• Thanks for stopping by. Logging in to a registered account will remove all generic ads. Please reach out with any questions or concerns.

November 2015: Paris Bataclan attack/hostage taking

daftandbarmy said:
And, of course, Neil nails the real problem.... the West are all wimps in the eyes of the zealots:

http://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/paris-attacks-only-2-equally-bad-options-for-taking-on-isis-1.3320226

What price Humanity to leave Saddam, Assad, Ghaddafi et al in power? 

GWB did not build Abu Ghraib, nor outfit it with meat hooks, and meat grinders and cattle prods.  Nor did he use gases on Kurds and Shia.

Beyond the usual bilious reaction I get to Neil he is right on the lack of Western stomach.... but there are more than two options, and he intimates the third.  Send in the Legions - and stay there.
 
To explore another track, it appears that one of the attackers entered Europe in early October using a forged Syrian passport. So what? Well, how was he able to link up with the ISIS factions in Paris? Brussels? without being suspected of being an infiltrator and what orders, if any, did he convey? He might have done this early enough for the detailed planning to take place and for him to have been integrated into one of the teams, and/or he carried the order to execute the operation on the time and date in question.
 
Old Sweat said:
To explore another track, it appears that one of the attackers entered Europe in early October using a forged Syrian passport. So what? Well, how was he able to link up with the ISIS factions in Paris? Brussels? without being suspected of being an infiltrator and what orders, if any, did he convey? He might have done this early enough for the detailed planning to take place and for him to have been integrated into one of the teams, and/or he carried the order to execute the operation on the time and date in question.


There's a media piece "trending" on the Internet right now which suggests that IS** is just taking credit for what are, actually, just random attacks. The TV host says that they are, by and large, IS** inspired but they, all these attacks, are neither organized nor coordinated by IS**. Young, disaffected men are encouraged, by Internet propaganda, to "strike out" at the Western, host society and then IS** takes the credit.  :dunno:
 
Beginning to hate you say? Another reason am glad I never became part of it in the first place, and it looks like am not missing much.

Side Note: If France knew of the ISIS weapon depot and camps as claimed after their planes "bombed these sites", why didn't they do it before the Paris attacks?

Bird_Gunner45 said:
OMG... this conversation line is why I am beginning to hate social media....

1. RIGHT WING PEOPLE- ISIS represents the minority SUNNI populations of Syria and Iraq (and nominally all of the Sunni arab population). It is not "muslims" but a portion of a portion of muslims living in a specific corner of the earth. This is why Iran, for example, is not a supporter of ISIS. Therein, the shia, allawite, christian, and yazzadi (and LGBTQ, educated, moderate islam, etc) are completely warranted to want to get out of the area- they are the as much the targets of ISIS as we are, if not more so. Using widesweeping terminology such as "islam" to describe a sect makes you look uneducated and xenophobic. Attempting to bring in 25,000 new persons to escape a war is really not a big deal (we are a country of 31-33 million after all) and is quite literally the least we can do. If you are so H and H to go bomb things than you should be at least somewhat willing to help a pittance of the people that are affected.

2. LEFT WING PEOPLE- ISIS represents a group that has proven that it is perfectly capable of committing attacks against western targets and is more than willing to do so to advance it's goal of the establishment of a sunni muslim caliphate. Their main tactic is terrorism (or 4GW if we want to get into it). They use terrorism as they cannot establish a strong enough military force to fight the west in a contiguous, linear fashion. As a purveyor of terror as a political weapon, aimed to erode our will to assist arab governments that they want to overthrow it is perfectly rational that they may attempt to put a small number of terrorists or ISIS sympathizers in the group heading into Canada. The people placed could be men or women, or perhaps even children who have been brainwashed with a religious philosophy. Perhaps the people coming would want to attack us themselves, or perhaps they would be used to recruit Canadians into ISIS and act as technical SMEs. Who knows? Also, remember that "Syria" is a "fake" country that is a collection of religious sects that have been warring for generations and that only 5 years ago Syria was calling for the destruction of Israel. The point is that there is a real threat and that we, as Canadians, have a responsibility to ensure to the greatest extent possible that we protect our population for threats. Therein, is it not reasonable that there be a compromise and that we vet the people coming into Canada to the best extent we can to minimize potential direct or indirect threats to Canadian citizens? Wouldn't extending the timeline to look at establishing a vetting process, IAW what terrorism and immigration experts are saying, be a reasonable trade off for helping the Syrians and ensuring that we protect our own? Also, calling anyone who has concerns xenophobic or racist retracts from your argument and makes you look pretentious.


