Terrorists strike yet again

[LeVeL]

Shootings and explosions in Paris. So far ~40+ dead and 100+ hostages at Bataclan concert hall during the performance of an American band.

Daily Mail has frequent updates with pictures and videos: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/art...od-scene-not-far-Charlie-Hebdo-shootings.html

Edit: casualties adjusted from 40+ to 60+ now.

President Hollande ordered the closing of all French borders. Too little too late, methinks.
Allegedly a person inside the theater is Tweeting at the police asking them to raid them place because the hostages are being killed one by one.

Reported shouts of aloha snackbar and "for Syria". President Obama states that he doesn't want to speculate as to who is carrying out the attacks.

Update: 100 casualties now.

Concert hall secured by the police. Two attackers dead.

More or less martial law in Paris now.

Casualty count estimated at 140+ now

 

[LeVeL]

Alleged reports of arsonists attacking the Syrian refugee camps

Train and air traffic has been halted.

Latest death toll: 158

 

[Vipergts662]

Will the libby loo loos finally recognize the threat they pose or will they continue to ignore it and let it grow and get stronger.

BTW the turds at mizzou are pissed because Paris is getting more press than their fake baseless protest.

 

[Dr_Grip]

"Libby loos" that didn't take long.

I think we have to keep one thing in mind here, which is that France has a unique situation where traditionally, in most cases homegrown terrorism has been islamist and islamist terrorism has been homegrown. This is due to their colonial history, the Algerian war, the shit situation of (mostly muslim) immigrants from said former colonies.

Thus, it is totally possible that a connection to ISIS or Syria is mostly of a symbolic nature while the perpetrators and their motivation can be found within France.

Doesn't excuse anything, of course, it just makes this different from 9/11 and closer to Oklahoma City.

 

[argatoga]

I doubt this is ISIS. Grip's point is a good one. France has had issues will muslim immigrants since well before ISIS.

France is still active in much of Africa, and a lot of people have a reason to be unhappy with them. It wasn't long ago they went to Mali.

 

[Interrobang]

I doubt this is ISIS. Grip's point is a good one. France has had issues will muslim immigrants since well before ISIS.[...]

France has joined the fight in Syria last month and the AQAP attacks in January were a very different sort of attack. So suspecting ISIS is not far fetched ...
Homegrown? Yes. It would be a huge shock if not.

 

[argatoga]

France has joined the fight in Syria last month and the AQAP attacks in January were a very different sort of attack. So suspecting ISIS is not far fetched ...
Homegrown? Yes.

Why would ISIS attack France? Iran, the Iraqi government, and the Peshmerga are far greater threats to them. They aren't going to waste resources and encourage more Western intervention. Their senior leadership includes former high ranking Ba'ath Party officers. These aren't idiots.

 

[Interrobang]

Why would ISIS attack France? Iran, the Iraqi government, and the Peshmerga are far greater threats to them. They aren't going to waste resources and encourage more Western intervention. Their senior leadership includes former high ranking Ba'ath Party officers. These aren't idiots.

Like I said, France is already fighting ISIS in Syria and they have also (likely) hit Turkey last month after Turkey started attacking them too. This attack now may also be retaliation.

 

[AiR]

I doubt this is ISIS.

Of course it is ISIS.

The near-simultaneous attacks in Paris that killed at least 127 people and wounded more than 180 were an "act of war" organised by Islamic State, says France's President Francois Hollande.

Time to wipe these asshats off the planet.

 

[argatoga]

And Saddam Hussain was involved in 9/11.

I'd wait until more facts show up before proposing more boots on the ground. We went through this in the US, it wasn't pretty.

- - - Updated - - -

Like I said, France is already fighting ISIS in Syria and they have also (likely) hit Turkey last month after Turkey started attacking them too. This attack now may also be retaliation.

Again, France is not right next to ISIS. All muslim terrorists aren't global organizations. Why would they attack France when Iran is a far greater threat to them?

Terrorism on this scale isn't easy, nor is it cheap at that distance. Hasty accusations led the US into Iraq. France will repeat us if they don't take the time to find out what happened.

 

[argatoga]

Let the local powers in the region deal with ISIS. They have the ability to destroy them. The only foreign power with a vested interest in the area is Russia (their naval base in Tartus is their only Mediterranean port, without it Turkey can cut off their Black Sea fleet).

