So, apparently there was a terrorist attack less than one hour ago, in the south of France.
It is National Day today in France, so there was a firework, and a truck cruched a lot of people Who were gathered.
Some fire shots were heard, don't know if it is the Police or not.
20 to 50 dead, for now.

Waiting for more infos.

At least one hundred wounded and one bad guy killed.

My parents were in that part of France a few days ago. Luckily, they went north to Annecy which is a few hundred miles north.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-36800730

A lorry has struck a crowd during Bastille Day celebrations in the southern French city of Nice, with reports of many dead.
The incident took place on the famous Promenade des Anglais during a firework display, media reports say.
One image on Twitter showed about a dozen people lying on the street, some being tended to.
The local prefecture has urged people in the area to remain indoors, calling the incident "an attack".
Nice Mayor Christian Estrosi said that "a lorry driver appears to have killed dozens of people".
A local official was later quoted as saying that at least 30 people were dead.
The mayor and police urged residents to stay indoors.

...I've got nothing. People who attack places where folks go to celebrate and feel safe... How the feth do you even explain that.

Heard the driver got out of the truck and opened fire before being taken down.

But that is early reporting. Be a while before we get anything accurate.

There are no words that can express my disgust, dismay and fury, that have not been said a thousand times over. So I will simply leave a quote from one of my favourite TV shows that suddenly sprung to mind.

"All this has happened before, and will happen again".

Automatically Appended Next Post:
There are so many of these big attacks now that I'm losing count. What was the last big one in France? The Bataclan?

There was the Pulse Gay club in Orlando Florida, recently.

Utterly horrifying.

Reports of a gunman still out there, but again, early reporting...

Daily Mail said hostages were taken in a hotel and restaurant.

Not again.... France does not deserve this. No one does.

Dakka does not let me type words to sum up my opinion of the attacker

We are at war. Our cities are a frontline.

Death toll now listed at 60+

Secondary rumours of hostage taking in hotels and restaurants in Nice (source is Wikipedia so take very lightly please).

I was holding onto hope it was a person who died at the wheel and the police overreacted, back when the death toll was estimated at a dozen.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
Condolences to our French forum members.

It looks like the siggie I put up after Charlie Hebdo is staying where it is.

They said they killed the driver a bit ago. Now they're saying they caught the guy.

They won't let France be... This is the 4th/5th big attack already in 2 years time.?

Multiple sources say it's ISIS. No official statement yet.

At least they are doing a pretty good job keeping things quiet in the media from what I can notice. Unlike last time.

I feel we should stop messing about with these half-measures and dial it up to "maximum effort" where these people are concerned.

 angelofvengeance wrote:
I feel we should stop messing about with these half-measures and dial it up to "maximum effort" where these people are concerned.

That is unfortunately easy to say. These scum hide in plain sight with EU passports, or are officially welcomed refugees.

It has been known that ISIL has infiltrated Syrian refugees entering Europe. Yers we must opposed tthose filth but the zeitgeist is stromngly in favour of declaring that looking at Syrian refugees in general as a thread is far right extremism.
There just isn't an easy answer to all this.

It is plain that French intelligence is not coping, ISIL wants us all, and the UK is a higher profile target than France due to the Iraq war and a more active presence in the middle east. Plus being 'Little Satan'.
The fact that we arent being boned right now is a possible indication that MI5 is doing a very good job. Though how could we tell.

DaIsh reportedly claimed credit.

 CptJake wrote:
DaIsh reportedly claimed credit.

They'd claim a pile of dung if they thought it'd get attention. Scum.

 Orlanth wrote:
These scum ... are officially welcomed refugees

Which attack was carried out by refugees?

 angelofvengeance wrote:

 CptJake wrote:
DaIsh reportedly claimed credit.

They'd claim a pile of dung if they thought it'd get attention. Scum.

Good point. It does ignore that the previous attacks in France were definitely linked to them though.

 Orlanth wrote:

 angelofvengeance wrote:
I feel we should stop messing about with these half-measures and dial it up to "maximum effort" where these people are concerned.

That is unfortunately easy to say. These scum hide in plain sight with EU passports, or are officially welcomed refugees.

It has been known that ISIL has infiltrated Syrian refugees entering Europe. Yers we must opposed tthose filth but the zeitgeist is stromngly in favour of declaring that looking at Syrian refugees in general as a thread is far right extremism.
There just isn't an easy answer to all this.

It is plain that French intelligence is not coping, ISIL wants us all, and the UK is a higher profile target than France due to the Iraq war and a more active presence in the middle east. Plus being 'Little Satan'.
The fact that we arent being boned right now is a possible indication that MI5 is doing a very good job. Though how could we tell.

UK security services are unrecognised hero,s right now...
Europe is porus. Land borders. UK has controlled entry points..freedom of movement has risk

Death toll up to 73. Reports the truck was filled with arms/grenades.

@jhe90: abso-fething-lutely

Why all the guns and grenades in the truck for a single guy ?

twittah wrote:#Nice witness: Truck “crushed everyone in its path.” Then 2 men got out of the truck “and started shooting into the crowd, about 50 shots”.

Jesus... this is horrible!

Here's a twittah video, do NOT click this if you're squeamish:
https://twitter.com/JaredWyand/status/753731972523028480

That was some of the most horrifying things of seen in awhile...

...

I'm speechless.

 whembly wrote:

twittah wrote:#Nice witness: Truck “crushed everyone in its path.” Then 2 men got out of the truck “and started shooting into the crowd, about 50 shots”.

Jesus... this is horrible!

Here's a twittah video, do NOT click this if you're squeamish:
https://twitter.com/JaredWyand/status/753731972523028480

That was some of the most horrifying things of seen in awhile...

Was this the video from the shooters PoV? Who added all the TXT?

I could do without some person taking footage and immediately turning it into propaganda if that is what they did.

nkelsch wrote:

 whembly wrote:

twittah wrote:#Nice witness: Truck “crushed everyone in its path.” Then 2 men got out of the truck “and started shooting into the crowd, about 50 shots”.

Jesus... this is horrible!

Here's a twittah video, do NOT click this if you're squeamish:
https://twitter.com/JaredWyand/status/753731972523028480

That was some of the most horrifying things of seen in awhile...

Was this the video from the shooters PoV? Who added all the TXT?

I could do without some person taking footage and immediately turning it into propaganda if that is what they did.

This was clearly made by a survivor/bystander, with an anti-Islam PoV.

Confirmed 77 is now dead.

http://news.sky.com/story/attack-in-nice-73-dead-as-truck-hits-crowd-10502068



Automatically Appended Next Post:

nkelsch wrote:

Was this the video from the shooters PoV? Who added all the TXT?

I could do without some person taking footage and immediately turning it into propaganda if that is what they did.

I didn't even pay attention to the text...

 whembly wrote:

twittah wrote:#Nice witness: Truck “crushed everyone in its path.” Then 2 men got out of the truck “and started shooting into the crowd, about 50 shots”.

Jesus... this is horrible!

Here's a twittah video, do NOT click this if you're squeamish:
https://twitter.com/JaredWyand/status/753731972523028480

That was some of the most horrifying things of seen in awhile...

I don't know what is draining my faith in humanity the most.

Those news, or that twitter feed.

Tout mon soutien aux Français qui se souviennent de la plus belle des devises nationales.

This, regrettably, is the face of war with terrorists. To my untrained eye, it seems the "sleeper" attacks on civilian targets in the West have ramped up proportionately with their continued battlefield losses in Iraq.

It's terrible that such things happen in the first place, but the frequency of these attacks is growing alarmingly. This really isn't an era of "two armies from two well-established political states with clearly defined territory" anymore. Conflict is occurring when individual people who blend in with citizens suddenly attack other civilians. No more trenches, no more warships, no more combat in the sky, it's all happening in major population centers now. Nations' security and military forces aren't designed to handle this kind of conflict, it's something we've hardly ever seen until the past couple decades. But we can't let this continue. Not to average people, people with lives, goals, aspirations, family and loved ones.

Sickening doesn't even begin to describe the minds of these attackers.

80 people confirmed dead, driver was killed at the wheel.

My prayers with all the family's of the dead, and to France. This is just purely and absolutely horrid, and I hope the murderer burns in hell.

Have no words for this anymore, I go to France often, great place, great people. Stay strong.

France just can't catch a break these days.

The hell is wrong with these terrorists?

I didn't hear about this attack until I went out shopping this morning and saw the newspaper headlines. I am appalled.

France is a soft target because they have a fairly large population of ex-Algerian muslims who are suffering the typical effects of second generation discrimination so are more easily radicalised. Also, France has land borders with six or seven other nations, two of which are partly French speaking and make good bases for terrorist cells to operate outside the direct view of French security services.

I don't know how to deal with the situation or how to deal with Daesh in the middle east. I think it is a conflict of cultures and ideas that will take decades to resolve. I mean I don't think it will work to just try and kill the Daesh leaders. It is too easy with modern weapons to pull off this kind of sudden brutal mass killing. You don't need a lot of logistical support. As long as there are some people willing to promote and fund such actions, and some people will to carry them out, it will happen again.

The Orlando attack was prompted more by self-hatred of the man's repressed homosexuality than any terrorist motive, BTW. Not to lessen the impact on the victims.

Another sad day where fear and hatred of a few causes carnage on the innocent who are just trying to enjoy the life they have been given.

 Kilkrazy wrote:
I didn't hear about this attack until I went out shopping this morning and saw the newspaper headlines. I am appalled.

France is a soft target because they have a fairly large population of ex-Algerian muslims who are suffering the typical effects of second generation discrimination so are more easily radicalised. Also, France has land borders with six or seven other nations, two of which are partly French speaking and make good bases for terrorist cells to operate outside the direct view of French security services.

I don't know how to deal with the situation or how to deal with Daesh in the middle east. I think it is a conflict of cultures and ideas that will take decades to resolve. I mean I don't think it will work to just try and kill the Daesh leaders. It is too easy with modern weapons to pull off this kind of sudden brutal mass killing. You don't need a lot of logistical support. As long as there are some people willing to promote and fund such actions, and some people will to carry them out, it will happen again.

The Orlando attack was prompted more by self-hatred of the man's repressed homosexuality than any terrorist motive, BTW. Not to lessen the impact on the victims.

actually for this type of issue, you make sure local populace is having needs met. That includes not discriminating. Integrate normal regular citizens. That helps prevent them from being swayed to the "dark side" if you will. Then you find the people doing the recruiting, planning, and logistical support, and you kill them. don't talk to them, don't understand them, you kill them. Preferably family too, but thats debateable.

I am for what was said earlier. There needs to be decisice, planned, and deliberate action.


France, I am truly saddened by your losses. Families can never know the pain of experienceing this, until they do. I hope that you find solace in each other, and your fellow humans and frenchmen and women. Please stand up, lick your wounds, and come back out stronger. À Tout le Monde

It's honestly becoming scary. I start to become increasingly worried about my own safety.

 Kilkrazy wrote:


The Orlando attack was prompted more by self-hatred of the man's repressed homosexuality than any terrorist motive, BTW. Not to lessen the impact on the victims.

That is less than proven. In fact, the FBI came out and stated there was nothing pointing them to that as a motive at this point.

 LethalShade wrote:
It's honestly becoming scary. I start to become increasingly worried about my own safety.

Sadly that means their campaign is working :(

 Mr Morden wrote:

 LethalShade wrote:
It's honestly becoming scary. I start to become increasingly worried about my own safety.

Sadly that means their campaign is working :(

I'm of the paranoid kind anyway. Tried not to be scared after Charlie Hebdo and the Bataclan, but this is a bit too much.

copy error

 LethalShade wrote:

 Mr Morden wrote:

 LethalShade wrote:
It's honestly becoming scary. I start to become increasingly worried about my own safety.

Sadly that means their campaign is working :(

I'm of the paranoid kind anyway. Tried not to be scared after Charlie Hebdo and the Bataclan, but this is a bit too much.

I don't know the stats but I assume we are all still much more likely to die of natural causes or accidents than terrorism? There is very little we, individually can do about any of these currently.

 redleger wrote:

 Kilkrazy wrote:
I didn't hear about this attack until I went out shopping this morning and saw the newspaper headlines. I am appalled.

France is a soft target because they have a fairly large population of ex-Algerian muslims who are suffering the typical effects of second generation discrimination so are more easily radicalised. Also, France has land borders with six or seven other nations, two of which are partly French speaking and make good bases for terrorist cells to operate outside the direct view of French security services.

I don't know how to deal with the situation or how to deal with Daesh in the middle east. I think it is a conflict of cultures and ideas that will take decades to resolve. I mean I don't think it will work to just try and kill the Daesh leaders. It is too easy with modern weapons to pull off this kind of sudden brutal mass killing. You don't need a lot of logistical support. As long as there are some people willing to promote and fund such actions, and some people will to carry them out, it will happen again.

The Orlando attack was prompted more by self-hatred of the man's repressed homosexuality than any terrorist motive, BTW. Not to lessen the impact on the victims.

actually for this type of issue, you make sure local populace is having needs met. That includes not discriminating. Integrate normal regular citizens. That helps prevent them from being swayed to the "dark side" if you will. Then you find the people doing the recruiting, planning, and logistical support, and you kill them. don't talk to them, don't understand them, you kill them. Preferably family too, but thats debateable.

I am for what was said earlier. There needs to be decisice, planned, and deliberate action.


France, I am truly saddened by your losses. Families can never know the pain of experienceing this, until they do. I hope that you find solace in each other, and your fellow humans and frenchmen and women. Please stand up, lick your wounds, and come back out stronger. À Tout le Monde

There is more to it then discrimination alone. Middle Eastern groups and countries are actively undermining and in some cases reversing integration of (second generation) immigrants to gain influence over these people for economic and domestic political motives and by doing so increase tensions in Europe. The internet and satellite TV make it much harder for immigrants to cut ties with their (parents) former countries.

 CptJake wrote:

 Kilkrazy wrote:


The Orlando attack was prompted more by self-hatred of the man's repressed homosexuality than any terrorist motive, BTW. Not to lessen the impact on the victims.

That is less than proven. In fact, the FBI came out and stated there was nothing pointing them to that as a motive at this point.

But a significant possibility as the attack was deliberately targeted against the club which he had previously been too, it was a discriminatory attack. He chose to specifically to attack this location. The attack in France is different as it indiscriminately killed people, regardless of age, faith, colour, creed, race etc. But both are equally horrifying

 Mr Morden wrote:

 LethalShade wrote:

 Mr Morden wrote:

 LethalShade wrote:
It's honestly becoming scary. I start to become increasingly worried about my own safety.

