hubs, oil facilities and gas plants.
In Iraq, the US - and more recently, France - has been striking tactical battlefield targets, including massed units of IS fighters and their vehicles, often in close co-ordination with Kurdish ground forces.


On Friday and Saturday, for instance, the coalition destroyed an airfield, a garrison and a training camp in Syria but only four armoured vehicles and a "fighting position" in Iraq.


More than 92% of all airstrikes since August have targeted vehicles, overwhelmingly in Iraq. These Iraqi targets are often smaller, easier to conceal and more mobile than their Syrian counterparts - and therefore much harder to identify, track and destroy.
In choosing to stick to Iraq, Britain has signed up for an operationally more difficult mission. Moreover, IS has had a long time to prepare for airstrikes and will have spent the past month dispersing and concealing its forces, having learnt lessons from the first wave of US airstrikes that began in August.
Indeed, it is easy to get it wrong even with immobile targets. On Monday morning, the coalition reportedly struck a base that was abandoned by IS several months ago.


And so while British aircraft might previously have identified an IS unit or building in a particular location, the coalition will have to find them again.


Third, these targeting challenges mean that airstrikes often require so-called forward air controllers - personnel on the ground who can precisely designate a target for aircraft. Three years ago in Libya, for instance, SAS forces helped guide Nato airstrikes onto Libyan military targets.


Although British and allied special forces have been present in Iraq for more than a month, it is possible they are only now taking a more aggressive posture, deeper inside Iraq, after parliamentary authorisation.


Fourth, the government's sensitivity to civilian casualties is likely to be exceptionally high, both because of domestic political concerns and concern over pushing Iraqi Sunnis further into the arms of IS.


The coalition will be aware that misplaced strikes will risk Arab military participation in the coalition, help recruitment to IS, and undermine the broader political effort - peeling Sunnis away from IS.


This largely rules out early strikes inside IS-held cities, at least until the intelligence picture develops further and local ground forces are in a better position to take advantage. It also means Britain will be loath to drop bombs on congested battlefields, where they run the risk of killing allied forces - Kurds or Iraqi soldiers - rather than jihadists.



Fifth, Britain's coverage will be relatively limited, given that we have only devoted six Tornado jets to the mission - the same number as Belgium, and fewer than Denmark or Australia.



This small contribution is itself a reflection of our shrinking air force, which only has seven combat-capable squadrons compared to more than four times this number 25 years ago.


Eight Tornadoes are already deployed in Afghanistan. Even adding in Britain's surveillance aircraft, this pales in comparison with the array of firepower the US has deployed, including drones, cruise missiles and five different types of combat-capable aircraft.


Eventually, probably within days, Britain will conduct an airstrike. But these targeting challenges speak to a deeper issue: Airpower alone, without effective and co-ordinated ground forces, is a very limited instrument, even with months of careful intelligence collection and total control of the skies.


Nearly two months after the US first began airstrikes in Iraq, IS continues to advance.


To give only one example. Within the last two weeks the group has been able to conduct a five-day siege against an Iraqi Army camp north of Falluja, eventually massacring between 100 and 500 soldiers.


Such incidents will recur and it will be hard for Western nations to explain why, after all the political noise, there are no quick military solutions.


But the coalition has accepted this will be a long war, measured in months or years rather than weeks. They therefore see no rush to blow things up - slow and steady, rather than shock and awe.


Shashank Joshi is a senior research fellow of the Royal United Services Institute (RUSI) in London.






Complete and unabridged, Rodney
BBC news, Sept. 30, 2014

A future Conservative government would seek new powers to ban extremist groups and curb the activities of "harmful" individuals, Theresa May has said.


Banning orders and "extreme disruption" orders will feature in the party's 2015 election manifesto, the home secretary told the party's Birmingham conference.



She got a standing ovation as she said "British values" would prevail in the end in the battle against extremism.


The Liberal Democrats accused her of "peddling misinformation".


Mrs May was among a number of high-profile speakers on the third day of the Tory conference, with Mayor of London Boris Johnson, Health Secretary Jeremy Hunt and Education Secretary Nicky Morgan also taking the stage.


In her speech, the home secretary also:

• Called for changes to the way police stop and search powers were used, saying legislation would be used if necessary.
• Attacked the Liberal Democrats for thwarting attempts to introduce new data monitoring powers
• Said the Home Office would take control of all of the government's extremism policies
• Warned about the establishment of the "world's first truly terrorist state" in Iraq and Syria
• Said she had so far removed the passports of 25 Britons seeking to travel to Syria

The new measures will be targeted at people and groups who "stay just within the law but spread poisonous hatred", she said.