 

[LeVeL]

I doubt this is ISIS.

It was a lone wolf. Well, several lone wolves. Just like the lone wolves that brought down Flight 9268. Lone wolves attempted to attack the Thalys train. Lone wolves shot up Charlie Hedbo. Lone wolves tried to shoot up the art exhibit in Garland, TX. Yep, all lone wolves - because Obama said so.

Get real. We all know it was Islamist extremists. It was probably ISIS but even if it was another Muslim terror group, does that make it better?

As far as "why would France attack ISIS" - because they can't win the war in Syria/Iraq. They know this. No dirty goat-humper with an AK is a match for any of the advance nations' military forces. No, instead their strategy is to strike at the heart of western civilization with attacks just like this one.




In before I get called an islamaphobe for criticizing terrorists

 

[Interrobang]

[...] Why would they attack France when Iran is a far greater threat to them?

again, retaliation. They cannot fight France or Russia on the Battlefield so they attack this way.

[...]Hasty accusations led the US into Iraq.

And I totally agree. We should not make unfounded accusations nor base our actions on it.

Let the local powers in the region deal with ISIS. They have the ability to destroy them.[...]

That?s coming from a perspective that isn?t concerned by Millions of refugees. European countries are somewhat under pressure by that. Terrorist-attacks or not.
And do the local powers have the ability? Then do they lack the will or what?s keeping them?
The only ones really fighting in Iraq and Syria are what?s left of Iraq and Syria. Iran, Turkey and the others are not going to put boots on the ground to fight Daesh. That much has become clear in the last months. They are going to defend themselves and maybe contribute some air-strikes. They have the very same "let the local powers deal with that" approach. Maybe if the situation were to worsen, maybe then Iran, Turkey and so on would see the need to act. But for now, they do not seem willing to "get in there and sort this out".

It was a lone wolf. Well, several lone wolves. Just like the lone wolves that brought down Flight 9268. Lone wolves attempted to attack the Thalys train. Lone wolves shot up Charlie Hedbo. Lone wolves tried to shoot up the art exhibit in Garland, TX.[...]

Do you require explanation why the term "lone wolf" is used and why these attacks are different from centrally planned terrorist plots? Or why they are harder to predict or deal with?
It seems you have problems understanding why this term is used in the context of some terrorist attacks ... if you have questions, I?m sure we can answer them for you.

Though I have my own problems with this term. It think it?s a glorification ...

 

[Disinterested Observer]

It was a lone wolf. Well, several lone wolves. Just like the lone wolves that brought down Flight 9268. Lone wolves attempted to attack the Thalys train. Lone wolves shot up Charlie Hedbo. Lone wolves tried to shoot up the art exhibit in Garland, TX. Yep, all lone wolves - because Obama said so.

Get real. We all know it was Islamist extremists. It was probably ISIS but even if it was another Muslim terror group, does that make it better?

As far as "why would France attack ISIS" - because they can't win the war in Syria/Iraq. They know this. No dirty goat-humper with an AK is a match for any of the advance nations' military forces. No, instead their strategy is to strike at the heart of western civilization with attacks just like this one.




In before I get called an islamaphobe for criticizing terrorists

Well, ISIS (or any other group) is a match for the West at the moment. Because the West has become soft and complacent, and wants to minimise casualties. Cheney may have said that the gloves were off after 9/11, but that's not really true. It will only be true when the West decides to practice total war, and depopulate any of the regions ISIS operate in, on the basis that anyone who tolerates terrorists in their midst is just as guilty as the terrorists themselves.

If you believe in the clash of civilisations theory, and we're going to have to engage in some historically significant war with radical Islam, in war, there's no such thing as right or wrong. There's only winner and loser. Any atrocities performed can be justified after the fact, as long as you're on the winning side.

These are just what-ifs. They may not reflect my personal views. Unfortunately, reality is a lot more complicated.

 

[LeVeL]

Do you require explanation why the term "lone wolf" is used and why these attacks are different from centrally planned terrorist plots? Or why they are harder to predict or deal with?
It seems you have problems understanding why this term is used in the context of some terrorist attacks ... if you have questions, I?m sure we can answer them for you.