Sadly that means their campaign is working :(

I'm of the paranoid kind anyway. Tried not to be scared after Charlie Hebdo and the Bataclan, but this is a bit too much.

I don't know the stats but I assume we are all still much more likely to die of natural causes or accidents than terrorism? There is very little we, individually can do about any of these currently.

Of course I'll probably not die to an attack. But it might escalate in the next years.

I'm so utterly enraged and dismayed. That's three times now in the past year and a half in France alone.

I won't say what I really want to say though. I like here and I want to remain here.

 Mr Morden wrote:

 LethalShade wrote:

 Mr Morden wrote:

 LethalShade wrote:
It's honestly becoming scary. I start to become increasingly worried about my own safety.

Sadly that means their campaign is working :(

I'm of the paranoid kind anyway. Tried not to be scared after Charlie Hebdo and the Bataclan, but this is a bit too much.

I don't know the stats but I assume we are all still much more likely to die of natural causes or accidents than terrorism? There is very little we, individually can do about any of these currently.

Yes, deaths/serious injuries in cars are almost certainly likely to be more significant over a period of time. Similar to a plane accident these events cause mass casualties but other issues cause greater numbers of deaths overall (even down to air pollution) but they are less shocking.

Unfortunately it appears we are moving to a time when such acts are becoming more common place. There were similar issues in the UK when the IRA were active and I guess the same advice still applies:- Don't stand near bins, don't stand in crowds, know your exits, be aware of your surroundings. You can take reasonable precautions to keep yourself as safe as possible without impacting on your life too much.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Antario wrote:

There is more to it then discrimination alone. Middle Eastern groups and countries are actively undermining and in some cases reversing integration of (second generation) immigrants to gain influence over these people for economic and domestic political motives and by doing so increase tensions in Europe. The internet and satellite TV make it much harder for immigrants to cut ties with their (parents) former countries.

There's never a simple answer. It's lack of a desire for integration by all sides, inequalities in pay/justice, intolerance and in some cases education - it breeds frustration with systems that favours the few over the many. That frustration can then be manipulated by populists with simple messages that although may contain a kernel of truth are distorted beyond the facts into 'black and white' solutions. This generates anger in a community to a point some believe that only aggressive action is a solution.

Seems like it was only a matter of time before some terrorists found a way to make use of heavy vehicles to cause carnage. The death toll is immense, especially in relation to the simplicity of the "tools" used - a perfectly legal, rental truck. I hope this won't set a precedent for other attacks like this in crowded areas - if this happens again, there will be a big discussion about when and how big, public events will be safe and what might be cancelled due to the risks. And then, the terrorists will have won again, in a way.

Whirlwind wrote:

 CptJake wrote:

 Kilkrazy wrote:


The Orlando attack was prompted more by self-hatred of the man's repressed homosexuality than any terrorist motive, BTW. Not to lessen the impact on the victims.

That is less than proven. In fact, the FBI came out and stated there was nothing pointing them to that as a motive at this point.

But a significant possibility as the attack was deliberately targeted against the club which he had previously been too, it was a discriminatory attack. He chose to specifically to attack this location. The attack in France is different as it indiscriminately killed people, regardless of age, faith, colour, creed, race etc. But both are equally horrifying

I disagree, the target in Frances was not indiscriminate at all, just as the attack on the Boston Marathon was not. It was the event, in this case the Bastille Day celebration, that was the target.

And again, the FBI says 'nope, not due to homosexuality, we can't find any indicators it was' has more credence than someone like you with no knowledge of the evidence the FBI has found.

Since the shooting at an Orlando nightclub last week that left 49 people dead, reports have emerged that gunman Omar Mateen frequented the gay club, used gay dating apps and had gay lovers.

But the FBI has found no evidence so far to support claims by those who say Mateen had gay lovers or communicated on gay dating apps, several law enforcement officials said.

http://www.latimes.com/nation/la-na-orlando-gay-fbi-20160623-snap-story.html

So you can argue theories all day, the evidence does not exist to back them up.

Hy heart goes out to France and those affected.

I am curious as to why they are being targeted so heavily. I feel there is some subtle strategy or manipulation I am not seeing.

Usually has less to do with overarching strategy and more with ease of operation. That is why terrorists tend to strike civilian targets, for example, and not heavily guarded fortifications. Public events and celebrations make ideal targets because the number of people both makes for more human targets and less attention to any given individual. Events also routinely have large trucks for supplies, setup, etc. so a heavy vehicle doesn't immediately stand out.

A few Moderate Muslims on scene flashing the V for victory.

https://sendvid.com/o8nho6o0

 Witzkatz wrote:
Seems like it was only a matter of time before some terrorists found a way to make use of heavy vehicles to cause carnage.

Seems to mimic recent Hamas attacks with vehicles, but DaIsh being who they are, upped the target and attack mechanism a bit.

One example: http://www.jpost.com/Arab-Israeli-Conflict/Terrorist-who-ran-down-infant-wounded-10-others-in-capital-affiliated-with-Hamas-437427

Not the only one, they've used this several times recently.

 CptJake wrote:
But the FBI has found no evidence so far to support claims by those who say Mateen had gay lovers or communicated on gay dating apps, several law enforcement officials said.
http://www.latimes.com/nation/la-na-orlando-gay-fbi-20160623-snap-story.html

So you can argue theories all day, the evidence does not exist to back them up.

That same article also says the FBI found no direct links to ISIL, either. The FBI officially has no idea whatsoever why he did what he did. Seems about right for the FBI.

 Ouze wrote:

 CptJake wrote:
But the FBI has found no evidence so far to support claims by those who say Mateen had gay lovers or communicated on gay dating apps, several law enforcement officials said.
http://www.latimes.com/nation/la-na-orlando-gay-fbi-20160623-snap-story.html

So you can argue theories all day, the evidence does not exist to back them up.

That same article also says the FBI found no direct links to ISIL, either. The FBI officially has no idea whatsoever why he did what he did. Seems about right for the FBI.

There will almost never be direct ties to DaIsh in US attacks, at least not in the near future. They will be 'inspired by' and executed by self/internet radicalized folks. Nothing new or surprising there to be honest.

When the perp goes out of his way to declare his loyalty during the attack, as Dabiq and other DaIsh propaganda sources ask these 'lone wolves' to do, well, sometimes that just may be an indicator. Just as lack of gay dating apps and gay lovers is an indicator.

 Ouze wrote:

 CptJake wrote:
But the FBI has found no evidence so far to support claims by those who say Mateen had gay lovers or communicated on gay dating apps, several law enforcement officials said.

http://www.latimes.com/nation/la-na-orlando-gay-fbi-20160623-snap-story.html

So you can argue theories all day, the evidence does not exist to back them up.

That same article also says the FBI found no direct links to ISIL, either. The FBI officially has no idea whatsoever why he did what he did.

Well... other than the shooter actually calling into local 911station and saying 'My name is I pledge of allegiance to Abu Bakr al-Baghdadi of the Islamic State..'

But, yeah, we have no fething clue... the reasons might as well be [OMITTED].

 jmurph wrote:
Usually has less to do with overarching strategy and more with ease of operation. That is why terrorists tend to strike civilian targets, for example, and not heavily guarded fortifications. Public events and celebrations make ideal targets because the number of people both makes for more human targets and less attention to any given individual. Events also routinely have large trucks for supplies, setup, etc. so a heavy vehicle doesn't immediately stand out.

Thanks for explaining the definition of terrorism. My question was about why FRANCE SPECIFICALLY is being targted so heavily compared to say the US or Germany or Britain.

 NuggzTheNinja wrote:
A few Moderate Muslims on scene flashing the V for victory.

https://sendvid.com/o8nho6o0

Says it all really.

 whembly wrote:

 Ouze wrote:

 CptJake wrote:
But the FBI has found no evidence so far to support claims by those who say Mateen had gay lovers or communicated on gay dating apps, several law enforcement officials said.

http://www.latimes.com/nation/la-na-orlando-gay-fbi-20160623-snap-story.html

So you can argue theories all day, the evidence does not exist to back them up.

That same article also says the FBI found no direct links to ISIL, either. The FBI officially has no idea whatsoever why he did what he did.

Well... other than the shooter actually calling into local 911station and saying 'My name is I pledge of allegiance to Abu Bakr al-Baghdadi of the Islamic State..'

But, yeah, we have no fething clue... the reasons might as well be [OMITTED].

Maybe he was a hardcore ISIL person and this was actually an attack driven by long simmering, self radicalized islam (which the FBI didn't find). Maybe he was gay and repressed, like his ex wife and dozens of people said (which the FBI didn't find). Maybe it's a little of both, and the FBI - which, in every current discussion of Hillary Clinton is judged to be unable to pour water out of a boot if instructions were printed on the heel - didn't find a burner cell phone he tossed, or doesn't realize that if you delete snapchat or grindr or what have you, it's gone (the FBI didn't even check social media accounts until nearly 2014, ffs).

Ultimately I guess it doesn't really matter, but I don't think there is really proof positive for anything. He's dead.

 SickSix wrote:

 jmurph wrote:
Usually has less to do with overarching strategy and more with ease of operation. That is why terrorists tend to strike civilian targets, for example, and not heavily guarded fortifications. Public events and celebrations make ideal targets because the number of people both makes for more human targets and less attention to any given individual. Events also routinely have large trucks for supplies, setup, etc. so a heavy vehicle doesn't immediately stand out.

Thanks for explaining the definition of terrorism. My question was about why FRANCE SPECIFICALLY is being targted so heavily compared to say the US or Germany or Britain.

UK has a very high security level. We may seem more passive but security is solid.
France has massive land borders and UK has the channel. You gave to pass ID checks to enter...
France is far easier to infiltrate..

 SickSix wrote:
Thanks for explaining the definition of terrorism. My question was about why FRANCE SPECIFICALLY is being targted so heavily compared to say the US or Germany or Britain.

One idea from earlier in the thread:

 Kilkrazy wrote:
France is a soft target because they have a fairly large population of ex-Algerian muslims who are suffering the typical effects of second generation discrimination so are more easily radicalised. Also, France has land borders with six or seven other nations, two of which are partly French speaking and make good bases for terrorist cells to operate outside the direct view of French security services.s.

 SickSix wrote:

 jmurph wrote:
Usually has less to do with overarching strategy and more with ease of operation. That is why terrorists tend to strike civilian targets, for example, and not heavily guarded fortifications. Public events and celebrations make ideal targets because the number of people both makes for more human targets and less attention to any given individual. Events also routinely have large trucks for supplies, setup, etc. so a heavy vehicle doesn't immediately stand out.

Thanks for explaining the definition of terrorism. My question was about why FRANCE SPECIFICALLY is being targted so heavily compared to say the US or Germany or Britain.

I blame Simon De Montfort.

Going on first page on Motty question. I think IIRC that one of the attackers in the previous attacks (think the satire news site) was a Refugee of some sort.
Going to throw out the France cause a huge stink in the Muslim world when a law was created to prevent the wearing of Burqa's.

 SickSix wrote:

 jmurph wrote:
Usually has less to do with overarching strategy and more with ease of operation. That is why terrorists tend to strike civilian targets, for example, and not heavily guarded fortifications. Public events and celebrations make ideal targets because the number of people both makes for more human targets and less attention to any given individual. Events also routinely have large trucks for supplies, setup, etc. so a heavy vehicle doesn't immediately stand out.

Thanks for explaining the definition of terrorism. My question was about why FRANCE SPECIFICALLY is being targted so heavily compared to say the US or Germany or Britain.

France has policies about 'integrating into french culture' which basically targets and discriminates against anyone who wants to maintain their own distinct culture.

In the US at least, we are pretty accepting of people keeping culture and integrating those cultures into our US culture. We don't see Chinatown or Little Italy as a threat against our sovereign nation or destroying the US. You can be devout Christian, Jewish or Muslim, maintain your community and still be accepted (mostly) across society with all your rights intact. No forced 'wear our clothes, speak our language, practice our religions or hide yours from public spaces' like what seems to be happening in France.

 Ouze wrote:

 whembly wrote:

 Ouze wrote:

 CptJake wrote:
But the FBI has found no evidence so far to support claims by those who say Mateen had gay lovers or communicated on gay dating apps, several law enforcement officials said.

http://www.latimes.com/nation/la-na-orlando-gay-fbi-20160623-snap-story.html

So you can argue theories all day, the evidence does not exist to back them up.

That same article also says the FBI found no direct links to ISIL, either. The FBI officially has no idea whatsoever why he did what he did.

Well... other than the shooter actually calling into local 911station and saying 'My name is I pledge of allegiance to Abu Bakr al-Baghdadi of the Islamic State..'

But, yeah, we have no fething clue... the reasons might as well be [OMITTED].

Maybe he was a hardcore ISIL person and this was actually an attack driven by long simmering, self radicalized islam (which the FBI didn't find). Maybe he was gay and repressed, like his ex wife and dozens of people said (which the FBI didn't find). Maybe it's a little of both, and the FBI - which, in every current discussion of Hillary Clinton is judged to be unable to pour water out of a boot if instructions were printed on the heel - didn't find a burner cell phone he tossed, or doesn't realize that if you delete snapchat or grindr or what have you, it's gone (the FBI didn't even check social media accounts until nearly 2014, ffs).

Ultimately I guess it doesn't really matter, but I don't think there is really proof positive for anything. He's dead.

Ooooooooooo... I re-read my reply to you and I came off unintentionally snarky. Sorry man.

Right, the FBI couldn't find the holy grail distinctly proving Mateen's motives, which can be difficult since they can't interview the dead perp, combined with an "walking on eggshell environment" around the idea of dealing with Islamic Terrorism.

However, when individuals/groups proclaim allegience to a terrorist group and act in their name... sometimes, you just have to take their word for it.

Having said that, what is it going to take for the West to "deal" with the Daesh/ISIS? And I mean, dealing them in the same manner that Rome 'Salted the Earth' against the Carthaginians?

 whembly wrote:
Having said that, what is it going to take for the West to "deal" with the Daesh/ISIS? And I mean, dealing them in the same manner that Rome 'Salted the Earth' against the Carthaginians?

Overcoming 2,162 years of social norms, I guess, as well as eradicating all technology that makes it possible to communicate the undesirable ideology outside of horse riding distance.

Sorry to piss on a good

 Ouze wrote:

 whembly wrote:
Having said that, what is it going to take for the West to "deal" with the Daesh/ISIS? And I mean, dealing them in the same manner that Rome 'Salted the Earth' against the Carthaginians?

Overcoming 2,162 years of social norms, I guess, as well as eradicating all technology that makes it possible to communicate the undesirable ideology outside of horse riding distance.

