Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

 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.

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.

I'm not going to put on a false show of bravado by saying that I would fight for my country. I have no idea if I personally would find the courage to risk my life. I live in a safe peaceful First World country, my life has never been threatened and therefore I've never been tested in that way. But I certainly agree with the sentiment that its a moral duty to defend your country if you're able to.

(And note: I'm not accusing you of false bravado. I don't know you, you might be a Policeman or Soldier for all I know).

SemperMortis wrote:

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.

A lot of them did. And are getting shelled to hell by all sides.

And if you have family, staying there is tantamount to a death penalty. Or worse.

 Shadow Captain Edithae wrote:

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.

I'm not going to put on a false show of bravado by saying that I would fight for my country. I have no idea if I personally would find the courage to risk my life. I live in a safe peaceful First World country, my life has never been threatened and therefore I've never been tested in that way. But I certainly agree with the sentiment that its a moral duty to defend your country if you're able to.

(And note: I'm not accusing you of false bravado. I don't know you, you might be a Policeman or Soldier for all I know).

God Country and your way life is no longer a acceptable reason to wage combat.
When your in a situation that calls for you to make that type of decision its coming down to friends and families as the reason why.

 Kovnik Obama wrote:

SemperMortis wrote:

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.

A lot of them did. And are getting shelled to hell by all sides.

And if you have family, staying there is tantamount to a death penalty. Or worse.

And for every 1 person who stuck around to fight against ISIS and the Syrian government you have dozens if not more of healthy young men who chose to flee the country.


As for the False Bravado thing from earlier, USMC not a soldier I stood up and put my feet on the yellow foot prints. Or as a friend of mine quoted to me once "I wrote a blank check payable to the people of the United States for up to and including my life". And before the negative Nancies chime in, yes I did deploy, yes it was a combat deployment, yes I have lost friends, yes I don't care about your stance on war or anything else relating to warfare/military.

 motyak wrote:

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

Which attack was carried out by refugees?

Should I be surprised that you have edited down my quote to read as something different to what was written.

Try again.

 Orlanth wrote:

 motyak wrote:

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

Which attack was carried out by refugees?

Should I be surprised that you have edited down my quote to read as something different to what was written.

Try again.

Here is your full quote:

 Orlanth wrote:
These scum hide in plain sight with EU passports, or are officially welcomed refugees.

I fail to see how what Moytak removed makes it any different.

The words "officially invited" is a red herring. Europe "officially invited" just a few thousand refugees. But we got hundreds of thousands of uninvited refugees.

Rather, I expect that Daesh symathisers and active combat experienced terrorists are posing as refugees amongst the huge numbers of uninvited refugees, using the crisis to infiltrate Europe. What better way to hide your identity, than insinuate yourself into a mass migration of genuine refugees, most of whom lack their own identity documents and therefore cannot be identified either? We know this is true, because Intelligence Services are warning of this, and Daesh themselves say it.

Its also a bit of a chicken before the egg thing too. Were they genuine refugees who fled to Europe before being radicalised in Europe, or were they already radicalised before they arrived and simply posed as refugees?

There's also the fact that many terrorists in europe (perhaps even most of them) are European citizens, born and bred in Europe, are radicalised in Europe, travel to Syria to join the fighting, and come back home as hardened terrorists.. Common sense dictates that they are posing as refugees to avoid detection by Intelligence Services that may be aware of their radicalization.


Orlanth should clarify what he means: does he believe real refugees are fleeing to Europe AND THEN becoming radicalised? Or does he mean that existing radicals are posing as refugees?

SemperMortis wrote:

 Kovnik Obama wrote:

SemperMortis wrote:

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.

A lot of them did. And are getting shelled to hell by all sides.

And if you have family, staying there is tantamount to a death penalty. Or worse.

And for every 1 person who stuck around to fight against ISIS and the Syrian government you have dozens if not more of healthy young men who chose to flee the country.