As per normal, some political compromise is what is called for. Unfortunately what social media gives us is zealots from two totally different ends of a political spectrum screaming at each other with megaphones hoping that they can yell the loudest.
 
E.R. Campbell said:
There's a media piece "trending" on the Internet right now which suggests that IS** is just taking credit for what are, actually, just random attacks. The TV host says that they are, by and large, IS** inspired but they, all these attacks, are neither organized nor coordinated by IS**. Young, disaffected men are encouraged, by Internet propaganda, to "strike out" at the Western, host society and then IS** takes the credit.  :dunno:

But when something goes wrong, the first thing to fix is the blame.  ;D
 
You don't....regardless of where the refugees are coming from, empathy always gets in the way of stringent checks / rational thinking. This is the reason why some use refugee claims, as well as capital punishment as excuses to get into a certain country. There is no doubt something needs to change when it comes to refugee status...here are some courses of action

1. Sponsors have to sign a waiver that they will be responsible for a person/family for 10yrs
2. Just as in permanent residency / immigration, if you are caught breaking the law, you automatically get sent back
3. A yearly fixed quota needs to be set

suffolkowner said:
Recce I can agree with both your above points but I just don't see this staying a middle eastern/arab/muslim problem. I too would love to know how one vets a refugee. A person who by definition is likely to have lost any ability to prove their identity. I certainly doubt the quality of the people doing the vetting as well as I have too many experiences with their ilk.
 
E.R. Campbell said:
There's a media piece "trending" on the Internet right now which suggests that IS** is just taking credit for what are, actually, just random attacks. The TV host says that they are, by and large, IS** inspired but they, all these attacks, are neither organized nor coordinated by IS**. Young, disaffected men are encouraged, by Internet propaganda, to "strike out" at the Western, host society and then IS** takes the credit.  :dunno:

Are you questioning the credibility of the caliphate's media arm?  :eek:
 
opcougar said:
Side Note: If France knew of the ISIS weapon depot and camps as claimed after their planes "bombed these sites", why didn't they do it before the Paris attacks?

What difference?  It's an IF and IF they did know before, so what?  If they didn't, so what?

There are a few reasons those targets might have been known before and not struck, or not known before and then ID'd and struck;  IMO none of those 'reasons' are discussion points for public forums.



 
Interesting commentary and interviews NPR while driving home tonight. Looks like some are laying part of the blame on Merkel and Germany's open door policy from earlier this year. Some even speculate that this could be the final straw to bring about the downfall of the EU, or at least create the restoration of internal borders and controls.
 
Various American news outlets. including the Washington Post (shared with the usual disclaimers), are contemplating the consequences of France invoking Article 5 of the North Atlantic Treaty.
 
E.R. Campbell said:
There's a media piece "trending" on the Internet right now which suggests that IS** is just taking credit for what are, actually, just random attacks. The TV host says that they are, by and large, IS** inspired but they, all these attacks, are neither organized nor coordinated by IS**. Young, disaffected men are encouraged, by Internet propaganda, to "strike out" at the Western, host society and then IS** takes the credit.  :dunno:

An how plausible is that? It seems to be right up there with the reactions to the video used to justify the Benghazi attack and all the riots on anniversary of 9/11. Sure is a coincidence that these guys all decided to make explosives in their kitchens and then attack three high publicity garnering targets all at the same time.