Mrs May told the conference the UK should not "shy away" from tackling radical Islamist group Islamic State (IS), which has seized large parts of Iraq and Syria.


British hostage David Haines was "murdered simply for being British", she said.


A "studied, careful approach" was required, she said.


Mrs May said a "very complicated battle" was taking place for the "heart and soul" of *****, saying it was not for Britain to try to resolve it.


But she said it was right that the UK was part of an "international coalition" to tackle IS, also known as Isil.
If IS succeeded, she said, "we will see the world's first truly terrorist state established only a few hours' flying time from our country".


She added: "We must not flinch, we must not shy away from our responsibility."


In a speech which got a standing ovation from the audience in Birmingham, she said: "In the end, as they have done before, these values, our British values, will win the day and we will prevail."


Email monitoring
Mrs May said that getting access to communications data - details of who called who and when, but not the content of the calls - was vital.


She said 12 cases were dropped by the Metropolitan Police in three months because communications data was not available.


In a reference to the government's previous attempt to introduce new powers, she said: "The solution to this crisis of national security was the Communications Data Bill, but two years ago that was torpedoed by the Liberal Democrats."


She said the Liberal Democrat position was "dangerously irresponsible".



Mrs May also said the misuse of stop and search powers was still a "real problem" and said legislation would be used if necessary.


More than 250,000 stops last year were "probably illegal", she said, because they were not carried out with "reasonable grounds for suspicion".


Stop and search could be a "legitimate and useful police tool".


But black people were six times more likely to be stopped than white people, she told the conference, adding that she was determined that "nobody should be stopped and searched because of the colour of their skin".


'Inciting hatred'


Mr Cameron has warned the Islamic State insurgency in Syria and Iraq poses a direct threat to the UK, with 500 British jihadists believed to have travelled to the two countries.


Earlier on Tuesday he told BBC Breakfast: "The problem that we have had is this distinction of saying we will only go after you if you are an extremist that directly supports violence.


"It has left the field open for extremists who know how not to step over the line. But these are people who have radicalised young minds and led to people heading off to Syria or Iraq to take part in this ghastly slaughter."


Among other things, the new strategy outlined by Mrs May will seek to bolster Islamic institutions that operate in a way which is "compatible" with British values and look to improve vetting procedures to prevent extremists being appointed to positions of authority, including in schools.


The government's new approach will bring together existing measures, such as the statutory duty for public bodies to have a counter-radicalisation strategy and enhanced powers for the Charity Commission to close down charities that are a front for extremist activity, with new efforts to improve awareness and training about the risks posed by extremism.


The Home Office will take the lead across government by creating a central hub of knowledge and expertise to advise other departments, the public sector and civil society about the risks of extremism, particularly of infiltration.


At the moment, organisations can only be banned if there is evidence of links to terrorism.


Under the Tories' new proposals, groups that cannot currently be proscribed could be subject to banning orders should ministers "reasonably believe" that they intend to incite religious or racial hatred, to threaten democracy or if there is a pressing need to protect the public from harm, either from a risk of violence, public disorder, harassment or other criminal acts.


The granting of a ban, which would be subject to immediate review by the High Court, would make membership or funding of the organisation concerned a criminal offence.


Broadcasting ban


The police would also be given new powers to apply to a court to impose extreme disruption orders on individuals, using the same criteria.


This could result in those targeted being stopped from taking part in public protests, from being present at all in certain public locations, from associating with named people, from using of conventional broadcast media and from "obtaining any position of authority in an institution where they would have influence over vulnerable individuals or children".


Breach of the restrictions - which would be time limited - would be a criminal offence.


Liberal Democrat peer Lord Carlile, the former independent reviewer of terrorism legislation, told BBC Radio 4's Today programme he did not think some of the measures were sufficiently tough, and called on Mrs May to reintroduce powers to relocate terror suspects to other parts of the country.


Conservative MP Dominic Raab told BBC News there was already a "very wide criminal basis" to prosecute extremist groups.


"I think you need to be very wary about criminalising thoughts and views", he said.


Former Attorney General Dominic Grieve said there was a risk new measures could "simply fuel resentment".


He told BBC Radio 4's The World at One: "If there is to be any restriction on the freedom of expression outside the criminal law - we have to tread very carefully."


Labour has questioned the effectiveness of the strategy, saying all individuals returning from the Middle East should have to undergo a programme of de-radicalisation.


It has called for the government to reintroduce control orders scrapped in 2011.


A Lib Dem spokesman said: "We utterly reject the allegation that the blocking of the Communications Data Bill has put lives at risk."