Sorry to piss on a good

So... you're saying there's some redeeming qualities that these people have, that deserves some legitimacy?

 whembly wrote:
Having said that, what is it going to take for the West to "deal" with the Daesh/ISIS? And I mean, dealing them in the same manner that Rome 'Salted the Earth' against the Carthaginians?

We (or our current leaders at least) don't have the balls to do what needs to be done to deal with them.

Facebook threw up blocks after this attack to prevent the spread of propaganda.
Seems the law suit that hit them recently about material support to a terrorist organization finally got dawn on them

 whembly wrote:
So... you're saying there's some redeeming qualities that these people have, that deserves some legitimacy?

No, but attempting to annihilate a population to eradicate an ideology via violence in 2016 is sort of a crazyperson idea, even just considering the pragmatic, practical considerations and not the whole moral concept of "we need to murder a ton of innocent people to bring justice to these people who are murdering a ton of innocent people".

 Future War Cultist wrote:
[We (or at least our current leaders at least) don't have the balls to do what needs to be done to deal with them.

And what specifically should we do? What exactly is it that we are balking at that would totally work if we weren't such wusses?

 Jihadin wrote:
Facebook threw up blocks after this attack to prevent the spread of propaganda.
Seems the law suit that hit them recently about material support to a terrorist organization finally got dawn on them

I think that lawsuit is probably a loser. The safe harbor provisions are reasonable and will cover them.

 Ouze wrote:

 whembly wrote:
So... you're saying there's some redeeming qualities that these people have, that deserves some legitimacy?

No, but attempting to annihilate a population to eradicate an ideology via violence in 2016 is sort of a crazyperson idea, even just considering the pragmatic, practical considerations and not the whole moral concept of "we need to murder a ton of innocent people to bring justice to these people who are murdering a ton of innocent people".

Again... what is it going to take to this to stop? I think reasonable people on this planet would want to prevent these sorts of attacks...

@ Ouze

We should be attacking ISIS at the source. And that source is Saudi Arabia.

 whembly wrote:

 Ouze wrote:

 whembly wrote:
So... you're saying there's some redeeming qualities that these people have, that deserves some legitimacy?

No, but attempting to annihilate a population to eradicate an ideology via violence in 2016 is sort of a crazyperson idea, even just considering the pragmatic, practical considerations and not the whole moral concept of "we need to murder a ton of innocent people to bring justice to these people who are murdering a ton of innocent people".

Again... what is it going to take to this to stop?

A comprehensive process of radical reformation, modernisation and secularisation of Islamic Theology and Islamic countries across the world, just like the process Christianity's was forced to undergo (and is still undergoing in some places).

Oh, and naturally we need to stop adding fuel to the fire. No more illegal, poorly planned and futile wars like Iraq that leave behind millions dead, a bitter hated of the West and power vacuums that can be eploited by fundamentalists jihadists.

 Shadow Captain Edithae wrote:

 whembly wrote:

 Ouze wrote:

 whembly wrote:
So... you're saying there's some redeeming qualities that these people have, that deserves some legitimacy?

No, but attempting to annihilate a population to eradicate an ideology via violence in 2016 is sort of a crazyperson idea, even just considering the pragmatic, practical considerations and not the whole moral concept of "we need to murder a ton of innocent people to bring justice to these people who are murdering a ton of innocent people".

Again... what is it going to take to this to stop?

A comprehensive process of radical reformation, modernisation and secularisation of Islamic Theology and Islamic countries across the world.

I agree with that... that's going have to come within the "Islamic Theology and Islamic countries" to reform itself. Which, would be a multi-generational endeavour.

Having said that... what about the "now"?

 SickSix wrote:

 jmurph wrote:
Usually has less to do with overarching strategy and more with ease of operation. That is why terrorists tend to strike civilian targets, for example, and not heavily guarded fortifications. Public events and celebrations make ideal targets because the number of people both makes for more human targets and less attention to any given individual. Events also routinely have large trucks for supplies, setup, etc. so a heavy vehicle doesn't immediately stand out.

Thanks for explaining the definition of terrorism. My question was about why FRANCE SPECIFICALLY is being targted so heavily compared to say the US or Germany or Britain.

I suspect it's down to cultural ties. ISIS has been very active in the Arab spring and as such has stronger appeal with radicals within the Magreb community in France and Belgium. There have been radicals in the UK with a Pakistani background but based on the 2005 attacks are more likely to be affiliated with Al-Qaeda. Germany so far has far fewer problems with attacks given most of it's Muslim population is from Turkey which is a NATO country and the main radicals elements are either Turkish nationalists or Kurdish rebels, both of which are not exactly fond of ISIS.

 Future War Cultist wrote:
@ Ouze

We should be attacking ISIS at the source. And that source is Saudi Arabia.

We should be careful to avoid tunnel vision on ISIS - Islamic terrorism has been happening for over a thousand years. While the Saudis are definitely responsible for bankrolling the lion's share of Islamic terror, it's Islam (as a political movement) that is responsible for these attacks. Before ISIS it was AQAP. Before ISIS it was AQ. Hezbollah (Shia - totally different beliefs) murdered hundreds of US Marines in Beirut - Hezbollah has Iranian origins, and Iranians don't like Saudis.

We are dealing with a political movement. At its most extreme, it functions as a death cult. In less extreme cases, this movement uses demographics as a weapon and functions within the boundaries of Western laws. In every case, its fundamental characteristics are wholly incompatible with Western ideals.

I'm surprised there haven't been more attacks in developed countries given the mass gatherings at festivals and sporting events. Unfortunately it's hard to engage in any offensive against terrorists, so this will persist long after all of us are dead. I'm glad I don't live in a major population center.

@ NuggzTheNinja

I exalted you for that. At the end of the day it's root cause is Islam, but no one currently in power has the guts to tell it like it is.

 Future War Cultist wrote:
At the end of the day it's root cause is Islam, but no one currently in power has the guts to tell it like it is.

Perhaps they're too busy dropping bombs on them while inexplicably also treating them like Voldemort.

 Future War Cultist wrote:
@ NuggzTheNinja

I exalted you for that. At the end of the day it's root cause is Islam, but no one currently in power has the guts to tell it like it is.

The issue has always been with the political structure within Islam. After Muhammad's death, it split... Islam for the hardcore who only follow those destined to rule and preach via bloodline... and the 'common mans' Islam which can be practiced and taught by anyone and spread and is relatively benign.

Just like Christian Fundamentalist, a vast majority of people who practice it are not hatemongers and violent people following dogma to extremes... But there are those who do often through sects which are minorities in nature but publicly visible. We don't 'fear' the christian fundamentalists in the US because they have a seat of power in the US so therefor are not focused against our way of life. If that changed for a second, like via legislation, you would see US christian fundamentalists being martyrs all over the US at the implied direction of religious leaders.

So Ouze what exactly is 'innocent' about ISIS?

You use the typical hyperbole of equating using overwhelming force to mass murder of innocents.

So what is your idea? Love and hugs and for western civilization to continue to degrade itself to be more accomadating to Islam?

Do you really believe it's possible to use "overwhelming force" without killing innocent people, and a lot of them? At least 200,000 civilians died in Iraq, and that was much less force then you guys seem to be suggesting.

I don't have an answer for solving the ISIL problem, or dangerous religious fundamentalism. I simply realize that large scale military force is as unworkable and impractical as it is simplistic - any functional solution would require decades of multi-national concerted effort.

 Future War Cultist wrote:
@ NuggzTheNinja

I exalted you for that. At the end of the day it's root cause is Islam, but no one currently in power has the guts to tell it like it is.

To bad you are int eh UK, because I have just the American political candidate for you!

* * * *
I am sorry for the attack and the victims.

At this point the link to ISIS is only that they supported it on Twitter. This looks like another case of a "Lone Wolf" style of attack that ISIS strategy has been promoting since about 2014. They are not even actual ISIS agents doing most of the dirty work, but self-radicalized muslims.

There is no way to stop Lone Wolf attacks, only endure them. Improved law enforcement and security screening will not protect you. Giving up rights will not protect you. Attacking the Middle-east will not protect you.

The goal of the attacks is to radicalize us and trick the West into another brutal military war in the Middle-east similar to the Soviet Experience in Afghanistan/America in Iraq. ISIS ideology wants this very outcome for they see it prophesied that they will win and the Caliphate will be established forever..... or some BS like that.

The best resistance it to keep living your life and not become radicalized yourself and vote accordingly.

 Future War Cultist wrote:

 NuggzTheNinja wrote:
A few Moderate Muslims on scene flashing the V for victory.

https://sendvid.com/o8nho6o0

Says it all really.

Or it could be Peace, which is the other equally valid and commonly used meaning of that symbol.

 A Town Called Malus wrote:

 Future War Cultist wrote:

 NuggzTheNinja wrote:
A few Moderate Muslims on scene flashing the V for victory.

https://sendvid.com/o8nho6o0

Says it all really.

Or it could be Peace, which is the other meaning of that symbol.

Which is it? I need to draw a generalization about 1.6 billion people based upon that one guy.

 SickSix wrote:
So Ouze what exactly is 'innocent' about ISIS?

You use the typical hyperbole of equating using overwhelming force to mass murder of innocents.

So what is your idea? Love and hugs and for western civilization to continue to degrade itself to be more accomadating to Islam?

The only way to "stop them" is to stop being human ourselves. That is a price none of us should be willing to pay.

 A Town Called Malus wrote:

 Future War Cultist wrote:

 NuggzTheNinja wrote:
A few Moderate Muslims on scene flashing the V for victory.

https://sendvid.com/o8nho6o0

Says it all really.

Or it could be Peace, which is the other meaning of that symbol.

Yeah, there is a difference on which side of your hand you are showing; it's really unclear from this short clip what that one guy meant by it, I think.

I checked. I was 'fingers first'. Is that peace or victory?

 Witzkatz wrote:

 A Town Called Malus wrote:

 Future War Cultist wrote:

 NuggzTheNinja wrote:
A few Moderate Muslims on scene flashing the V for victory.

https://sendvid.com/o8nho6o0

Says it all really.

Or it could be Peace, which is the other meaning of that symbol.

Yeah, there is a difference on which side of your hand you are showing; it's really unclear from this short clip what that one guy meant by it, I think.

Or just whether he was trying to annoy the camera person, as many people do. Or maybe he was playing pokemon go and was trying to put bunny ears on his Pikachu.

We may never know...

 Future War Cultist wrote:
I checked. I was 'fingers first'. Is that peace or victory?

They are the same thing. Google image search:

Victory hand sign
Peace hand sign

and the images are all the same.

REVERSE PEACE SIGN is 'feth you' in some places.

We'll never know then, but my instinct tells me the worst.

That they were standing around taking selfies before the blood was even dry should tell you which one was implied.

 Ouze wrote:

 whembly wrote:
So... you're saying there's some redeeming qualities that these people have, that deserves some legitimacy?

No, but attempting to annihilate a population to eradicate an ideology via violence in 2016 is sort of a crazyperson idea, even just considering the pragmatic, practical considerations and not the whole moral concept of "we need to murder a ton of innocent people to bring justice to these people who are murdering a ton of innocent people".

It's not that crazy when those same people would happily eradicate us all just for not following their ideology.

Believe me, if Obama and Hillary (if she gets elected) have their way and start bringing in more of those military-age male refugees from the Middle East, we're gonna start seeing more of these kind of attacks here in the US.

My condolences to all the families of victims in France. Truly a terrible thing.

 ZergSmasher wrote:

 Ouze wrote:

 whembly wrote:
So... you're saying there's some redeeming qualities that these people have, that deserves some legitimacy?

No, but attempting to annihilate a population to eradicate an ideology via violence in 2016 is sort of a crazyperson idea, even just considering the pragmatic, practical considerations and not the whole moral concept of "we need to murder a ton of innocent people to bring justice to these people who are murdering a ton of innocent people".

It's not that crazy when those same people would happily eradicate us all just for not following their ideology.

Believe me, if Obama and Hillary (if she gets elected) have their way and start bringing in more of those military-age male refugees from the Middle East, we're gonna start seeing more of these kind of attacks here in the US.

My condolences to all the families of victims in France. Truly a terrible thing.

You may kill the people but you will not kill the ideology, is the point that Ouze is making. All that stuff that they preach is all over the internet and in books and other literature. In the modern world you cannot defeat an ideology with bullets and bombs.

Dropbear Victim wrote:
That they were standing around taking selfies before the blood was even dry should tell you which one was implied.

They're also too 'excited' looking in my opinion. When gak like that happened here in the past people either walked around in a rage or a shocked daze of horror.

You may kill the people but you will not kill the ideology, is the point that Ouze is making.

Actually we've had several dictatorships in the past that were pretty adapt at killing the ideology by killing everyone involved. I am in no way advocating this, just pointing it out.
Ask the Aztecs, Dacians, and Koolats how their ideologies are doing...

I know some ways to fight back but they're utterly brutal. And mostly involve using their own beliefs against them.

@ Frazzled

That's true. I don't ever remember Saddam's Iraq having an Islamic problem.

 Frazzled wrote:

You may kill the people but you will not kill the ideology, is the point that Ouze is making.

Actually we've had several dictatorships in the past that were pretty adapt at killing the ideology by killing everyone involved. I am in no way advocating this, just pointing it out.
Ask the Aztecs, Dacians, and Koolats how their ideologies are doing...

As they all had internet access and the means to record and spread said Ideals..

 Future War Cultist wrote:
We'll never know then, but my instinct tells me the worst.

This tells us more about you then it does about the person in the clip.

 Easy E wrote:
This tells us more about you then it does about the person in the clip.

Don't give me that.

Killing them all does a pretty good job. Then we can fight the ideology after their dead. Which will be much easier.

 SickSix wrote:
Killing them all does a pretty good job. Then we can fight the ideology after their dead. Which will be much easier.

Unleashing an official campaign of genocide would cause far more problems than it could possibly solve and would legitimise attacks against the US and the West in general for far more groups than is currently happening. Thinking that "well, it's difficult to fight them directly as it is but if we killed them all..." is charitably described as incredibly stupid.

 SickSix wrote:
Killing them all does a pretty good job. Then we can fight the ideology after their dead. Which will be much easier.

How do you tell who needs to be killed and who doesn't?

 feeder wrote:

 SickSix wrote:
Killing them all does a pretty good job. Then we can fight the ideology after their dead. Which will be much easier.

How do you tell who needs to be killed and who doesn't?

If this goes the way the usual "kill 'em all" rhetoric goes then you don't bother trying to distinguish between legitimate targets and everyone else. You just drop enough explosives on the area to ensure nobody survives then brand them all as supporting ISIS afterwards as anyone who didn't support them wouldn't be there.