Please do explain why the term "lone wolf" is used to describe virtually every terror attack carried out in the name of (extremist) Islam. Please do explain how this time it's different from every other time. Please explain how Charlie Hedbo, Porte de Vincennes, Bataclan, flight 9268, Thalys train, and countless others are all different, impossible to predict, and don't all center around radical Islam.

Tim McVeigh was a lone wolf terrorist. Global religious extremist scum slaughtering civilians is anything but.

Well, ISIS (or any other group) is a match for the West at the moment. Because the West has become soft and complacent, and wants to minimise casualties. Cheney may have said that the gloves were off after 9/11, but that's not really true. It will only be true when the West decides to practice total war, and depopulate any of the regions ISIS operate in, on the basis that anyone who tolerates terrorists in their midst is just as guilty as the terrorists themselves.

If you believe in the clash of civilisations theory, and we're going to have to engage in some historically significant war with radical Islam, in war, there's no such thing as right or wrong. There's only winner and loser. Any atrocities performed can be justified after the fact, as long as you're on the winning side.

These are just what-ifs. They may not reflect my personal views. Unfortunately, reality is a lot more complicated.

You're right, the west is soft. Unfortunately you may also be right about total war. I fear that our softness will lead to an Iranian nuke, stronger Hamas, etc and eventually it will come down to either a) the destruction of Israel, or b) the destruction of Israel's Sharia neighbors. If it does come to that, I'm hoping for the latter.

 

[Interrobang]

Please do explain why the term "lone wolf" is used to describe virtually every terror attack carried out in the name of (extremist) Islam. Please do explain how this time it's different from every other time. Please explain how Charlie Hedbo, Porte de Vincennes, Bataclan, flight 9268, Thalys train, and countless others are all different, impossible to predict, and don't all center around radical Islam[...]

You?re putting words into my mouth. I never argued that Bataclan nor flight 9268 are the doing of "lone wolves". You?re projecting quite hard here ...

And it really isn?t clear to you how that when a single terrorist or small group of them strike targets independent (in terms of planning, even equipping themselves) of any bigger organisation in the run-up - that this isn't the same thing as (for example) 9/11? A Terror-plot well planned ahead in it?s details and executed by Al Qaeda?
There is a huge difference between these two scenarios, especially in the way they can be predicted by intelligence services.
That?s not saying "lones wolfes" are better, on the contrary, they are worse. Organisations like Al Qaeda just have to radicalize these people and off they go (for example) stab israeli soldiers. They can radicalize them even just via Internet these days. They don?t even have to fly them somewhere to train them. Some brain-washing, take a knife from the kitchen and off you go. Kill some people, great - we?ll take credit for that. Fail miserably, make up some bullshit story that doesn?t lead to us.

That said - just to counter misunderstandings before they happen - I?m not saying that yesterday's event are a "lone wolf" (again, I hate that term) attack, I actually think it isn?t because of the degree of organisation that was seen. But the future will hopefully tell us who or what organisation is behind this.
How to call the attacks on Charlie Hedbo and Porte de Vincennes is debatable - but before we start splitting hairs here - they are all terrible. People die because of religious extremism. And you shouldn't get hung up on the debate over some silly, terrorist glorifying word. It?s you who somehow thinks that calling an attack made by a "lone wolf terrorist" makes this somehow seem less bad while clearly the opposite is the case. That?s not me who says that, nor have I read anything in that direction in this thread. They are bad people, they kill people, they need to be stopped. And it?s harder to do that when they act alone or in small groups. Stop projecting or find some people to argue with that actually say this sort of stuff ...

In other news, the first identified terrorist (they took his thumbprint of his detached thumb after he blew himself up) is french and from the parisian suburbs.

 

[Delll]

You?re putting words into my mouth. I never argued that Bataclan nor flight 9268 are the doing of "lone wolves". You?re projecting quite hard here ...

While Finland hasn't really experienced immigrant terrorism (the closest would probably be a mall shooting motivated by romance troubles which probably doesn't count), each and every time the police or "the tolerant" (political left, mostly) feel an immigrant-committed crime has received sufficient coverage to force them to comment, they are invariably labelled "isolated cases" (which, curiously enough, appear on the news at least once a month). There is never any reason to be alarmed. There is never any reason to fear other immigrants. There is never any reason to believe that factors other than individual problems could be the cause. There is grave concern that widely reported crimes like gang rape, rape+murder, months-long mugging sprees by gangs almost invariably committed by immigrants (and invariably followed by half-assed apologies and "but society is racist" cries by other immigrants) will lead to distrust of immigrants...