He said the availability of devices' internet protocol (IP) addresses was the "real problem", accusing the Home Office of "woeful inaction" in dealing with it.


"Liberal Democrats will continue to oppose the Tories' obsessive intrusion into people's lives," he added.
UKIP said the moves paved the way for governments to "block free speech", while campaign group Big Brother Watch said it was "wholly wrong" to label someone as an extremist without a "due legal process".





BREAKING NEWS. BBC news. Sept 30,201
RAF jets strike first IS targets


RAF jets have attacked two Islamic State targets in Iraq, the Ministry of Defence has said.
In the first attacks since Parliament approved military action on Friday, two "precision strikes" were launched and both were "successful", the MoD said.
It said two Tornados were on an "armed reconnaissance mission" when they were asked to help Kurdish troops in north-west Iraq who were under attack.
The targets were an IS "heavy weapon position" and an "armed pick-up truck".


Due to my assumption that the above would be of interest to ex-pat members in their entirety, they have not been edited. Rodney

[John Pruden]

most are used to light up for smart weapons fired by other aircraft by using lazer a target has to be lit up first and they would be armed for protection but the good thing is they are out there doing a good job?jp

[Red Lead Ted]

J,P, Talking of lighting up targets, As if we haven't enough problems home and abroad, D. Clegg is to travel to china this week to have a word in the ear of Chinese Republican P.M. Li Keqiang, Regarding the student demonstration in Hong Kong on democracy and civil rights after the U.K. Handed it back. At present trade between Britain and China is at a world high never been better. Clegg the chocolate ashtray preaching to this guy, He wants to be careful he doesn't end up on a tray of spring rolls in Cleggs Bakerly. But once again this is British politicians poking their nose in where they shouldn't Hong Kong is a FORMER Colony. For heavens sake stay away. Or will this be more lessons our politicians will learn the hard way. Terry.

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/arti...eet-Queen.html

[j.sabourn]

#3... Quiet Agree. Clegg should not atagonise the Chinese. They have their system of government and others have their own. To push ones own wish list down someones throat is not the way to go. China is no threat to the UK and will only become one through bad diplomacy. I dont consider Clegg a diplomat of any description. JS

[happy daze john in oz]

Rodney, in USA they get Tornados on aregular basis in som eo fthe southern states.

The fact is the USA and all the others involved in this charade are doing what suits them, not for the benifit of those they claim to be helping. There is more to all of this thna just an attcak on ISIS.


Our PM today said that while he did not wish to ban the Burqua in public he did believe that all faces in places where security is essential, airports, parliament, banks etc there should be no covered faces allowed. He also went on to say there should not be one law for one group as to how they dress and another for the rest. There is a push here in Oz to ban the Burqua in public.

[John Pruden]

there will have to be boots on the ground but let the Arab countries supply them they have stood back long enough and let someone else shed their blood not Arab blood its a problem that they support they fund and now should put an end to? they are in the 21st century but want to live in the dark ages but with21st century technology cant have it both ways..to spend a million on one bomb that destroys a pickup truck is a bit over the top? to me anyway..jp

[Red Lead Ted]

#4 John, Of all the places in the world that are ex Colonies China ?????????? couldn't agree more mate. Government they are a bloody joke who want to walk a mile in the lower classes boots now and again working or not. Regards Terry.

[Red Lead Ted]

Just watched all of Cameron's speech he gave at his party conference,

1, Where is the money coming from.......£100 Bn Deficit.
2, Everything he promises to fix.............. Thatcher started decapitating years ago.
3, Great speech if your a millionaire........... Otherwise don't believe a bloody word he said.
4, You will as a normal working guy be £££££££££ Worse off under the Tories. No Ta Mr Cameron.
5, We have heard it all before.

[j.sabourn]

The war that the West has entered in to, will be never ending. It has been going on since the time of King Herod, and is a war of contrition by different branches of the same basic religion, which should be banned from all present day civilised countries. The Sharia Law is not reconized in a western democracy, so why should it be tolerated in such. The Mafia as such was a very religious organization, yet they are banned. Any party or religion that goes against the laws of a country is unacceptable. We went to these countries on a regular basis years ago, yet we adhered to their laws as visitors, which is respect for that host country. This however is not reciprocated. The so called Religion is a much later one to even Christianity, so a lot of the unrest is just basic barbarism which these cults have always lived by and never come out of the darkness one hundred per cent. JS

[happy daze john in oz]

As John rightly tells it this war has been going on as long as man has had his fundemental orifice pointing south. But since WW2 the USa has at some point been in conflict somewhere in the world. It is almost like a drug addict who tries several times but in the end fails to kick the habit.