 NuggzTheNinja wrote:
A few Moderate Muslims on scene flashing the V for victory.

https://sendvid.com/o8nho6o0

You realize that you using these few guys as evidence that all Muslims are evil can go both ways right?

The incredibly stupid and shortsighted calls to "kill them all" in this thread by a minority of morons can be used by radicals over there to "prove" that all the West is trying to exterminate Islam.

Rosebuddy wrote:

 SickSix wrote:
Killing them all does a pretty good job. Then we can fight the ideology after their dead. Which will be much easier.

Unleashing an official campaign of genocide would cause far more problems than it could possibly solve and would legitimise attacks against the US and the West in general for far more groups than is currently happening. Thinking that "well, it's difficult to fight them directly as it is but if we killed them all..." is charitably described as incredibly stupid.

Ah I see you as well went to the Liberal School of hyperbole.

Genocide was never in the equation. Killing all ISIS memebers was. You guys are so predictable.

 SickSix wrote:

Rosebuddy wrote:

 SickSix wrote:
Killing them all does a pretty good job. Then we can fight the ideology after their dead. Which will be much easier.

Unleashing an official campaign of genocide would cause far more problems than it could possibly solve and would legitimise attacks against the US and the West in general for far more groups than is currently happening. Thinking that "well, it's difficult to fight them directly as it is but if we killed them all..." is charitably described as incredibly stupid.

Ah I see you as well went to the Liberal School of hyperbole.

Genocide was never in the equation. Killing all ISIS memebers was. You guys are so predictable.

How do you propose to identify and kill every ISIS member with absolutely no innocent casualties?

 A Town Called Malus wrote:

 SickSix wrote:

Rosebuddy wrote:

 SickSix wrote:
Killing them all does a pretty good job. Then we can fight the ideology after their dead. Which will be much easier.

Unleashing an official campaign of genocide would cause far more problems than it could possibly solve and would legitimise attacks against the US and the West in general for far more groups than is currently happening. Thinking that "well, it's difficult to fight them directly as it is but if we killed them all..." is charitably described as incredibly stupid.

Ah I see you as well went to the Liberal School of hyperbole.

Genocide was never in the equation. Killing all ISIS memebers was. You guys are so predictable.

How do you propose to identify and kill every ISIS member?

I'm not saying Sicksix is doing this, but generally speaking these calls to "glass em all" are less about actual, thought out solutions and more about participating in the internet rage boner circle jerk

... weren't you in my homeroom class at the Liberal School of Hyperbole?

 Ouze wrote:
... weren't you in my homeroom class at the Liberal School of Hyperbole?

I believe they ran against you in the election of class president, if I remember correctly.

Stories appearing now that the French government suppressed details about the Bataclan massacre that are revolting, victims were tortured in the most horrendous sexual ways with eyes and genitals being stabbed or cut off in men and women. Seems this is coming out now because some are fed up of hiding details after the attacks yesterday.

A Town Called Mallus wrote:

How do you propose to identify and kill every ISIS member with absolutely no innocent casualties?

Nice edit. You can minimize them fairly well with modern methods. No war is without innocent loss.

Ouze wrote:... weren't you in my homeroom class at the Liberal School of Hyperbole?

Probably was.

 Ouze wrote:
Do you really believe it's possible to use "overwhelming force" without killing innocent people, and a lot of them? At least 200,000 civilians died in Iraq, and that was much less force then you guys seem to be suggesting.

I don't have an answer for solving the ISIL problem, or dangerous religious fundamentalism. I simply realize that large scale military force is as unworkable and impractical as it is simplistic - any functional solution would require decades of multi-national concerted effort.

Many of those 200k were killed by AQI (and their associated allies) and by the Mahdi Army (and their associated allies). In fact, a lot of them died because we did not shut down the militias brutally and quickly enough and instead allowed them to grow and fester and imbed themselves within the population.

All we can do is react to the attacks.

Another successful peace mission by the Religion of Peace. Keep it up Islam, you are truly winning hearts and minds.

 SickSix wrote:

A Town Called Mallus wrote:

How do you propose to identify and kill every ISIS member with absolutely no innocent casualties?

Nice edit. You can minimize them fairly well with modern methods. No war is without innocent loss.

Look at the "success" that is Afghanistan to see how well modern methods work at eliminating the threat while minimizing casualties.

ISIS is supporting and suggesting attacks like this to lone-wolf type terrorists to bait the West into inappropiately violent responses, like another rash combat mission - because polarisation is what they want and need to recruit even more terrorists and strengthen their position at home. One of the old truths of warfare is to never give the enemy what he wants, so for that reason alone a military response should be critically evaluated in my eyes.

I'm all up for removing a few heads of the Hydra, so to speak, simply to disrupt their planning, their long-term strategies and cause internal power struggles. Pinpoint strikes by any means necessary on leaders and recruiters behind this are something that could be done, I think.

 Witzkatz wrote:
ISIS is supporting and suggesting attacks like this to lone-wolf type terrorists to bait the West into inappropiately violent responses, like another rash combat mission - because polarisation is what they want and need to recruit even more terrorists and strengthen their position at home. One of the old truths of warfare is to never give the enemy what he wants, so for that reason alone a military response should be critically evaluated in my eyes.

I'm all up for removing a few heads of the Hydra, so to speak, simply to disrupt their planning, their long-term strategies and cause internal power struggles. Pinpoint strikes by any means necessary on leaders and recruiters behind this are something that could be done, I think.

Quiet those facts, Liberal Scum! (tm) We're trying to have a good ol' Islamophobic circle jerk in here. Last guy to finish has to eat the cracker.

Actually, DaIsh gains recruits from having successful attacks, not from any western response, overdone or not. Study their propaganda and recruiting material.

 CptJake wrote:
Actually, DaIsh gains recruits from having successful attacks, not from any western response, overdone or not. Study their propaganda and recruiting material.

Recuits in the west, I agree. However, I'm pretty sure that those people living in or close to their territories in the middle east are more easily swayed to join them when a stealth bomber accidentally hits a few children along with the local milita leader. That's something more direct for the local populace to get angry about, I'd think - especially for those on the fence on whether or not ISIS is a good or a bad thing for the region. Because I'm pretty sure their propaganda machine on milking such collateral damage is running pretty smoothly by now.

 CptJake wrote:
Actually, DaIsh gains recruits from having successful attacks, not from any western response, overdone or not. Study their propaganda and recruiting material.

People become radicalised because someone 7,000 miles away shot up a night club, not because a drone blew up their mother?

That seems counter intuitive.

 CptJake wrote:
Actually, DaIsh gains recruits from having successful attacks, not from any western response, overdone or not. Study their propaganda and recruiting material.

The truth is we can't win either way with regards to hearts and minds. Either we do nothing which as you say encourages them, or we strike back, which also encourages them. Only the latter is at least an effort to stop them.

 Shadow Captain Edithae wrote:

 whembly wrote:

 Ouze wrote:

 whembly wrote:
So... you're saying there's some redeeming qualities that these people have, that deserves some legitimacy?

No, but attempting to annihilate a population to eradicate an ideology via violence in 2016 is sort of a crazyperson idea, even just considering the pragmatic, practical considerations and not the whole moral concept of "we need to murder a ton of innocent people to bring justice to these people who are murdering a ton of innocent people".

Again... what is it going to take to this to stop?

A comprehensive process of radical reformation, modernisation and secularisation of Islamic Theology and Islamic countries across the world, just like the process Christianity's was forced to undergo (and is still undergoing in some places).

Oh, and naturally we need to stop adding fuel to the fire. No more illegal, poorly planned and futile wars like Iraq that leave behind millions dead, a bitter hated of the West and power vacuums that can be eploited by fundamentalists jihadists.

Christianity was not forced to undergo anything. The liberalisation of christianity was a movement that came from within christianity itself after the development of a stable middle class during the later part of the Middle Ages, and it took a century of extreme religious violence and constant warfare before those more liberal values finally overcame the old fundamentalism.
So the answer to the question of what it is going to take for this to stop is the development of a stable middle class in the Middle East. This will have a moderating effect on the region's extremist religious and political ideologies. Ultimately the solution needs to come from within Islam itself, the West can do nothing here. The violence and destabilisation we see now may very well be the islamic equivelant of the European wars of religion in the 16th-17th centuries.

 Future War Cultist wrote:

 CptJake wrote:
Actually, DaIsh gains recruits from having successful attacks, not from any western response, overdone or not. Study their propaganda and recruiting material.

The truth is we can't win either way with regards to hearts and minds. Either we do nothing which as you say encourages them, or we strike back, which also encourages them. Only the latter is at least an effort to stop them.

An effort that accomplishes just as much as doing nothing that is. And probably it only makes it worse. In that case it is better to just do nothing and save ourselves a whole lot of wasted effort and money, as well as a lot of innocent lives in the Middle East.

 SickSix wrote:
Genocide was never in the equation. Killing all ISIS memebers was. You guys are so predictable.

Trying to kill every single member, supporter and sympathiser of IS would and could not be anything else than a genocide. It is not possible to cleanly single out The Bad Guys. They will have family members that mourn them, civilians that die alongside them and many other groups that decry the violence wielded by the US against massive populations. Even if it were to be defeated by military action, and there is plenty of that being done by multiple parties, it is the organisation that will have lost and many of the people in it will simply fade into the background or move to other groups with similar ideologies.

 feeder wrote:

 CptJake wrote:
Actually, DaIsh gains recruits from having successful attacks, not from any western response, overdone or not. Study their propaganda and recruiting material.

People become radicalised because someone 7,000 miles away shot up a night club, not because a drone blew up their mother?

That seems counter intuitive.

Only to those who haven't had to deal with Islamic terrorists before.

MOST recruiting videos and propaganda films are successful Islamic attacks. In Iraq they were almost exclusively successful IED attacks on US Forces, in Afghanistan the same but with a bit more SAF engagements.

ISIS uses victories against the Iraqi's, Kurds and such as recruitment tools. Believe it or not, showing people a bunch of dead ISIS fighters doesn't rally the troops so to speak. As far as showing videos of Airstrikes killing civilians? That has pretty much been the norm since the 60s. It really doesn't radicalize them anymore then usual.

 feeder wrote:

 CptJake wrote:
Actually, DaIsh gains recruits from having successful attacks, not from any western response, overdone or not. Study their propaganda and recruiting material.

People become radicalised because someone 7,000 miles away shot up a night club, not because a drone blew up their mother?

That seems counter intuitive.

Can you connect any recent lone wolfs directly to drone attacks?

Thats a big leap.

We fight them through methodical espionage, crime fighting, and intelligence/black ops stuff. Anything more is ineffective and plays into their goals.

In the meantime, we pretty much ignore them and keeping doing what we have been doing.

Choosing not to react is just as much an action as doing something.

Another ISIS twisted scheme.

This will sure to spur the far rights movements in Europe and islamophobia. The grand scheme is that the ISIS wants an absolute control over the entire Islamic world and every muslims or christian 'outcasts' originated from Arabia will be expulsed from Europe and elsewhere, with that the group will enthrall them. That's the first step of many.

Do not let the victims be a tool to the fascists to exert dominance here and there. Let this be the lessons of french 'laxxed' security system. before the incident the french lawmen were given a warning from German Intelligence unit and advised that the France should strenghten lawmen and/or counterterrorism measures. to the points of prevention.

 SickSix wrote:

 feeder wrote:

 CptJake wrote:
Actually, DaIsh gains recruits from having successful attacks, not from any western response, overdone or not. Study their propaganda and recruiting material.

People become radicalised because someone 7,000 miles away shot up a night club, not because a drone blew up their mother?

That seems counter intuitive.

Can you connect any recent lone wolfs directly to drone attacks?

Thats a big leap.

If I wanted to read any these sick bastard's manifestos, I'm sure they would claim "Western Terrorism" or some such as one of the reasons.

It seems a big leap to pretend that our collateral damage style attacks are accepted by those affected as just a part of waging war.

 Lone Cat wrote:
Another ISIS twisted scheme.

This will sure to spur the far rights movements in Europe and islamophobia. The grand scheme is that the ISIS wants an absolute control over the entire Islamic world and every muslims or christian 'outcasts' originated from Arabia will be expulsed from Europe and elsewhere, with that the group will enthrall them. That's the first step of many.

Do not let the victims be a tool to the fascists to exert dominance here and there. Let this be the lessons of french 'laxxed' security system. before the incident the french lawmen were given a warning from German Intelligence unit and advised that the France should strenghten lawmen and/or counterterrorism measures. to the points of prevention.

I agree with you partly, but the second part about the warning is utter bull. The french were already on high alert, they have suffered several significant terrorist attacks in the past year. They were already on a heightened state of alert, any higher and they would have had to cancel the event.

If you really want to stop Islamic terrorists it is relatively simple to plan but extremely hard to carry out.

1: FIRMLY Vet every immigrant from EVERY country, not just muslim dominated countries.
2: FORCE religious centers and buildings to make public ALL services and prayer meetings (things such as confession are obviously different and need not be made public)
3: Incorporate people into a country, do not let immigrants flock together for solidarity. There are places in the US and in france where if you don't speak a specific language you can't even communicate with the locals. If you speak only English you can not communicate with a majority in Miami (specific South Miami). If you go to parts of Texas you need to speak the mexican version of spanish otherwise again, you can't communicate. In France they have entire neighborhoods where Arabic is the dominant language. Cultural heritage is perfectly fine and can be encouraged, however, living that cultural exclusively in a different country will quickly breed problems. (Dutch terrorists hid in Muslim sections)
4: Israel has a very good policy in regards to terrorists and their families. If Muhammed commits a terrorist attack then his entire family is deported. Is this cruel? Yes, very much so. But maybe a fear of the repercussions for their family will keep some of these would be terrorists from going through with their attacks.

5: Above all else, Vigilance. Report anything you think is strange behavior.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 feeder wrote:

 SickSix wrote:

 feeder wrote:

 CptJake wrote:
Actually, DaIsh gains recruits from having successful attacks, not from any western response, overdone or not. Study their propaganda and recruiting material.

People become radicalised because someone 7,000 miles away shot up a night club, not because a drone blew up their mother?

That seems counter intuitive.

Can you connect any recent lone wolfs directly to drone attacks?

Thats a big leap.

If I wanted to read any these sick bastard's manifestos, I'm sure they would claim "Western Terrorism" or some such as one of the reasons.

It seems a big leap to pretend that our collateral damage style attacks are accepted by those affected as just a part of waging war.

Well, since their literally hasn't been peace in the middle east since the beginning of this century......

Your solutions contravene almost all of the first ten amendments of the US Constitution.

 Frazzled wrote:
Your solutions contravene almost all of the first ten amendments of the US Constitution.

