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.

 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.