Paris Attack 11/13/2015

Noir Time

11-16-15

It's not a given, that if we don't take the refugees into our countries, that ISIS scores points and becomes stronger.

It can equally be argued that, if after the Paris bombings the western countries still have laxed security and are still willingly take in the refugees...that ISIS sees that as a weakness, thus giving them more confidences as they see we are afraid to act.

Both viewpoints are only speculation and opinion...and should not be stated as fact.

Daniel M

...

11-16-15

Without even considering a number of other factors, to answer Captain Steel's question about not previously bombing ISIS locations if we have previously known them - what about the very basic question of whether bombing them is a good idea/solution?

__________________

-KhaN-

I work for Keyser Soze. He feels you owe him.

11-16-15

Originally Posted by Daniel M

What is the other solution? Let them expand?

__________________
�By definition, you have to live until you die. Better to make that life as complete and enjoyable an experience as possible, in case death is shite, which I suspect it will be.�

Daniel M

...

11-16-15

No, coming up with a sensible solution with all the parties involved, in particular in Syria and the surrounding regions. This whole problem has came about because of Assad's reactions to protests and rebels, with lots of different countries getting involved (or not) and aiding different parties for their own political gain. There needs to be an agreement in place that unites the different countries at least for now, so they can work together and deal with the problem there. If they need to be fought on the ground then there needs to be a caulculated approach that aims to protect innocent lives.

christine

Dreams is freedom

11-17-15

Originally Posted by Citizen Rules

I'm not saying it's a given, I said us arguing about refugees gives them fuel for their fire. Of course IS will see any violent successes they have in Europe as Western weakness. They will use anything they can publicity wise to radicalise more followers. I'm stating that as a fact. Have you not read or seen about their vast social media presence? The problem here is that they are fighting a guerilla war in Europe. We do need to look at security, and searching for intelligence of course, but when the Irish troubles were going on in the UK, and the UK populace being on high alert for years, people could still plant bombs in the heart of London and the IRA could claim that as being a victory for their cause.

We can pump more money into our security, but without having your country on lockdown and subjecting your people to security that impinges on their daily life, you won't be able to stop lone gunmen or bombers.

Last edited by christine; 11-17-15 at 05:09 AM.

-KhaN-

I work for Keyser Soze. He feels you owe him.

11-17-15

Originally Posted by Daniel M

That's happening at the moment, minus ground troops. Iraq,Syria,Russia,Iran and Lebanon are working together. Only problem being that they can't get full control over territory as they lack men to do so, they need time or someone's ground troops. Lately all of mentioned country's presidents/PM's visited Russia, some did it few times, even Israel PM did and they might join (for their own fear of terrorists).

Slappydavis

Yeah Yeah

11-17-15

I'm not getting involved in how this thread has taken a turn from the initial focus (but I'm not condemning the subjects the past few pages of debate).

But I do want to point out, again, that waiting for more information can pay off. And it appears that it is doing just that:
http://www.bbc.com/news/world-europe-34832512

It appears that nearly all of the attackers have not been refugees. The passport found also appears to be a fake, though he still may have been posing as refugee.

However, this information may change as well. But taking a step back and waiting to make more informed decisions on the refugee issue at this point seems obvious.

That said, much of the rest of the discussion, while possibly getting off the initial topic, doesn't really rely on whether or not it was refugees. I'm just concerned with the reactionary way in which fingers were immediately pointed at the refugees without waiting for information.

To be totally honest, I thought more of the attackers were going to turn out to be refugees. Though we still don't have the facts so maybe some more were involved.

I'm disappointed in the governors that are taking the anti-refugee stance, but it doesn't seem like it'll hurt the governors in any way. I can't say I'm surprised or even say it's a bad political move for them.

Captain Steel

"Lois, I never lie."

11-17-15

I'm wondering why there have been so many comments about sticking to the initial focus.
Discussions evolve, they make turns, they go off on related tangents. That is natural for a conversation.

Paris just experienced a terror attack from a known terrorist group currently bringing chaos to other parts of the world.

So I don't see people discussing or debating the causes of such terrorism as losing focus.
And the topic involves international politics, the views of Presidential candidates, the Civil War in Syria, the chaos in Iraq, global Islamic Terrorism, the Islamic State's activities everywhere (including their recruitment, use of social media, sleeper agents in other countries, implanting agents among refugees & terror groups allying with or supporting ISIS), nations going to war with ISIS, the Syrian refugee crisis, the media coverage, etc.

All these things and more are part of what led up to the Paris attack and are now part of the aftermath & implications of things that may come.

Last edited by Captain Steel; 11-17-15 at 03:05 PM.

Slappydavis

Yeah Yeah

11-17-15

If that was in part directed at my reply, I tried to specifically say that I wasn't getting involved in the change in conversation, not that I thought it shouldn't happen.

I also tried to make it clear that my desire to wait for information is particularly strong in regards to reactions to the Paris attack. There are other topics (such as if Islam is inherently more radicalized) that there's little point in "waiting" for new information (though certainly we don't "know" everything, it's not as if we are waiting for it to surface), so I was confining my comments to a particular area.