Well since the US Seems perfectly ok with destroying the 2nd I didn't think they would mind me infringing on the 1st.

And actually, only #2 and #4 violate anything in the bill of rights. #2 violates the 1st Amendment ....to a degree, it actually only forces religions to make public their supposedly PUBLIC services and Prayer Meetings.

and #4 is a very clear and blatant violation of Due process and therefore the 5th and 14th? amendments.

SemperMortis wrote:

 Lone Cat wrote:
Another ISIS twisted scheme.

This will sure to spur the far rights movements in Europe and islamophobia. The grand scheme is that the ISIS wants an absolute control over the entire Islamic world and every muslims or christian 'outcasts' originated from Arabia will be expulsed from Europe and elsewhere, with that the group will enthrall them. That's the first step of many.

Do not let the victims be a tool to the fascists to exert dominance here and there. Let this be the lessons of french 'laxxed' security system. before the incident the french lawmen were given a warning from German Intelligence unit and advised that the France should strenghten lawmen and/or counterterrorism measures. to the points of prevention.

I agree with you partly, but the second part about the warning is utter bull. The french were already on high alert, they have suffered several significant terrorist attacks in the past year. They were already on a heightened state of alert, any higher and they would have had to cancel the event.

If you really want to stop Islamic terrorists it is relatively simple to plan but extremely hard to carry out.

1: FIRMLY Vet every immigrant from EVERY country, not just muslim dominated countries.
2: FORCE religious centers and buildings to make public ALL services and prayer meetings (things such as confession are obviously different and need not be made public)
3: Incorporate people into a country, do not let immigrants flock together for solidarity. There are places in the US and in france where if you don't speak a specific language you can't even communicate with the locals. If you speak only English you can not communicate with a majority in Miami (specific South Miami). If you go to parts of Texas you need to speak the mexican version of spanish otherwise again, you can't communicate. In France they have entire neighborhoods where Arabic is the dominant language. Cultural heritage is perfectly fine and can be encouraged, however, living that cultural exclusively in a different country will quickly breed problems. (Dutch terrorists hid in Muslim sections)
4: Israel has a very good policy in regards to terrorists and their families. If Muhammed commits a terrorist attack then his entire family is deported. Is this cruel? Yes, very much so. But maybe a fear of the repercussions for their family will keep some of these would be terrorists from going through with their attacks.

5: Above all else, Vigilance. Report anything you think is strange behavior.

You make McCarthy proud.
Be vigilant folks, your neigbour may just be a pinko commie sympathiser radical muslim terrorist. Report any suspicious behaviour to the House Un-American Activities Committee.
And none of this is going to stop islamic terrorism unfortenately. Point 3 does have some merit, but it would not be achievable in a free, democratic society. Nonetheless, governments could do more to prevent these neighbourhouds from turning into ghettos. Like what happened in the US with all the Little Italies and Chinatowns. Those neighbourhoods developed and integrated pretty well, right? Even if they were dominated by immigrants from a specific ethnic group.

Not a bad plan SemperMortis. Obviously it needs to be tweaked.

It is a problem when immigrants are allowed to not assimilate and firm their own quasi states within the state. Look at Michigan for an example. I believe it's Dearborn that muslims have taken over.

Border security. It's a joke in the US right now. The entire 'War on Terror' looks like a joke when you realize we never sealed our borders after 9-11.

Language. Immigrants should learn the language of the land, not the other way around. Our cops shouldn't have to be bilingual just to do their job.

If our borders were tight and immigrants assimilated, we wouldn't have to worry about terrorism.

 SickSix wrote:
Not a bad plan SemperMortis. Obviously it needs to be tweaked.

It is a problem when immigrants are allowed to not assimilate and firm their own quasi states within the state. Look at Michigan for an example. I believe it's Dearborn that muslims have taken over.

Border security. It's a joke in the US right now. The entire 'War on Terror' looks like a joke when you realize we never sealed our borders after 9-11.

Language. Immigrants should learn the language of the land, not the other way around. Our cops shouldn't have to be bilingual just to do their job.

If our borders were tight and immigrants assimilated, we wouldn't have to worry about terrorism.

With modern media and the internet, there is still lots of room for domestic terrorists that have been radicalized from online material and propaganda, though. No secure border in the world will help with that.

Completely closed borders are also basically impossible for economical reasons, I hope we can all agree on that.

 SickSix wrote:
Not a bad plan SemperMortis. Obviously it needs to be tweaked.

It is a problem when immigrants are allowed to not assimilate and firm their own quasi states within the state. Look at Michigan for an example. I believe it's Dearborn that muslims have taken over.

Border security. It's a joke in the US right now. The entire 'War on Terror' looks like a joke when you realize we never sealed our borders after 9-11.

Language. Immigrants should learn the language of the land, not the other way around. Our cops shouldn't have to be bilingual just to do their job.

If our borders were tight and immigrants assimilated, we wouldn't have to worry about terrorism.

I thought students of the School of Hyperbole were to be derided? Or is that only for Liberal Scum?

The only way to reduce terror attacks is stop destroying their infrastructure and let them have a stable, functioning society.

It's no accident that terrorists used to come from Palestine. Now they are from Iraq, Syria, Libya. It's as if bombs create terrorists or some such nonsense.

 Howard A Treesong wrote:
Stories appearing now that the French government suppressed details about the Bataclan massacre that are revolting, victims were tortured in the most horrendous sexual ways with eyes and genitals being stabbed or cut off in men and women. Seems this is coming out now because some are fed up of hiding details after the attacks yesterday.

I can't find a decent source on this? Only Fox News and the Daily Mail seem to be running with it. Prosecutors are saying that no knives were found at the scene.

 Easy E wrote:
We fight them through methodical espionage, crime fighting, and intelligence/black ops stuff. Anything more is ineffective and plays into their goals.

In the meantime, we pretty much ignore them and keeping doing what we have been doing.

Choosing not to react is just as much an action as doing something.

I have to call bull on that. When I had trouble in school from these two gakkers, I was told to just ignore them. But this only encouraged them. You want to know how I eventually stopped them? I busted the mouthier of the two fethers face open.

Now I'm not saying that we should go into the Middle East. That's not going to work. What I am saying though is that we shouldn't lie back and take it either.

 Howard A Treesong wrote:
Stories appearing now that the French government suppressed details about the Bataclan massacre that are revolting, victims were tortured in the most horrendous sexual ways with eyes and genitals being stabbed or cut off in men and women. Seems this is coming out now because some are fed up of hiding details after the attacks yesterday.

What ?!

Got any source backing it up ?

Witzkatz wrote:

Completely closed borders are also basically impossible for economical reasons, I hope we can all agree on that.

We vociferously disagree.

Israel doesn't typically deport the families - they will sometimes bulldoze the house. Of course, then Hamas declares the terrorist a martyr and builds them an even bigger house so, you know, it doesn't exactly discourage that kind of behavior.

Physical separation is the only solution.

 Howard A Treesong wrote:
Stories appearing now that the French government suppressed details about the Bataclan massacre that are revolting, victims were tortured in the most horrendous sexual ways with eyes and genitals being stabbed or cut off in men and women. Seems this is coming out now because some are fed up of hiding details after the attacks yesterday.

That honestly does not surprise me, after the German authorities tried to censor the truth of the Cologne new year attacks.

(Speaking of which, I recently learned that one of the victims of said attacks actually fell pregnant and had an abortion out of concern that it could have been the attacker's. I knew the attacks were bad, but full blown penetrative sexual intercourse rape??).

 LethalShade wrote:

 Howard A Treesong wrote:
Stories appearing now that the French government suppressed details about the Bataclan massacre that are revolting, victims were tortured in the most horrendous sexual ways with eyes and genitals being stabbed or cut off in men and women. Seems this is coming out now because some are fed up of hiding details after the attacks yesterday.

What ?!

Got any source backing it up ?

http://www.foxnews.com/world/2016/07/15/french-lawmakers-told-bataclan-terrorists-tortured-disemboweled-victims.html

 NuggzTheNinja wrote:

 LethalShade wrote:

 Howard A Treesong wrote:
Stories appearing now that the French government suppressed details about the Bataclan massacre that are revolting, victims were tortured in the most horrendous sexual ways with eyes and genitals being stabbed or cut off in men and women. Seems this is coming out now because some are fed up of hiding details after the attacks yesterday.

What ?!

Got any source backing it up ?

http://www.foxnews.com/world/2016/07/15/french-lawmakers-told-bataclan-terrorists-tortured-disemboweled-victims.html

Got any real sources? heat street, daily mail and infowars are not sources.

 jhe90 wrote:
Not again.... France does not deserve this. No one does.

Dakka does not let me type words to sum up my opinion of the attacker

We are at war. Our cities are a frontline.

But no one wants to fight the enemy, name the enemy, do anything about that except lie back and accept terrorism will just be a thing in the west.

 Frazzled wrote:

Witzkatz wrote:

Completely closed borders are also basically impossible for economical reasons, I hope we can all agree on that.

We vociferously disagree.

I would argue that, when actually taken in the big picture, the number of people that are killed or injured in these terrorist attacks are actually very small as a meangingful mortality source, despite being horrific and tragic.

How much resources are worth investing in expensive defense systems and organizations that would be involved in sealing large national borders, while making commerce, travel, and business much more difficult and expensive, to save about as many lives as are lost to residential pools? How many more lives would be saved through that same investment in infrastructure, research, healthcare, etc?

 SickSix wrote:
Not a bad plan SemperMortis. Obviously it needs to be tweaked.

It is a problem when immigrants are allowed to not assimilate and firm their own quasi states within the state. Look at Michigan for an example. I believe it's Dearborn that muslims have taken over.

Border security. It's a joke in the US right now. The entire 'War on Terror' looks like a joke when you realize we never sealed our borders after 9-11.

Language. Immigrants should learn the language of the land, not the other way around. Our cops shouldn't have to be bilingual just to do their job.

If our borders were tight and immigrants assimilated, we wouldn't have to worry about terrorism.

In Canada you have to be bilingual for a government job, unless you're an immigrant then you don't even need to speak English.
I don't know how many times I've dealt with the government and the person couldn't speak French or English.

 Rainbow Dash wrote:

 jhe90 wrote:
Not again.... France does not deserve this. No one does.

Dakka does not let me type words to sum up my opinion of the attacker

We are at war. Our cities are a frontline.

But no one wants to fight the enemy, name the enemy, do anything about that except lie back and accept terrorism will just be a thing in the west.

what and get used to watching people die. families rboken.
its about time we did something.. there has to be weakness to these fanatics, there has to be somthing that they rely on

 jhe90 wrote:

 Rainbow Dash wrote:

 jhe90 wrote:
Not again.... France does not deserve this. No one does.

Dakka does not let me type words to sum up my opinion of the attacker

We are at war. Our cities are a frontline.

But no one wants to fight the enemy, name the enemy, do anything about that except lie back and accept terrorism will just be a thing in the west.

what and get used to watching people die. families rboken.
its about time we did something.. there has to be weakness to these fanatics, there has to be somthing that they rely on

They're weak to bullets. Lets go shove some up their asses.

 jhe90 wrote:

 Rainbow Dash wrote:

 jhe90 wrote:
Not again.... France does not deserve this. No one does.

Dakka does not let me type words to sum up my opinion of the attacker

We are at war. Our cities are a frontline.

But no one wants to fight the enemy, name the enemy, do anything about that except lie back and accept terrorism will just be a thing in the west.

what and get used to watching people die. families rboken.
its about time we did something.. there has to be weakness to these fanatics, there has to be somthing that they rely on

They rely on our continued presence in their backyard. We need to GTFO and let the ME go through it's own Reformation.

 Vaktathi wrote:

 Frazzled wrote:

Witzkatz wrote:

Completely closed borders are also basically impossible for economical reasons, I hope we can all agree on that.

We vociferously disagree.

I would argue that, when actually taken in the big picture, the number of people that are killed or injured in these terrorist attacks are actually very small as a meangingful mortality source, despite being horrific and tragic.

How much resources are worth investing in expensive defense systems and organizations that would be involved in sealing large national borders, while making commerce, travel, and business much more difficult and expensive, to save about as many lives as are lost to residential pools? How many more lives would be saved through that same investment in infrastructure, research, healthcare, etc?

I would argue that if you close the fething border you'd close it against the cartels as well, which represent a significant threat to the US. Also helps to keep out the billions in illegal drugs, human smuggling, illegal immigration etc. etc. etc.

 feeder wrote:

 CptJake wrote:
Actually, DaIsh gains recruits from having successful attacks, not from any western response, overdone or not. Study their propaganda and recruiting material.

People become radicalised because someone 7,000 miles away shot up a night club, not because a drone blew up their mother?

That seems counter intuitive.

It would also be counter intuitive that Drones capping a few hundred innocents a year would make a bigger impact on how Muslims perceive DaIsh than the few thousand innocents a year DaIsh kills.

Which is why, if you study the propaganda and recruiting, you'll find themes like GITMO and drones are supporting themes when they are used, and they are not used nearly as often as western press would have you believe. In fact, one of the targets of 'drones' as a theme is western gov'ts, and not potential recruits in some border region of Pakistan.

 feeder wrote:

 jhe90 wrote:

 Rainbow Dash wrote:

 jhe90 wrote:
Not again.... France does not deserve this. No one does.

Dakka does not let me type words to sum up my opinion of the attacker

We are at war. Our cities are a frontline.

But no one wants to fight the enemy, name the enemy, do anything about that except lie back and accept terrorism will just be a thing in the west.

what and get used to watching people die. families rboken.
its about time we did something.. there has to be weakness to these fanatics, there has to be somthing that they rely on

They rely on our continued presence in their backyard. We need to GTFO and let the ME go through it's own Reformation.

This really is a salient point. The ME has been trying to sort itself out since the dismemberment of the Ottoman Empire, and between Sykes Picot and the subsequent inheritor regimes, few of these nations have really made any sense given the ethnic and cultural layouts present. Having been constantly pressurized and compressed for decades, its all now starting to organically sort itself out through violence. Constantly inserting ourselves back into this mess has lots of dangers.

 feeder wrote:

Got any real sources? heat street, daily mail and infowars are not sources.

I generally agree on daily mail and infowars being subpar at best, I don't know anything about Heatstreet though, what's up with them?

 Witzkatz wrote:

 CptJake wrote:
Actually, DaIsh gains recruits from having successful attacks, not from any western response, overdone or not. Study their propaganda and recruiting material.

Recuits in the west, I agree. However, I'm pretty sure that those people living in or close to their territories in the middle east are more easily swayed to join them when a stealth bomber accidentally hits a few children along with the local milita leader. That's something more direct for the local populace to get angry about, I'd think - especially for those on the fence on whether or not ISIS is a good or a bad thing for the region. Because I'm pretty sure their propaganda machine on milking such collateral damage is running pretty smoothly by now.