As for the False Bravado thing from earlier, USMC not a soldier I stood up and put my feet on the yellow foot prints. Or as a friend of mine quoted to me once "I wrote a blank check payable to the people of the United States for up to and including my life". And before the negative Nancies chime in, yes I did deploy, yes it was a combat deployment, yes I have lost friends, yes I don't care about your stance on war or anything else relating to warfare/military.

That's a fine sentiment, which I truly respect. The only small "but" I'd add to it, is that perhaps it'd be different, for someone who never had military training (so, under 18), doesn't have that great an attachment to his country (perhaps, because that country has kinda not been great to them to begin with), and perhaps has very suddenly lost a large part of his family.

SemperMortis wrote:

 Kovnik Obama wrote:

SemperMortis wrote:

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.

A lot of them did. And are getting shelled to hell by all sides.

And if you have family, staying there is tantamount to a death penalty. Or worse.

And for every 1 person who stuck around to fight against ISIS and the Syrian government you have dozens if not more of healthy young men who chose to flee the country.


As for the False Bravado thing from earlier, USMC not a soldier I stood up and put my feet on the yellow foot prints. Or as a friend of mine quoted to me once "I wrote a blank check payable to the people of the United States for up to and including my life". And before the negative Nancies chime in, yes I did deploy, yes it was a combat deployment, yes I have lost friends, yes I don't care about your stance on war or anything else relating to warfare/military.

Yeah I wouldn't want to stick around and fight for a piece of gak country while my family is being killed and my wife/daughters raped.

Americans are indoctrinated to think highly of their country and to have a sense of patriotism. Definitely not saying that's a bad thing, but if your country is a piece of gak and you don't have a strong set of ideals that you're fighting for, then all you're fighting for is the dirt you happened to be born on when the countries around you have dirt that is very similar but without people trying to kill you and your family. I don't begrudge anyone who's priority's are family > self > country.

 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.

San Bernardino shooter was married to his Islamic bride who is the suspected mastermind no?

 Shadow Captain Edithae wrote:

Orlanth should clarify what he means: does he believe real refugees are fleeing to Europe AND THEN becoming radicalised? Or does he mean that existing radicals are posing as refugees?

And then it'd be good if he answered my original question, "Which attack was carried out by refugees?", because if he can't then it's hard to see how that comment of his is relevant to the topic.

I don't know what specialist terrorist training it requires to drive a lorry through crowds.

 motyak wrote:

 Shadow Captain Edithae wrote:

Orlanth should clarify what he means: does he believe real refugees are fleeing to Europe AND THEN becoming radicalised? Or does he mean that existing radicals are posing as refugees?

And then it'd be good if he answered my original question, "Which attack was carried out by refugees?", because if he can't then it's hard to see how that comment of his is relevant to the topic.

I didnt say the attack was carried out by refugees. I said that there are a lot of Islamic refugees and home grown Islamics (EU passport holders), either could have been reponsible, hence the 'or'. This makes it difficult to isolate threats. Context is everything, my comments were a response to someone else (angelofvengeance) who was asking about why we don't 'step up' operations to root out Islamic extremists in Europe. Short answer : we can't because they are hidden in larger Moslem populations that society considers welcome.

Experience shows you are poor judge of what is relevant to a topic motyak, the origin/source of Islamic extremists causing terrorist attacks could hardly be irrelevant in a thread about a terrorist attack caused by Islamic extremists.

 Kilkrazy wrote:
I don't know what specialist terrorist training it requires to drive a lorry through crowds.

Indoctrination.

It goes against human instinct to drive a lorry through children with intention to kill them.
Also this was a suicide attack, the leaders need to make sure their terrorist is properly brainwashed so they don't chicken out. One of the 7/7 bombers bottled out and didnt detonate his bomb pack.
Also there will be training on hiding in society once radicalised, so the terrorist is not caught while awaiting the call to attack.