Captain Steel

"Lois, I never lie."

11-17-15

Not directed at you specifically, Slappy. There have been several comments since the start of this thread about keeping or losing focus. Unless people start posting recipes here or something, I haven't seen much anything on this thread that was not directly pertinent, relevant or at least very related to the topic.

Slappydavis

Yeah Yeah

11-17-15

Gotcha, I was concerned I wasn't coming off the way I meant to.

-KhaN-

I work for Keyser Soze. He feels you owe him.

11-17-15

Friend from Germany just told me (checkd it) that terrorist attack was supposed to happen at a friendly game between Germany and Netherlands. Germany sent their hardest special force, supposedly there was an ambulance car full of explosive parked next to stadium.

Citizen Rules

Noir Time

11-17-15

After the Paris bombing I came up with some 'brain storm' ideas for dealing with ISIS and the Syrian/middle eastern problem. Bear in mind I know very little about Syria or ISIS. I'm not saying I support my idea either. I'm just throwing it out there for debate.

But first here's an excellent background article on the Middle East, really it's good.

http://index.heritage.org/military/2...t/middle-east/

From that article:
"However, there is still a high degree of reluctance in many Arab countries to tackle one of the region�s biggest security problems: the rise of the Islamic State in Syria and Iraq. It is a major source of frustration for U.S. and Western policymakers that these countries often prefer that the U.S. and other Western powers deal with these matters on their behalf."

My idea:
What if the U.S. and other western nations took a hands off approach to Syria, Afghanistan, Iraq and Iran. We would do this by pulling out all of our troops and military advisers and stopped all bombing missions. We would still support friendly Arab nations like Jordan, etc and Israel too.

This could remove the 'western thorn' in ISIS side. ISIS then would loose recruiting ability, as they could no longer say to young potential terrorist: 'see the western infidels are occupying Islamic land, that is a sin'. Without 'evil' westerns occupying Muslim land ISIS looses some of its steam and terroist attacks on western soil could decline.

As important benefit would be without the U.S. and western forces involvement, the Sunni Muslim lead countries would be forced to deal with ISIS and do their own dirty work. These Sunni lead countries are afraid of losing power to ISIS. ISIS then would turn their attention to the Sunni Muslim countries in the area.

Thoughts?....Feel free to comment, criticizes and post your own solutions.

Last edited by Citizen Rules; 11-17-15 at 05:21 PM.

honeykid

MoFo Whisperer

11-17-15

Standing back and letting them all kill each other is something which is often brought up. I've known people for whom this was the only way to deal with the Middle East going back to the first Gulf War and I'm sure I'd have heard the same about Iran/Iraq, Lebonon, Egypt, Algiers and the rest had I been around at the time. The argument is can/should we sit there and do nothing when we can help/protect/whatever? How principled are we? Does it matter if we're seen to be hypocrites? The politicians have to make the decisions, but they've got their own careers and image to think about. Look at Hollande's response with the air strikes. Pointless. Insignificant and, probably, as much as the terrorists could hope for short of a full military invasion. But he wanted to be seen doing something and not looking weak. Was it the right thing to do or not? I don't know. But it was the right thing to do politically. Especially for a left wing President.

Whatever we do or don't do will affect us regardless, so I suppose the question is, what do we want to do and how much will we let it affect us? It's not just being at war, terror attacks, violence, etc. Our economy is still pretty fragile and another downward turn might not be too far away. Instability will affect that and affect the markets and, whether we like it or not, that is everything to us.

__________________
5-time MoFo Award winner.

-KhaN-

I work for Keyser Soze. He feels you owe him.

11-17-15

Originally Posted by Citizen Rules

My idea:
What if the U.S. and other western nations took a hands off approach to Syria, Afghanistan, Iraq and Iran. We would do this by pulling out all of our troops and military advisers and stopped all bombing missions. We would still support friendly Arab nations like Jordan, etc and Israel too.

Noble idea but as someone said, it's better to fight terrorist as far away from your borders as possible. Imagine ISIS spreading and actually getting some important city or capturing Nuclear Weapons...

Originally Posted by Citizen Rules

This could remove the 'western thorn' in ISIS side. ISIS then would loose recruiting ability, as they could no longer say to young Muslims: 'see the western infidels are occupying Islamic land, that is a sin'. Without 'evil' westerns occupying Muslim land ISIS looses some of its steam.

That would work, if they were sane to start with. Spain, parts of Italy and all of Balkans at different times belonged to Muslims (Moors, Ottomans and so on) so I doubt they would stop. Also their full name is "Islamic State of Iraq and Levant" , this is Levant:

Light green is for country's that are sometimes not included in the term Levant but I doubt ISIS would care about that. Once done with Middle East they would look for N.Africa, then eventually Europe through Spain, Greece or Italy.

Originally Posted by Citizen Rules

As important benefit would be without the U.S. and western forces involvement, the Sunni Muslim lead countries would be forced to deal with ISIS and do their own dirty work. These Sunni lead countries are afraid of losing power to ISIS.

Sunni country's are supporting ISIS, such as S.Arabia and Turkey. Maybe they want to connect all Sunni states? But when it comes to Turkey it's simply to get rid of Kurds.