Again, they really don't milk that propaganda much. Those same villagers see or hear of DaIsh slaughtering thousands of fellow Muslims. If killing a handful of innocents was useful for recruiting, the Anti-DaIsh coalition would be filled with folks eager to get vengeance.

 jhe90 wrote:

 Rainbow Dash wrote:

 jhe90 wrote:
Not again.... France does not deserve this. No one does.

Dakka does not let me type words to sum up my opinion of the attacker

We are at war. Our cities are a frontline.

But no one wants to fight the enemy, name the enemy, do anything about that except lie back and accept terrorism will just be a thing in the west.

what and get used to watching people die. families rboken.
its about time we did something.. there has to be weakness to these fanatics, there has to be somthing that they rely on

Or just stop bringing them in.
All these migrants never were going to do anything for the economy except put a drain on it.
I mean north america doesn't seem to have Europe's no go Muslim zones, but I know a few places in Ottawa that are pretty close.

 Frazzled wrote:

 Vaktathi wrote:

 Frazzled wrote:

Witzkatz wrote:

Completely closed borders are also basically impossible for economical reasons, I hope we can all agree on that.

We vociferously disagree.

I would argue that, when actually taken in the big picture, the number of people that are killed or injured in these terrorist attacks are actually very small as a meangingful mortality source, despite being horrific and tragic.

How much resources are worth investing in expensive defense systems and organizations that would be involved in sealing large national borders, while making commerce, travel, and business much more difficult and expensive, to save about as many lives as are lost to residential pools? How many more lives would be saved through that same investment in infrastructure, research, healthcare, etc?

I would argue that if you close the fething border you'd close it against the cartels as well, which represent a significant threat to the US. Also helps to keep out the billions in illegal drugs, human smuggling, illegal immigration etc. etc. etc.

And when has any tightly controlled border ever stopped these things? People, goods, and messages made it through the Berlin wall, through the Soviet Border Guards, past the sealed borders of North Korea, and countless other such examples, while such sealed borders dramatically hobbled the economic capability of these nations in the process.

You have to ask yourself, when is the time for political correctness over and the time for hard questions to begin?
When do you look at the only group of people coming into the west with no desire to assimilate, and who are actively bringing in 3rd world barbaric beliefs.
We hold up our ideals of LGBT rights and equality to women, all that, things Islam does not want, does not believe in.
How many people have to die before people get the point, that these "Not all Muslims" and mindless hashtags or changing your facebook avatar, aren't working and never will work.
It does nothing.
How many times will this happen before people stop shouting islamaphobe when people bring up the facts, the cold hard truth...

Actually almost no one made it over the Berlin Wall once established, and the North Korean border is hardly sealed on the Manchurian side.


Where there is a will there is a way.

Well. Time to start prepping. Think we're being drawn in a false sense of security by watching France get hammered and some operative/lonewolf/radicalized individual going to try to top all previous killing here in the US

MrDwhitey wrote:

 feeder wrote:

Got any real sources? heat street, daily mail and infowars are not sources.

I generally agree on daily mail and infowars being subpar at best, I don't know anything about Heatstreet though, what's up with them?

Their tagline wrote:An engaging new destination for news, features, opinion and commentary. Free speech celebrated. No safe spaces

.
They appear to be a sub-channel of Fox.

Rainbow Dash wrote:

 jhe90 wrote:

 Rainbow Dash wrote:

 jhe90 wrote:
Not again.... France does not deserve this. No one does.

Dakka does not let me type words to sum up my opinion of the attacker

We are at war. Our cities are a frontline.

But no one wants to fight the enemy, name the enemy, do anything about that except lie back and accept terrorism will just be a thing in the west.

what and get used to watching people die. families rboken.
its about time we did something.. there has to be weakness to these fanatics, there has to be somthing that they rely on

Or just stop bringing them in.
All these migrants never were going to do anything for the economy except put a drain on it.
I mean north america doesn't seem to have Europe's no go Muslim zones, but I know a few places in Ottawa that are pretty close.

I despair that you have my flag and handle of my daughter's favorite Pony. Your disgusting racism has no place in rational discourse. Give your fething head a shake.

Islam isn't a race.

@ Rainbow Dash

I think most people are slowly starting to wake up. Not fast enough but we're getting there. If Marine le Pen doesn't win after this I'd be very surprised.

And yes, Islam is not a race. It's an ideology. Anyone who says 'it's racist to criticise Islam' is a dangerous idiot imo.

 NuggzTheNinja wrote:

 LethalShade wrote:

 Howard A Treesong wrote:
Stories appearing now that the French government suppressed details about the Bataclan massacre that are revolting, victims were tortured in the most horrendous sexual ways with eyes and genitals being stabbed or cut off in men and women. Seems this is coming out now because some are fed up of hiding details after the attacks yesterday.

What ?!

Got any source backing it up ?

http://www.foxnews.com/world/2016/07/15/french-lawmakers-told-bataclan-terrorists-tortured-disemboweled-victims.html

Anything else than fething Fox News ?

Anything actually trustworthy ?

 Future War Cultist wrote:
@ Rainbow Dash

I think most people are slowly starting to wake up. Not fast enough but we're getting there. If Marine le Pen doesn't win after this I'd be very surprised.

And yes, Islam is not a race. It's an ideology. Anyone who says 'it's racist to criticise Islam' is a dangerous idiot imo.

It's an ideology that hates the west and isn't interested in any of our values.

 Jihadin wrote:
Well. Time to start prepping. Think we're being drawn in a false sense of security by watching France get hammered and some operative/lonewolf/radicalized individual going to try to top all previous killing here in the US

I have a full auto wiener dog cocked and ready, and a can and a half of SPAM that is only slightly over the sell by date.

 Frazzled wrote:
Actually almost no one made it over the Berlin Wall once established, and the North Korean border is hardly sealed on the Manchurian side.

people still did make it through the Berlin wall however, even if not many, and both people and things make it past the South Korean border too. What did these walls and borders do for these nations in terms of security? Not much. They did however kneecap their ability to trade.

Where there is a will there is a way.

that goes for breaking walls too. Even where there are walls in the US, they are undermined and tunneled under. Same thing in Israel.

More to the point, they do nothing about the domestic radical, one who was born in the US or Europe (or lived there from a very young age) and radicalized on their own, and appear to form the large bulk of such perpetrators, such as in Paris, Orlando, San Bernadino, and the 2005 London attacks.

Right I am not talking ab out trying to keep out the 28 days later virus I am talking about getting control of our border.

 Rainbow Dash wrote:


Or just stop bringing them in.
All these migrants never were going to do anything for the economy except put a drain on it.
I mean north america doesn't seem to have Europe's no go Muslim zones, but I know a few places in Ottawa that are pretty close.

Actually, we are draining the top 10% of the Muslim countries to the US. We get the educated and wealthy here and they do damn fine. most of the people who got to the US from iraq back in the day have assimilated fine while maintaining their religion and culture.

The reason the US is involved is because the UK, France and Russia basically colonized the middle east, crapped it up, fought proxy wars with militants and then abandoned it... And the US cleans up Racist imperialist Europe's mistakes because we are related to them via culture and blood. You can't fix squat with only looking back 20 years, this is a centuries old issue in the making. Most of the conflicts in the 20th century is a direct result of a vacuum after imperialist European powers finally relinquished territory that they never should have had in the first place.

And the US has no official language... to claim it does is wrong and bigotry. We allow people to speak whatever they want here. The only reason English is seen as the main language is because we are an English colony and right now in the world it is the international language of business. (which is why it is spoken all over the world)

All of this 'Be amurica damnit, or else' is what causes people to resist integration. That is what France is showing us spectacularly right now. I am glad we are a melting pot and not a clone factory like European nations.

 Frazzled wrote:
Right I am not talking ab out trying to keep out the 28 days later virus I am talking about getting control of our border.

that goes for breaking walls too. Even where there are walls in the US, they are undermined and tunneled under. Same thing in Israel.

Whats what the pre-registered artillery followed by droid series 209 is for.

 Rainbow Dash wrote:

 Future War Cultist wrote:
@ Rainbow Dash

I think most people are slowly starting to wake up. Not fast enough but we're getting there. If Marine le Pen doesn't win after this I'd be very surprised.

And yes, Islam is not a race. It's an ideology. Anyone who says 'it's racist to criticise Islam' is a dangerous idiot imo.

It's an ideology that hates the west and isn't interested in any of our values.

Neither of you understand Islam as a racially neutral thing and neither of you care that Muslims are the primary victims of Islamic extremist organisations and the bulk of armed resistance against them. You're treating a globally spanning religion with countless divisions among multiple cultures as one monolithic entity. You aren't criticising Islam, you're advocating for eternal war against a poorly defined enemy. You are the dangerous idiots.

nkelsch wrote:

 Rainbow Dash wrote:


Or just stop bringing them in.
All these migrants never were going to do anything for the economy except put a drain on it.
I mean north america doesn't seem to have Europe's no go Muslim zones, but I know a few places in Ottawa that are pretty close.

Actually, we are draining the top 10% of the Muslim countries to the US. We get the educated and wealthy here and they do damn fine. most of the people who got to the US from iraq back in the day have assimilated fine while maintaining their religion and culture.

The reason the US is involved is because the UK, France and Russia basically colonized the middle east, crapped it up, fought proxy wars with militants and then abandoned it... And the US cleans up Racist imperialist Europe's mistakes because we are related to them via culture and blood. You can't fix squat with only looking back 20 years, this is a centuries old issue in the making. Most of the conflicts in the 20th century is a direct result of a vacuum after imperialist European powers finally relinquished territory that they never should have had in the first place.

And the US has no official language... to claim it does is wrong and bigotry. We allow people to speak whatever they want here. The only reason English is seen as the main language is because we are an English colony and right now in the world it is the international language of business. (which is why it is spoken all over the world)

All of this 'Be amurica damnit, or else' is what causes people to resist integration. That is what France is showing us spectacularly right now. I am glad we are a melting pot and not a clone factory like European nations.

I'm not American. In Canada we have official languages.
And by official I mean used by the government, I should be able to be served in one of Canada's official languages, that's what the official languages act is for.

It should be pointed out that there were indeed middle classes in the Middle East until the US decided to blow them up. Iraq and Syria would like a word.

@ Rosebuddy

You're Swedish right?

How well has Islam integrated into your country?

While you're at it; name me one Islamic country you'd be happy to live in.

Rainbow Dash wrote:Islam isn't a race.

Deflecting with a technicality, and not addressing my point? I appreciate the de facto capitulation.

Future War Cultist wrote:@ Rainbow Dash

I think most people are slowly starting to wake up. Not fast enough but we're getting there. If Marine le Pen doesn't win after this I'd be very surprised.

And yes, Islam is not a race. It's an ideology. Anyone who says 'it's racist to criticise Islam' is a dangerous idiot imo.

I haven't seen anyone in here say 'it's racist to criticise Islam'. I have however, seen someone say "All immigrants are a drain on resources" which is out and out racism.

Dangerous idiots advocate the annihilation of an entire people.

Rainbow Dash wrote:It's an ideology that hates the west and isn't interested in any of our values.

Radical, weaponised Islam, yes. Run of the mill Islam, that is practiced by billions worldwide, no.

Rosebuddy wrote:
It should be pointed out that there were indeed middle classes in the Middle East until the US decided to blow them up. Iraq and Syria would like a word.

Right... and we've blown up Saudi Arabia, Qatar, Kuwait, Yemen, etc... Just keep waving that "blame Murica" stick. It'll get you somewhere.

@ feeder

Again, name me an Islamic country you'd be happy to live in.

 Future War Cultist wrote:
@ feeder

Again, name me an Islamic country you'd be happy to live in.

Kyrgyzstan.

I had an assignment to Turkey a number of years ago that got cancelled. I was very excited about going there.

But... if you'll notice, I'm listing secular Islamic countries.

 feeder wrote:

Rainbow Dash wrote:Islam isn't a race.

Deflecting with a technicality, and not addressing my point? I appreciate the de facto capitulation.

Future War Cultist wrote:@ Rainbow Dash

I think most people are slowly starting to wake up. Not fast enough but we're getting there. If Marine le Pen doesn't win after this I'd be very surprised.

And yes, Islam is not a race. It's an ideology. Anyone who says 'it's racist to criticise Islam' is a dangerous idiot imo.

I haven't seen anyone in here say 'it's racist to criticise Islam'. I have however, seen someone say "All immigrants are a drain on resources" which is out and out racism.

Dangerous idiots advocate the annihilation of an entire people.

Rainbow Dash wrote:It's an ideology that hates the west and isn't interested in any of our values.

Radical, weaponised Islam, yes. Run of the mill Islam, that is practiced by billions worldwide, no.

What point, you called me racist, Islam isn't a race... That's all you said to me besides that I should feel bad...
You never made a point.

I dealt with Insurgents. I much rather deal with Insurgents then trying to nail out a whole swath of people who might be a possible Insurgent.

 djones520 wrote:

Rosebuddy wrote:
It should be pointed out that there were indeed middle classes in the Middle East until the US decided to blow them up. Iraq and Syria would like a word.

Right... and we've blown up Saudi Arabia, Qatar, Kuwait, Yemen, etc... Just keep waving that "blame Murica" stick. It'll get you somewhere.

Saudi Arabia is a major sponsor of sectarian terrorism and supported by the US. Iraq was smashed apart by the invasion and IS arose from the ashes as a direct consequence. When there is no more society and when there is still a massive need to resist military occupation then you get horrible gak happening. You don't appreciate how deeply fethed up things get when society stops existing.

Rosebuddy wrote:

 djones520 wrote:

Rosebuddy wrote:
It should be pointed out that there were indeed middle classes in the Middle East until the US decided to blow them up. Iraq and Syria would like a word.

Right... and we've blown up Saudi Arabia, Qatar, Kuwait, Yemen, etc... Just keep waving that "blame Murica" stick. It'll get you somewhere.

Saudi Arabia is a major sponsor of sectarian terrorism and supported by the US. Iraq was smashed apart by the invasion and IS arose from the ashes as a direct consequence. When there is no more society and when there is still a massive need to resist military occupation then you get horrible gak happening. You don't appreciate how deeply fethed up things get when society stops existing.

ISIS roots are more in the inability for the west to pick a side in the Syrian Civil War. Keep it up though.

nkelsch wrote:

 Rainbow Dash wrote:


Or just stop bringing them in.
All these migrants never were going to do anything for the economy except put a drain on it.
I mean north america doesn't seem to have Europe's no go Muslim zones, but I know a few places in Ottawa that are pretty close.

