Wonderful! there are generals, who believe that they could clear up ISIS in 21 days, given a ground assault.
All things being equal, they probably could; just as the Israeli’s destroyed the Iraqi forces and the Syrian forces and the Egyptian forces, who had invaded to wipe them out.
However, everything else is not equal.
First, there is no-one in ISIS to surrender and call off further attacks.
Second, the Kurds, who are mooted as being the ones to oversee the peace are being attacked by the Turks.
Third, the Turks, our allies in the region, have been allegedly providing “comfort” to ISIS, in exchange for attacking the Kurds.
Fourth the Russians, who have joined with Turkey in building gas pipelines (economic battle with EU) are also assisting Assad destroy forces opposing him and ISIS.
They might not be happy about US and European having dominance in this region.
Do we attack from the South and hope Turkey will join the Kurds in preventing ISIS escaping North along routes, which have allegedly been open to them?
Do we attack from the North and assume that Turkey will allow us to aid the Kurds?
What about the Kurds? Kurdistan was split up and parcelled out to Turkey, Iraq and Iran, by the Western powers, after WWI, won’t they be expecting a little quid pro quo?
After Blair and Bush’s adventure in Iraq, the main complaint was that there had been no exit strategy, only the dishing out of rebuilding contracts.
Is this what will happen with Cameron’s war?
Wonderful! there are generals, who believe that they could clear up ISIS in 21 days, given a ground assault.
This isn’t the first company to be hacked and it won’t be the last.
Stretching the analogy, it’s obvious that stronger bolts aren’t the complete answer, although there are encryption techniques that companies can use to help limit the damage..
We need measures to ensure that once the hackers have customers details, they can’t exploit them.
Exploitation can done by making purchases, using customer credit cards but Banks have the software to identify unusual transactions and that could be enhanced by companies having some means of fingerprinting their databases.
Banks could also prevent fraudster’s from using customer details to take out new credit cards, without adequate checks.
Banks could agree a maximum level of monthly withdrawal, without customer presence.
In all cases, banks are ultimately the key to defeating hackers and this may be the real problem; persuading politicians to pass legislation holding banker’s to account, for releasing our money to the fraudster’s and, so, financing further attempts by them.
The real threat of ISIS is that it will throw back civil liberties to the time of the Peterloo Massacre.November 16, 2015
Reference the attascks by ISIS: It is the loss of our freedoms that we should be concerned with.
Hitler and Stalin would have loved the powers that our Governments have given themselves.
They can track us, individually, via our GPS systems in our cars and phones. Presumably this was why the terrorists in the previous French attack (known by the Security forces to be dangerous, without a blanket trawl of everyone’s on-line activity) used a couple of dozen different mobile phones in arranging the attack and the escape of their families.
The power, to hack our phones, means the security services can activate the microphones in our smart phones, download all our messages. All whilst we think our phones are switched off (according to Snowden). As many have their mobiles linked to their bank accounts, it is conceivable that they could be emptied, also.
We have more CCTV’s per head than anywhere else in The World: These can be connected to software which can identify people from faces, from a mile away (I think it’s called Sentinel).
They have been intercepting our emails for over a decade (Echelon) and even local Authorities are allowed to do so. The new legislation just makes some aspects legal.
As far as reading all those emails, that’s not necessary; they have software which, like Net Nanny, looks for key phrases and flags up suspect ones
Other liberties are in danger; in response to the recent attack, in Paris, it is likely we’ll see armed units on our streets, maybe even private militia (the government likes to privatise and has used G4S in Afghanistan etc.) with Army supervision.
We could have a generation growing up thinking that these trappings of a Police State are normal.
We could have a generation of politicians thinking that it is their right to use these power’s against people who won’t behave themselves, as was the case at the Peterloo massacre.
All that the snooping will enable is the post-mortem examination of an attack, because serious attackers will be careful to avoid arousing attention.
Presumably it is the covert resident’s that the snooper’s charter is allegedly intended to discover.
With 128 dead and many more injured, it seems unlikely that a snooper’s charter would have prevented the attacks in Paris.
The best it could do would be to enable a trawl for the accomplices and identify the killer’s, as known terrorists. What use is such “intelligence” ?
Such an approach would be a lengthy one with a lot of luck needed and with little hope of preventing another closely followed attack, if one was intended.
In fact, in all such incidents, where Security forces had advance warning, including those, where the IRA phoned in the attacks, they seem to have been unable to prevent attacks, e.g. the homegrown Luton cretins and the Charlie Hebdo attacker’s, where they orchestrated their actions by mobile phones.