Now, to keep it short here is some stuff from top of my head. USA needs to stop S.Arabia and whoever has biggest influence needs to do same with Turkey, maybe EU and Russia, that would stop ISIS from getting money and weapons. Then we would need to find final solution about Syrian Civil War, because Syria can't fight and make a counter offensive if it has inner fighting. I would support Assad as in my opinion he is a strong leader and not in to the religion, as I said before, Syria had no religion restrictions, you could eat a pig, drink alcohol, girls with tattoos etc. This is why I wouldn't support "moderate rebels", they are cutting heads as much as ISIS, they are religious and would probably be end of religious freedom of Syria. So there would need to be a solution that will unite Syria and then air and supply support would be a huge help with Syrian forces on ground. ISIS is very weak when it comes to military and rule mainly over deserts.

CiCi

Survivor 5s #2 Bitch

11-17-15

Originally Posted by -KhaN-

It was, just found this on Sky News, which seems to be one of the most up to date articles about it.
http://news.sky.com/story/1589396/ge...oncrete-threat

Germany's match against the Netherlands has been called off after information a bomb attack was planned, according to police in Hanover.

The city's police chief Volker Kluwe told German television that authorities have "concrete evidence that someone wanted to set off an explosive device in the stadium."

A second stadium in Hanover, where the German band S�hne Mannheims was due to play, has also been evacuated.

Meanwhile, the city's main train has been partially closed following reports that a suspicious object was found in a train.

Security Tightened In Hanover Before Germany v Netherlands Match.
Police secure a scene at Robert-Enke-Strasse

The football stadium was evacuated about an hour and a half before kick off.

Thousands of spectators who had already arrived at the HDI-Arena were told to calmly leave the area via loudspeaker.

Police chief Volke Kluwe told public broadcaster NDR: "The key warning reached us about 15 minutes before the gates opened."

He urged people to keep away from stadiums and not move in large groups.

Shortly before the game was cancelled, police officers cordoned off an area outside the stadium after finding a suspicious object.

However, interior minister for the German state of Lower Saxony Boris Pistorius said no explosives have been found, contradicting media reports that explosives had been discovered in an emergency vehicle outside the stadium.

Speaking at a press conference with German interior minister Thomas de Maiziere, Mr Pistorius said no arrests have yet been made.

Mr de Maiziere refused to reveal the source of the intelligence on the planned attack following German media reports that authorities were tipped off by French intelligence officials.

He said the game had been cancelled for "good reasons, difficult reasons", but would not elaborate for fear it would "unsettle the public."

Just hours earlier Mr de Maiziere had warned that the terrorist threat in Germany was "very high".

Chancellor Angela Merkel and several other government ministers were due to attend the match to send a signal that Germany would not bow to terrorism in the wake of the Paris attacks.

They were not in the stadium when the game was called off and have now returned to Berlin.

Spokesman for the German national side Jens Grittner tweeted that the team were en route to the stadium when they were diverted by police. He said they had been taken to a "safe place" and that he could not disclose any more information.

It comes as armed police patrol Wembley for England's match with France.

On Friday three suicide bombers attacked areas outside Paris' Stade de France as Germany played the French national side.

After the blasts the German team spent the night in the Stade de France changing room as it was considered too dangerous for them to cross Paris.

"There was a lot of fear and anxiety in the dressing room that night," said head coach Joachim Loew. "We were afraid."

Police are hunting for two fugitives suspected of being directly involved in the Paris attacks which left 129 people dead.

Germany arrested seven people near the Belgium border earlier on Tuesday on suspicion of terrorism. All have now been released.

honeykid

MoFo Whisperer

11-17-15

The police said that the they had a 'concrete security threat' with just under two hours before kick off and that it was because of an "intention to ignite explosives". I've still not heard/seen that any explosives have been found yet, though.

ashdoc

Registered User

11-17-15

Originally Posted by Citizen Rules

This could remove the 'western thorn' in ISIS side. ISIS then would loose recruiting ability, as they could no longer say to young potential terrorist: 'see the western infidels are occupying Islamic land, that is a sin'. Without 'evil' westerns occupying Muslim land ISIS looses some of its steam and terroist attacks on western soil could decline.

you really dont know these people . the west being forced to retreat from these lands you mention will be heralded as a great muslim victory and the ISIS would be flush with recruits as enthusiasm for joining it will increase .

Rhett Butler

Cin�aste

11-17-15

Everything that can be done is being done, it seems like. It used to be said that when 3 or more people conspire, one of them is a government agent. Now, it's just not the case, anymore. Attacks like the attack in Paris and the Boston bombing only emphasize that they'll just keep slipping through the government's fingers. Declaring war on terrorists, or dropping bombs on ISIS compounds ... it's all just vanity.

We're keeping terrorists on the run and that's a good thing. We're not making it easy for them. And that's really the best that we can hope for. Just to keep the pressure on ... otherwise, there's no viable solution to this problem. How can you reason with someone so blinded by their zeal that they'll behead someone and eat their heart, raw? Spying, political rhetoric, bombs ... none of that kind of stuff reaches into desperate men's hearts.

Sane