Actually, we are draining the top 10% of the Muslim countries to the US. We get the educated and wealthy here and they do damn fine. most of the people who got to the US from iraq back in the day have assimilated fine while maintaining their religion and culture.

The reason the US is involved is because the UK, France and Russia basically colonized the middle east, crapped it up, fought proxy wars with militants and then abandoned it... And the US cleans up Racist imperialist Europe's mistakes because we are related to them via culture and blood. You can't fix squat with only looking back 20 years, this is a centuries old issue in the making. Most of the conflicts in the 20th century is a direct result of a vacuum after imperialist European powers finally relinquished territory that they never should have had in the first place.

And the US has no official language... to claim it does is wrong and bigotry. We allow people to speak whatever they want here. The only reason English is seen as the main language is because we are an English colony and right now in the world it is the international language of business. (which is why it is spoken all over the world)

All of this 'Be amurica damnit, or else' is what causes people to resist integration. That is what France is showing us spectacularly right now. I am glad we are a melting pot and not a clone factory like European nations.

When you talk about the "clone factory" of "European nations", I wonder to how many countries and cities you've been over here? Places like Berlin and Cologne have been famous for being melting pots - in good and bad ways - for decades. And integration policies and concepts between European countries vary vastly, as has been shown during the refugee crisis.

 Future War Cultist wrote:
@ feeder

Again, name me an Islamic country you'd be happy to live in.

I'm perfectly happy where I am. What are you hoping to achieve with this question?

nkelsch wrote:

 Rainbow Dash wrote:


Or just stop bringing them in.
All these migrants never were going to do anything for the economy except put a drain on it.
I mean north america doesn't seem to have Europe's no go Muslim zones, but I know a few places in Ottawa that are pretty close.

Actually, we are draining the top 10% of the Muslim countries to the US. We get the educated and wealthy here and they do damn fine. most of the people who got to the US from iraq back in the day have assimilated fine while maintaining their religion and culture.

The reason the US is involved is because the UK, France and Russia basically colonized the middle east, crapped it up, fought proxy wars with militants and then abandoned it... And the US cleans up Racist imperialist Europe's mistakes because we are related to them via culture and blood. You can't fix squat with only looking back 20 years, this is a centuries old issue in the making. Most of the conflicts in the 20th century is a direct result of a vacuum after imperialist European powers finally relinquished territory that they never should have had in the first place.

And the US has no official language... to claim it does is wrong and bigotry. We allow people to speak whatever they want here. The only reason English is seen as the main language is because we are an English colony and right now in the world it is the international language of business. (which is why it is spoken all over the world)

All of this 'Be amurica damnit, or else' is what causes people to resist integration. That is what France is showing us spectacularly right now. I am glad we are a melting pot and not a clone factory like European nations.

97% of the population here speaks English....English is our official language in every way that matters. For political reasons it is not....officially.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 djones520 wrote:

Rosebuddy wrote:

 djones520 wrote:

Rosebuddy wrote:
It should be pointed out that there were indeed middle classes in the Middle East until the US decided to blow them up. Iraq and Syria would like a word.

Right... and we've blown up Saudi Arabia, Qatar, Kuwait, Yemen, etc... Just keep waving that "blame Murica" stick. It'll get you somewhere.

Saudi Arabia is a major sponsor of sectarian terrorism and supported by the US. Iraq was smashed apart by the invasion and IS arose from the ashes as a direct consequence. When there is no more society and when there is still a massive need to resist military occupation then you get horrible gak happening. You don't appreciate how deeply fethed up things get when society stops existing.

ISIS roots are more in the inability for the west to pick a side in the Syrian Civil War. Keep it up though.

You would think Americans would be good at picking the lesser of two evils.

 feeder wrote:
I'm perfectly happy where I am. What are you hoping to achieve with this question?

Since you're defending Islam I'd love for you to tell us about some of its success stories. Name me an Islamic country that allows freedom of religion, treats women equally etc that doesn't require a military dictatorship to do so.

ISIS goes way beyond America. No one in the West wanted to get involved. Everyone was so gung ho about Libya, but when it came to Syria, no one could care less. Now we reap what our inaction sowed.

 LethalShade wrote:

 NuggzTheNinja wrote:

 LethalShade wrote:

 Howard A Treesong wrote:
Stories appearing now that the French government suppressed details about the Bataclan massacre that are revolting, victims were tortured in the most horrendous sexual ways with eyes and genitals being stabbed or cut off in men and women. Seems this is coming out now because some are fed up of hiding details after the attacks yesterday.

What ?!

Got any source backing it up ?

http://www.foxnews.com/world/2016/07/15/french-lawmakers-told-bataclan-terrorists-tortured-disemboweled-victims.html

Anything else than fething Fox News ?

Anything actually trustworthy ?

Is this legit?
http://www.assemblee-nationale.fr/14/rap-enq/r3922-t2.asp

text removed.

Reds8n

 whembly wrote:

 LethalShade wrote:

 NuggzTheNinja wrote:

 LethalShade wrote:

 Howard A Treesong wrote:
Stories appearing now that the French government suppressed details about the Bataclan massacre that are revolting, victims were tortured in the most horrendous sexual ways with eyes and genitals being stabbed or cut off in men and women. Seems this is coming out now because some are fed up of hiding details after the attacks yesterday.

What ?!

Got any source backing it up ?

http://www.foxnews.com/world/2016/07/15/french-lawmakers-told-bataclan-terrorists-tortured-disemboweled-victims.html

Anything else than fething Fox News ?

Anything actually trustworthy ?

Is this legit?
http://www.assemblee-nationale.fr/14/rap-enq/r3922-t2.asp

http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2016/jul/15/french-terror-cover-up-bataclan-attack-included-gr/

http://nypost.com/2016/07/15/horrifying-details-of-the-bataclan-theatre-massacre-revealed/

It's not like it was hard to find, but I guess if you get your chance to get some Foxnews hate in...


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 feeder wrote:

 Future War Cultist wrote:

 feeder wrote:
I'm perfectly happy where I am. What are you hoping to achieve with this question?

Since you're defending Islam I'd love for you to tell us about some of its success stories. Name me an Islamic country that allows freedom of religion, treats women equally etc that doesn't require a military dictatorship to do so.

I'm not defending Islam. I'm attacking ignorant cretins who are stroking their hate boner in a public forum.

It's unseemly.

Might want to let your hate boner for ignorant cretins settle down a bit. I do believe such comments are a clear violation of Rule #1.

 Future War Cultist wrote:

 feeder wrote:
I'm perfectly happy where I am. What are you hoping to achieve with this question?

Since you're defending Islam I'd love for you to tell us about some of its success stories. Name me an Islamic country that allows freedom of religion, treats women equally etc that doesn't require a military dictatorship to do so.

Islamic government =/= Islamic religion.

There have been and still are many "secular" and "christian" governments which have restricted their citizens rights in a similar or the same way as Islamic governments.

 whembly wrote:

 LethalShade wrote:

 NuggzTheNinja wrote:

 LethalShade wrote:

 Howard A Treesong wrote:
Stories appearing now that the French government suppressed details about the Bataclan massacre that are revolting, victims were tortured in the most horrendous sexual ways with eyes and genitals being stabbed or cut off in men and women. Seems this is coming out now because some are fed up of hiding details after the attacks yesterday.

What ?!

Got any source backing it up ?

http://www.foxnews.com/world/2016/07/15/french-lawmakers-told-bataclan-terrorists-tortured-disemboweled-victims.html

Anything else than fething Fox News ?

Anything actually trustworthy ?

Is this legit?
http://www.assemblee-nationale.fr/14/rap-enq/r3922-t2.asp

Okay, I just read a good part of it. It's absolutely legit and they say nothing can confirm that the terrorists did mutilate hostages during the Bataclan attacks, making such claims bogus.

No knife or similar weapon was found at the scene, and the corpses were mutilated by both gunfire and explosives.

The mutilation claims come from the father of one victim claiming that his son was disemboweled and castrated in a letter. Nothing more.

 djones520 wrote:

 whembly wrote:

 LethalShade wrote:

 NuggzTheNinja wrote:

 LethalShade wrote:

 Howard A Treesong wrote:
Stories appearing now that the French government suppressed details about the Bataclan massacre that are revolting, victims were tortured in the most horrendous sexual ways with eyes and genitals being stabbed or cut off in men and women. Seems this is coming out now because some are fed up of hiding details after the attacks yesterday.

What ?!

Got any source backing it up ?

http://www.foxnews.com/world/2016/07/15/french-lawmakers-told-bataclan-terrorists-tortured-disemboweled-victims.html

Anything else than fething Fox News ?

Anything actually trustworthy ?

Is this legit?
http://www.assemblee-nationale.fr/14/rap-enq/r3922-t2.asp

http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2016/jul/15/french-terror-cover-up-bataclan-attack-included-gr/

http://nypost.com/2016/07/15/horrifying-details-of-the-bataclan-theatre-massacre-revealed/

It's not like it was hard to find, but I guess if you get your chance to get some Foxnews hate in...

Huh. when I Google 'bataclan torture' all I get is heat street, nypost and infowars.

"Fox hate" is not irrational. The organization has been shown again and again to misrepresent facts or straight up lie.

Regardless, that is seriously disturbing.

 djones520 wrote:

Automatically Appended Next Post:

 feeder wrote:

 Future War Cultist wrote:

 feeder wrote:
I'm perfectly happy where I am. What are you hoping to achieve with this question?

Since you're defending Islam I'd love for you to tell us about some of its success stories. Name me an Islamic country that allows freedom of religion, treats women equally etc that doesn't require a military dictatorship to do so.

I'm not defending Islam. I'm attacking ignorant cretins who are stroking their hate boner in a public forum.

It's unseemly.

Might want to let your hate boner for ignorant cretins settle down a bit. I do believe such comments are a clear violation of Rule #1.

You're right. Perhaps I shall excuse myself from this thread.

 djones520 wrote:

Rosebuddy wrote:

Saudi Arabia is a major sponsor of sectarian terrorism and supported by the US. Iraq was smashed apart by the invasion and IS arose from the ashes as a direct consequence. When there is no more society and when there is still a massive need to resist military occupation then you get horrible gak happening. You don't appreciate how deeply fethed up things get when society stops existing.

ISIS roots are more in the inability for the west to pick a side in the Syrian Civil War. Keep it up though.

The Islamic State, previously the Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant, previously the Islamic State of Iraq, previously al-Qaida in Iraq and formed from multiple groups participating in the Iraqi insurgency following the invasion. The Syrian civil war helped them grow but the collapse of Iraq is at least as important a factor in making them what they are.

 Future War Cultist wrote:

 Easy E wrote:
We fight them through methodical espionage, crime fighting, and intelligence/black ops stuff. Anything more is ineffective and plays into their goals.

In the meantime, we pretty much ignore them and keeping doing what we have been doing.

Choosing not to react is just as much an action as doing something.

I have to call bull on that. When I had trouble in school from these two gakkers, I was told to just ignore them. But this only encouraged them. You want to know how I eventually stopped them? I busted the mouthier of the two fethers face open.

Now I'm not saying that we should go into the Middle East. That's not going to work. What I am saying though is that we shouldn't lie back and take it either.

I guess crime fighting, espionage, intelligence work, and black ops is "just lying back and taking it" now-a-days.

Escalation for everyone!

Those are just plasters. They only keep lid on it. If you want to actually get rid of it, you'll have to fight back.

 CptJake wrote:

 Kilkrazy wrote:


The Orlando attack was prompted more by self-hatred of the man's repressed homosexuality than any terrorist motive, BTW. Not to lessen the impact on the victims.

That is less than proven. In fact, the FBI came out and stated there was nothing pointing them to that as a motive at this point.

Do you have a citation?

 Kilkrazy wrote:

 CptJake wrote:

 Kilkrazy wrote:


The Orlando attack was prompted more by self-hatred of the man's repressed homosexuality than any terrorist motive, BTW. Not to lessen the impact on the victims.

That is less than proven. In fact, the FBI came out and stated there was nothing pointing them to that as a motive at this point.

Do you have a citation?

He needs a citation to prove that someone who also didn't use a citation was wrong?
[url]
https://www.washingtonpost.com/world/national-security/no-evidence-so-far-to-suggest-orlando-shooter-targeted-club-because-it-was-gay/2016/07/14/a7528674-4907-11e6-acbc-4d4870a079da_story.html[/url]

 Kilkrazy wrote:

 CptJake wrote:

 Kilkrazy wrote:


The Orlando attack was prompted more by self-hatred of the man's repressed homosexuality than any terrorist motive, BTW. Not to lessen the impact on the victims.

That is less than proven. In fact, the FBI came out and stated there was nothing pointing them to that as a motive at this point.

Do you have a citation?

And where was yours for your claim?

well just saw a report think like 84 dead 10 of whom were children, even the USA lost some people there. my heart goes to France on the losses they suffered on Bastille day.

on a side note this incident has already effected security at the National conventions.

Obama better force the Refugee issue. That would seriously play into Trump party.

Now the million dollar question. How far is the West and the US going to go to prevent this from happening again of this scale eh

 Future War Cultist wrote:
Those are just plasters. They only keep lid on it. If you want to actually get rid of it, you'll have to fight back.

Can you point me to a successful military campaign to end terrorism in recent years? I would like to read up on them.

Also, this attacker does not seem to have ISIS ties yet. Some one have a link with more info on that?

 Easy E wrote:

 Future War Cultist wrote:
Those are just plasters. They only keep lid on it. If you want to actually get rid of it, you'll have to fight back.

Can you point me to a successful military campaign to end terrorism in recent years? I would like to read up on them.

Also, this attacker does not seem to have ISIS ties yet. Some one have a link with more info on that?

Unfortunately it isn't the military that is the fault, it is the fault of international politics. We are to afraid of what might happen if we remove certain governments/leaders that we allow a nascent level of terrorism to exist.

Why are you refering at it as bastille day everywhere ?
It is not well known, even in France, but july 14th isn't about the storming of the Bastille, but one year after, the Federation day.

 djones520 wrote:
ISIS goes way beyond America. No one in the West wanted to get involved. Everyone was so gung ho about Libya, but when it came to Syria, no one could care less. Now we reap what our inaction sowed.

While we can never say for sure what would have happened, man, I do not think we could have done anything positive in Syria. If we had gotten involved it would just be another endless quagmire of death and destruction with more or less the same stuff happening. I think our action would have sowed about the same as our inaction did, but at least it didn't cost nearly as many American lives to do so. Sometimes you really can't solve a problem - even now with the benefit of hindsight I feel that way.

But, who knows.