A better approach would be to focus on the attacks.
It might be expensive but Army units and/or SWAT teams on stand-by would have limited the number of deaths in an attack, like that in Paris.
A short term measure might be to make possession of plastique, or Kalashnikov’s punishable by a mandatory 10 year sentence.
There was a time, when the poppy was the only badge-pin sold as a charity.
It was made by ex-servicemen, using wire, red-paper and a tar button.
My dad always wore one to commemorate the men he knew, who had died.
The reason I wear one is to respect my Dad and those he remembered.
Most of my dad’s generation have died and I’ve noticed that there isn’t the same respect shown poppy day, anymore.
The anti-war white poppy misses the point, entirely, but has, despite its disrespect for those who died, a certain validity in decrying the political realities, which led to those deaths.
To me. it’s like wearing a white golliwog badge to show that you oppose racism, or anti-clockwise Swastika to show you’re an anti-fascist.
I know that the wearer’s are all fervent supporter’s of the white poppy and their interpretation of its significance. It’s just sad that the original point of wearing the red poppy has been distorted to the point that they see it simply as a symbol glorifying war.
The reason that this has happened is that rembrance day has moved into the political arena.
Originally, the politicians attending the State-run Service were ex-servicemen, who, like my dad, were actually remembering those, with whom they had served. However, few, if any, of the present generation of politicians have any awareness of that era, when people stopped at the eleventh minute, of the eleventh hour, of the eleventh day, of the eleventh month, without any bell, hooter, or klaxon to tell them that they should.
In fact, the generation, epitomised by Blair, show that Remembrance day has become more of a mock show of respect by those, for whom, it has no emotional significance beyond that of being seen to appear to be respectful.
It maybe that we should, within the next decade, drop the pretence of an emotionally charged ceremony, except amongst Service personnel.
I, personally, lost my respect for The British Legion, which administers the funds collected,when after the Falklands war, we were informed that disbursements were made according to rank. i.e widows of officer’s were paid very generous pensions but those of squaddies received nominal sums.
It would be nice, if we had a Government, which truly represented us and looked after those who placed their lives on the line to protect us.
It would also be nice, if our politicians saw our soldiers, as compatriots (true patriotism), rather than toys to be gambled/ expended in unnecessary foreign adventures.
The cost of Trident is crippling us but we are told by politician’s that we must have it.
The proffered explanation is that is a deterrent I.e. if someone chucks one at us, we would chuck one back.
O.K. which someone?
If it was Russia they’d not just send one, they’d send enough to obliterate us. Even the politicians buried in their bunker’s wouldn’t survive.
Here, we’re assuming they could get to the bunker’s in the 4 mins., which would be the time between someone had thought to switch on the sirens and the ICBM’s landing. That’s a big assumption.
Here’s a few more.
Politician’s think that a nuclear war is surviveable. Who by?
Politician’s think that there’ll be enough warnings for them to ensure that they’ll be within timely reach of a bunker.
Politician’s assume that Russia will use ICBM’s and not Satellite platforms i.e. barely enough time to ask if that siren is genuine.
UK politician’s believe that their Nato allies (i.e.the USA) will fire back. Uh-oh! one of the Cold War scenario’s was UK obliterated, US would say “OH,Dear! very sad. Do we really want to start swapping missiles with Ivan and maybe hurt U.S. real Estate values?”. E.U. NATO allies were assumed likely to capitulate and make plans to move their citizens farther away from the R-A fallout of the defunct UK.
So not really a plausible attacker. What about N.Korea?
Maybe Kim Jong-il has missiles and is dumb enough to fire first. so dumb enough that he’ll attack us but not dumb enough to attack the U.S.. To what end?
If he’s that mad, then he’s unlikely to worry about our firing back.
There, again, we have to assume that the U.S.A. will let us fire missiles to land so close to Japan, or South Korea.
China might also react badly to such an action.
How about ISIS?
They’re going to attack the UK? Not Israel, or the USA?
Assume that’s likely.
Their M.O. suggests it’s possible but they’d get a patsy to fire it fom Morocco, whilst they’re all in Syria. Where would we aim ours?
How about a fixed Islamic target?I
Iran has been a big worry. So they fire on us. Likely?I’d think the Hawks in The Pentagon would go crazy with delight. A perfect target for their nukes. Even if we didn’t pay protection money (by buying Trident), they’d jump at the chance to turn a North African into a piece of Radio-active glass, without risk of heavy political censure.
On the other hand, Let’s assume that it was actually protecting us from attack.