We also have been friends and drinking buddies for almost 50 years, and I know you are opening up another line of examination.
 
Bird_Gunner45 said:
On a side note- I thought one of the new governments principles was compromise and "real change" in parliament through the engagements of all parliamentarians? What I see today is decisions (pull CF-18s out, accept refugees, etc) made outside of parliament without allowance for debate. Where's the "real change"?

The parliament didn't sit for debate yet; however, these important issues should definitely have a public debate at this critical stage. Trudeau was campaigning on these key platforms so he has to keep his election promises I guess.

I am not going to agree to bringing 25,000 refugees just like that before end of this year jeopardizing Canadian’s security, nevertheless, I’m all for pulling out the CF-18s while expanding the training mission.

I’ll tell you why:

1. Just because of the US led western powers are engaged in bombing missions in Iraq and Syria, doesn't mean it is right. Why?
2. Because, regardless of the complexities of sectarian divide, the six-state GCC countries in ME are playing their cards deviously. 
3. They successfully draw the US led west, who is desperately looking for someone to sell their weapons, into this chaos while GCC nations are being very diplomatic with ISIS.
4. There is no single attack in these wealthy GCC countries to date, whereas the west got caught into the ISIS world view of Crusade vs. Jihad narrative.
5. Thus, in my opinion, we should turn the tables around diplomatically and make only Muslims fight the Muslims contrary to Christians fight the Muslims.
6. It is against this backdrop, I believe, that not only Canada but also NATO should withdraw from its bombing mission and train and arm GCC plus the indigenous/local military to fight ISIS effectively.  :2c:
 
John Oliver takes advantage of the few restraints on cable TV.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jRulzotv51I
 
dapaterson said:
John Oliver takes advantage of the few restraints on cable TV.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jRulzotv51I

This is what I call soft power  ;D
 
dapaterson said:
John Oliver takes advantage of the few restraints on cable TV.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jRulzotv51I

Good thing we have beavertails.  :nod:
 
Like you said..."IMO". It hasn't stopped the media asking the question though, and I'll like to think the opinion of the masses trumps a solitary one

Eye In The Sky said:
What difference?  It's an IF and IF they did know before, so what?  If they didn't, so what?

There are a few reasons those targets might have been known before and not struck, or not known before and then ID'd and struck;  IMO none of those 'reasons' are discussion points for public forums.
 
Dear fellow human,

I know it’s 2015 and we don’t write love letters anymore, but this one is a little different — it’s for the world. It’s not coming to you on a pigeon or via a postman, but directly to your computer or phone screen. And if you agree with Dumbledore when he said,
“Happiness can be found, even in the darkest of times, if one only remembers to turn on the light.”

Then read along.

A love letter to Beirut, Paris and beyond from Sri Lanka
 
Tuan said:
The parliament didn't sit for debate yet; however, these important issues should definitely have a public debate at this critical stage. Trudeau was campaigning on these key platforms so he has to keep his election promises I guess.

It's amazing how the 39% that voted liberal represent a clear mandate and campaign promises can be made without debate but tge conservatives 39% was not a majority since 61% voted for other parties and not debating important policy issues was tyranny. Times sure change
 
Bird_Gunner45 said:
It's amazing how the 39% that voted liberal represent a clear mandate and campaign promises can be made without debate but tge conservatives 39% was not a majority since 61% voted for other parties and not debating important policy issues was tyranny. Times sure change

But now it is the right 39%, not the Right 39%.
 
Things about to get interesting

Anonymous, a loose-knit international network of activist hackers, is preparing to unleash waves of cyber attacks on Islamic State following the attacks in Paris last week that killed 129 people, a self-described member said in a video.

http://www.independent.ie/world-news/europe/paris-terror-attacks/anonymous-vows-cyber-attacks-on-isil-34206942.html
 
Back
Top