 Ouze wrote:

 djones520 wrote:
ISIS goes way beyond America. No one in the West wanted to get involved. Everyone was so gung ho about Libya, but when it came to Syria, no one could care less. Now we reap what our inaction sowed.

While we can never say for sure what would have happened, man, I do not think we could have done anything positive in Syria. If we had gotten involved it would just be another endless quagmire of death and destruction with more or less the same stuff happening. I think our action would have sowed about the same as our inaction did, but at least it didn't cost nearly as many American lives to do so. Sometimes you really can't solve a problem - even now with the benefit of hindsight I feel that way.

But, who knows.

I compare the US led war in Iraq to Vietnam, not in the quagmire way that most people do, but in the reluctance of politicians to completely carry out the war. Just like in Vietnam, we know the enemy was using another country as a staging ground, and our politicians didn't have the testicular fortitude to deal with that country directly. We knew insurgents were flocking across the border with syria, we knew they were using Syria as a staging ground and an area to retreat to for safety, but we never successfully stopped that.

Now whether or not that would have completely stopped the rise of ISIS is up for debate, but it would most likely have been a step in the right direction.

 SickSix wrote:
Not a bad plan SemperMortis. Obviously it needs to be tweaked.

It is a problem when immigrants are allowed to not assimilate and firm their own quasi states within the state. Look at Michigan for an example. I believe it's Dearborn that muslims have taken over.

Border security. It's a joke in the US right now. The entire 'War on Terror' looks like a joke when you realize we never sealed our borders after 9-11.

Language. Immigrants should learn the language of the land, not the other way around. Our cops shouldn't have to be bilingual just to do their job.

If our borders were tight and immigrants assimilated, we wouldn't have to worry about terrorism.

I couldn't agree more. Trump's wall is starting to look like a better and better idea, yes?

People who immigrate into another country shouldn't form a little "country within a country" like some European cities' Sharia no-go zones. They should go to a country to become part of that country, not to bring their old country with them. To me it's ok for them to group up some and become friends with other immigrants, but they can do that and still integrate with their new home and countrymen. Take my hometown: we have a fair number of Bosnian immigrants here. Many, if not most, of them live in a couple of apartment complexes near where I live. They all seem to know each other and are friends. However, they have done their best to integrate with American society, including learning English and getting jobs (I've got several Bosnian coworkers and they are very nice people). Immigration is part of what has made America great. It just needs to be handled right. And that does not mean giving amnesty to all the illegal immigrants who have made it into America. Illegals need to be thrown out (okay, not thrown, but escorted back to wherever they came from). If people want to come to America, they should do so through legal channels so they can be vetted.

One of my personal pet peeves is the immigrants who come to the US, don't bother to learn much, if any English, don't have jobs, and yet still know how to get all the government benefits like food stamps. I think we all know why they came over...

 ZergSmasher wrote:
I couldn't agree more. Trump's wall is starting to look like a better and better idea, yes?

No, it's still a dumb as feth idea.

Since we've managed to get to page 7 without a Godwin: you know who else advocated wiping out huge groups of people that he saw as a threat to Der Vaterland, and who is now synonymous with evil?

SemperMortis wrote:

 Kilkrazy wrote:

 CptJake wrote:

 Kilkrazy wrote:


The Orlando attack was prompted more by self-hatred of the man's repressed homosexuality than any terrorist motive, BTW. Not to lessen the impact on the victims.

That is less than proven. In fact, the FBI came out and stated there was nothing pointing them to that as a motive at this point.

Do you have a citation?

He needs a citation to prove that someone who also didn't use a citation was wrong?
https://www.washingtonpost.com/world/national-security/no-evidence-so-far-to-suggest-orlando-shooter-targeted-club-because-it-was-gay/2016/07/14/a7528674-4907-11e6-acbc-4d4870a079da_story.html" target="_new" rel="nofollow">
https://www.washingtonpost.com/world/national-security/no-evidence-so-far-to-suggest-orlando-shooter-targeted-club-because-it-was-gay/2016/07/14/a7528674-4907-11e6-acbc-4d4870a079da_story.html

Thank you.

If only some people could provide citations when they refer to official documents to support their point, this board might be a better place.

To be clear, I stated an opinion of my own. That requires no citation.

 Kilkrazy wrote:
To be clear, I stated an opinion of my own. That requires no citation.

You really didn't phrase it as a statement of opinion versus a statement of fact. Not being clear invites people to call on you to provide evidence to back up what you post.

 Breotan wrote:

 Kilkrazy wrote:
To be clear, I stated an opinion of my own. That requires no citation.

You really didn't phrase it as a statement of opinion versus a statement of fact. Not being clear invites people to call on you to provide evidence to back up what you post.

I think you can see the difference between saying, "Blah", and saying, "The FBI says "Blooh".

All I did was ask for the source of the FBI point. It's a perfectly reasonable request.

No-one asked me for a source for my idea, however it came from my mind.

 Kilkrazy wrote:

 Breotan wrote:

 Kilkrazy wrote:
To be clear, I stated an opinion of my own. That requires no citation.

You really didn't phrase it as a statement of opinion versus a statement of fact. Not being clear invites people to call on you to provide evidence to back up what you post.

I think you can see the difference between saying, "Blah", and saying, "The FBI says "Blooh".

All I did was ask for the source of the FBI point. It's a perfectly reasonable request.

No-one asked me for a source for my idea, however it came from my mind.

I had provided the link in at least one other thread I know you participated in. I try to make statements based on reporting I've seen, note when it is early reporting, and attempt to clearly indicate when I am speculating or giving an opinion. You seem to make declarative statements and then call them opinions when you're corrected.

I can't be expected to read and remember every post every user makes in case some time later in a different thread they make the same or a similar statement without providing the same reference.

There is also a difference between making a statement about something I think or believe, and making a statement about something that purports to be a fact according to someone else (e.g. the FBI.)

If you want to ask me for a reference to support some post I make, please do so. I provide references often when I am depending on some factual information to illustrate or support an argument.




Automatically Appended Next Post:

 feeder wrote:

 Future War Cultist wrote:

 feeder wrote:
I'm perfectly happy where I am. What are you hoping to achieve with this question?

Since you're defending Islam I'd love for you to tell us about some of its success stories. Name me an Islamic country that allows freedom of religion, treats women equally etc that doesn't require a military dictatorship to do so.

I'm not defending Islam. I'm attacking ignorant cretins who are stroking their hate boner in a public forum.

It's unseemly.

That is pretty rude and unhelpful.

If you think other users are posting racist messages the correct thing to do is to click the yellow triangle to report the messages.

SemperMortis wrote:

 Easy E wrote:

 Future War Cultist wrote:
Those are just plasters. They only keep lid on it. If you want to actually get rid of it, you'll have to fight back.

Can you point me to a successful military campaign to end terrorism in recent years? I would like to read up on them.

Also, this attacker does not seem to have ISIS ties yet. Some one have a link with more info on that?

Unfortunately it isn't the military that is the fault, it is the fault of international politics. We are to afraid of what might happen if we remove certain governments/leaders that we allow a nascent level of terrorism to exist.

Oh, the military was "stabbed in the back"? I get it now.

I realize my "Recent Times" request was a bit vague. How about since 19990? Since 1980? 1970? If we go back to Colonialism/Imperialism you can find way more examples, but I am not sure modern folks have the right culture to re-enact those counter-insurgencies.

I think the example of the Tamil Tigers maybe a modern case study we could review?

Latest American true success at defeating an Insurgency was early 1900's, in the Phillipines. You're absolutely right though, modern sensitivities can't handle that style of warfare anymore.

 djones520 wrote:
Latest American true success at defeating an Insurgency was early 1900's, in the Phillipines. You're absolutely right though, modern sensitivities can't handle that style of warfare anymore.

That was the Philippine-American War, wherein the US asserted its dominance over the Philippines following the Spanish-American War and where the strategy chosen to defeat the guerilla tactics of the rebels included putting people into concentration camps where thousands died.

I do not believe that constructing massive concentration camps in the Middle East is something that the US is even capable of doing. Even if they tried it would further strengthen global anti-American sentiment and justify more attacks against the US.

Rosebuddy wrote:

 djones520 wrote:
Latest American true success at defeating an Insurgency was early 1900's, in the Phillipines. You're absolutely right though, modern sensitivities can't handle that style of warfare anymore.

That was the Philippine-American War, wherein the US asserted its dominance over the Philippines following the Spanish-American War and where the strategy chosen to defeat the guerilla tactics of the rebels included putting people into concentration camps where thousands died.

I do not believe that constructing massive concentration camps in the Middle East is something that the US is even capable of doing. Even if they tried it would further strengthen global anti-American sentiment and justify more attacks against the US.

Hence "modern sensitivities can't handle that style of warfare anymore".

I would suggest phrasing it differently. I wasn't addressing you specifically, mainly expanding upon what your post actually means, but it does sound like you're disappointed that it won't happen because we're just too wussy today. This is a common far right sentiment and has been expressed here previously.

 djones520 wrote:
Latest American true success at defeating an Insurgency was early 1900's, in the Phillipines. You're absolutely right though, modern sensitivities can't handle that style of warfare anymore.

You can make a case for El Salvador in more recent times. There were very clearly more factors at play but US COIN efforts really did help pave the way for the other factors to have the effects they did.

I worked with a really great guy when I was in Panama who was one of the advisors in El Salvador which got me interested in the topic. It was cool when our gov't finally awarded the advisors a combat patch for their service in El Salvador.

http://abcnews.go.com/International/wireStory/france-attacker-called-volatile-showed-jihadist-links-40629386

Bouhlel was born in Msaken, a town in Tunisia, but moved to France years ago and was living in the country legally, working as a delivery driver. At one point he married, and later moved to an apartment bloc in the Quartier des Abattoirs — the Slaughterhouse District — on the outskirts of Nice.

...

Back in Tunisia, Bouhlel's father said his son was prone to violent episodes during which "he broke everything he found around him."

"Each time he had a crisis, we took him to the doctor, who gave him medication," Mohamed Mondher Lahouaiej Bouhlel told BFM television, even showing journalists what he said was a document about his son's psychiatric treatment.

Bouhlel said his son hadn't visited Tunisia in four years and hadn't stayed in contact with his family.

"What I know is that he didn't pray, he didn't go to the mosque, he had no ties to religion," said the father, noting that Bouhlel didn't respect the Islamic fasting rituals during the month of Ramadan — an account seconded by neighbors in Nice.

So how many more times do the perpetrators of these events have to not be refugees before the whole immigration/refugee scare meme goes away?

Natalya wrote:
http://abcnews.go.com/International/wireStory/france-attacker-called-volatile-showed-jihadist-links-40629386

Bouhlel was born in Msaken, a town in Tunisia, but moved to France years ago and was living in the country legally, working as a delivery driver. At one point he married, and later moved to an apartment bloc in the Quartier des Abattoirs — the Slaughterhouse District — on the outskirts of Nice.

...

Back in Tunisia, Bouhlel's father said his son was prone to violent episodes during which "he broke everything he found around him."

"Each time he had a crisis, we took him to the doctor, who gave him medication," Mohamed Mondher Lahouaiej Bouhlel told BFM television, even showing journalists what he said was a document about his son's psychiatric treatment.

Bouhlel said his son hadn't visited Tunisia in four years and hadn't stayed in contact with his family.

"What I know is that he didn't pray, he didn't go to the mosque, he had no ties to religion," said the father, noting that Bouhlel didn't respect the Islamic fasting rituals during the month of Ramadan — an account seconded by neighbors in Nice.

So how many more times do the perpetrators of these events have to not be refugees before the whole immigration/refugee scare meme goes away?

ok a couple points and pondries:

1: the news article says the attacker showed volatile and jihadist links and yet in the article it says he did not practice the religion?
2: may not be a refugee but still an immigrant. so as long as they are a refugee and/or an immigrant it will never go away and because of these attacks some countries are turning into isolationists, which right now might not be a bad thing.

Nearly impossible to get a back ground check of refugee's from the current location they are leaving from

 Jihadin wrote:
Nearly impossible to get a back ground check of refugee's from the current location they are leaving from

Which is why when I heard of Obama's plan to bring in tens of thousands of Syrian refugees, and that they were all going to be "properly" vetted, I laughed my butt off and called Obama fething idiot.

How do you properly vet someone who is coming from War torn Syria? ask his fellow refugee if he is a good guy?

SemperMortis wrote:

 Jihadin wrote:
Nearly impossible to get a back ground check of refugee's from the current location they are leaving from

Which is why when I heard of Obama's plan to bring in tens of thousands of Syrian refugees, and that they were all going to be "properly" vetted, I laughed my butt off and called Obama fething idiot.

How do you properly vet someone who is coming from War torn Syria? ask his fellow refugee if he is a good guy?

You do what we did up here : you ask the wife and the children.

It's sad, but in such a situation : no wife & kids, no asylum.

 Kovnik Obama wrote:

SemperMortis wrote:

 Jihadin wrote:
Nearly impossible to get a back ground check of refugee's from the current location they are leaving from

Which is why when I heard of Obama's plan to bring in tens of thousands of Syrian refugees, and that they were all going to be "properly" vetted, I laughed my butt off and called Obama fething idiot.

How do you properly vet someone who is coming from War torn Syria? ask his fellow refugee if he is a good guy?

You do what we did up here : you ask the wife and the children.

It's sad, but in such a situation : no wife & kids, no asylum.

I will admit I am biased, but if my country was being thrown to the wolves and war was waging across the length and width of it. Innocents dying in the thousands, I would take up arms and fight for my country, not run away from it. The middle east is its own kind of crazy though, especially when none of those countries has existed for very long there really isn't a huge amount of national pride.

Gut wrenching. Stay safe, gents and ladies

SemperMortis wrote:

 Kovnik Obama wrote:

SemperMortis wrote:

 Jihadin wrote:
Nearly impossible to get a back ground check of refugee's from the current location they are leaving from

Which is why when I heard of Obama's plan to bring in tens of thousands of Syrian refugees, and that they were all going to be "properly" vetted, I laughed my butt off and called Obama fething idiot.

How do you properly vet someone who is coming from War torn Syria? ask his fellow refugee if he is a good guy?

You do what we did up here : you ask the wife and the children.

It's sad, but in such a situation : no wife & kids, no asylum.

I will admit I am biased, but if my country was being thrown to the wolves and war was waging across the length and width of it. Innocents dying in the thousands, I would take up arms and fight for my country, not run away from it. The middle east is its own kind of crazy though, especially when none of those countries has existed for very long there really isn't a huge amount of national pride.

If you fight some of the groups down there as a civvie, you're gonna get blown up, or tortured, or have your head cut off, or...

Much easier to scrounge benefits move out.