Attack by whom and why?
Switzerland and many other countries don’t feel a need to be protected by having a nuclear arsenal.
Why don’t they feel threatened?
Are they threatened?
I suspect not.
Because they aren’t throwing their weight about, pretending to be a great world power, or the lackey of one.
I’d be quite happy to live in a country, where the politicians were only concerned with domestic affairs, rater than strutting about on the World Stage.
I’d feel a lot happier about the fact that I’ve not got a reserved space in the nuclear bunker, should a stray 1 kT bomb drop nearby.
I’d feel a lot happier that those with a space in the bunker, didn’t feel it was, therefore, safe to rattle their saber’s.
If Gov’t were fit for purpose, there’d be no need for so many charity companies
How many cancer charities do we need? Each with a CEO earning(?) a 5 figure annual salary, with a descending hierarchy of salaries for admin roles.
This is before any money trickles through for research or specialist treatments.
I took especial note of one lady claiming, on a TV program about buying and selling antiques, that she’d turned a hobby, of re-selling car-boot items, into a career by setting up a charity for a niche cancer.
I know the present generation of politician’s are fixated by thee Wall Street dogma, of the State sloughing off responsibilities, onto the private sector, but isn’t the Wall Street mantra of economy of scale more relevant?
The job of Government is to keep the citizenry safe, not to farm it.
The BBC’s “Rip-off Britain” program allowed Energy companies to claim their poor billing could be fixed with smart meter’s (!)October 19, 2015
The BBC’s “Rip-off Britain” program would be redundant, along with many similar program’s, if Government were doing its job policing us.
That program had one presenter announce that most problems it received tales of were about the privatised energy companies and their bills.
It’s ridiculous all these energy companies do, apart from advertising themselves and running a website, is take meter readings and calculate how much they#ll charge us for the energy produced by and transferred by another company.
A P.R. asked to explain the fiasco being faced by certain customer’s, tried to claim that it was all the fault of our antiquated system of meter readings.
I’m sure there are some Sun reader’s who’ll buy that load of proverbial but a moment’s thought shows it for what it is.
Growing up, we had meter’s that had come with the house and were probably still there until privatisation, when the new companies came up with less easily fiddled meters.
A smart-meter doesn’t take a more accurate reading than me, or the meter-man, who comes to check my veracity.
The smart-meter doesn’t make up the bills, which is where the complaints arise. These companies are trying to exploit their own incompetence by getting us to buy(indirectly) meters, which will save them the cost of sending someone to read them.
They’ll still mess up the bills but we won’t be able to challenge them.
There is, I’ve read, another more sinister aspect, in that they’ll be able to spy on us (and make extra profit from it).
The smart meter’s can sample our electricity consumption at Broadband speeds and deduce out TV viewing. A little more hard to believe is that they can also deduce the keys being typed on our computer’s, should they be that interested.
Main thing is we’d still get dodgy billing but without even TV reporter’s being able to challenge them.
I recently completed a petition about Addenbrooke hospital being forced to its knee’s, so privateer’s can step in and buy it at a bargain basement price.
This is my reply from my MP:
Thank you for contacting me about Addenbrooke’s hospital being put into special measures.
I share your concern that such a highly regarded hospital which was ranked as one of the safest in the country just two years ago, can deteriorate in this way.
It is important to note that inspectors rated the quality of care in Addenbrooke’s as outstanding, describing staff as caring and skilled. understand that the key contributor to the ‘inadequate’ rating was under-staffing, particularly in maternity and A&E. I believe Addenbrooke’s also faced problems discharging patients when they were ready to go home. Indeed, at the time Addenbrooke’s reported a major incident, the then Chief Executive stated that 200 beds were taken up with patients who could not leave because there was not the social care in place to support them.
I also share fears that Addenbrooke’s may not be an isolated case.
The NHS is under pressure because of decisions the Government has made. Cuts to older people’s care in the home means it is harder to see a GP and hospitals have become dangerously full. Cuts to nurse training commissions means a shortage of qualified nurses and a reliance on expensive agency staff. Hospitals across the country are facing a stark choice between balancing the books and delivering safe care.
It is vital, therefore, that Ministers take action if the NHS is to get through the next year without more hospitals failing. The Government promised more funding for the NHS by 2020. However, that money is needed now and support calls by the Shadow Health Secretary for that investment to be front-loaded so that Addenbrooke’s is not a sign of things to come.
I hope the Government listen to those calls and the concern of everyone up and down the country who rely on and care about our NHS.
Thank you again for sharing your views on this important issue.