I wouldn't be at all surprised if the US leftist press report these cases similarly.

In other news, the first identified terrorist (they took his thumbprint of his detached thumb after he blew himself up) is french and from the parisian suburbs.

I'm sure the police won't be hesitant to release the name and picture of Pierre Baguette Bonaparte...

 

[Dr_Grip]

What is much more interesting/worrying than any lone wolf / homegrown or not discussion is why ISIS, be it by leading locals spiritually or by actually training/sending people, have turned their strategy 180?. Until now, ISIS focused on building themselves into a local power to be reckoned with by being ruthless in their local expansion strategy and staying out of global politics. Yep, there's has been some alibi anti-ISIS bombing and drone warfare, but it's the main reason the west has left them more or less alone so far.

By attacking targets in the West (and maybe downing a Russian airliner as well) they are provoking a major international strike against them that is almost guaranteed to take a bunch of the territory they gained away from them. It seems like the most stupid move in the history of expansive warfare.

And while I won't even comment on most of the racist shit Delll spouts, he's right in one point: A war against ISIS can only be won by ground troops. In fact, sending in a decent amount of soldiers instead of arming ISIS to fight Assad would probably have prevented this shit from happening. But as long as the West fears the images of soldiers returning home in body bags by the dozen, the terrorist threat will not be stopped: You can destroy a country with air strikes, but you can't control it without a guy with a gun on every street corner. And you need to do the latter to stop terrorism. Thus, another bombing campaign will only make stuff worse. Send in ground troops, disarm these assheads and stay until civil society is fully restored. Even if it takes a dozen years or more. The Americans stayed in Germany for more than 40 years after WW II to make sure civil society would work. The West has to do the same next time they try to fight terror in the middle east.

 

[LeVeL]

You?re putting words into my mouth. I never argued that Bataclan nor flight 9268 are the doing of "lone wolves". You?re projecting quite hard here ...

And it really isn?t clear to you how that when a single terrorist or small group of them strike targets independent (in terms of planning, even equipping themselves) of any bigger organisation in the run-up - that this isn't the same thing as (for example) 9/11? A Terror-plot well planned ahead in it?s details and executed by Al Qaeda?
There is a huge difference between these two scenarios, especially in the way they can be predicted by intelligence services.
That?s not saying "lones wolfes" are better, on the contrary, they are worse. Organisations like Al Qaeda just have to radicalize these people and off they go (for example) stab israeli soldiers. They can radicalize them even just via Internet these days. They don?t even have to fly them somewhere to train them. Some brain-washing, take a knife from the kitchen and off you go. Kill some people, great - we?ll take credit for that. Fail miserably, make up some bullshit story that doesn?t lead to us.

That said - just to counter misunderstandings before they happen - I?m not saying that yesterday's event are a "lone wolf" (again, I hate that term) attack, I actually think it isn?t because of the degree of organisation that was seen. But the future will hopefully tell us who or what organisation is behind this.
How to call the attacks on Charlie Hedbo and Porte de Vincennes is debatable - but before we start splitting hairs here - they are all terrible. People die because of religious extremism. And you shouldn't get hung up on the debate over some silly, terrorist glorifying word. It?s you who somehow thinks that calling an attack made by a "lone wolf terrorist" makes this somehow seem less bad while clearly the opposite is the case. That?s not me who says that, nor have I read anything in that direction in this thread. They are bad people, they kill people, they need to be stopped. And it?s harder to do that when they act alone or in small groups. Stop projecting or find some people to argue with that actually say this sort of stuff ...

In other news, the first identified terrorist (they took his thumbprint of his detached thumb after he blew himself up) is french and from the parisian suburbs.

In general, I agree. However, as far as I can tell, whenever an event is labeled as a "lone wolf" attack, it seems to somehow diminish its significance. I agree with you that it shouldn't, but nothing ever gets done after lone wolf attacks and no one seems to clamor for any action.

"Lone wolf" as in acting independently of any organization - appropriate.
"Lone wolf" as in unrelated to other attacks - politically correct nonsense.

Whether organized by ISIS, Al-Qaeda, or any of the other terror groups, or a lone wolf attack (in the first sense), all of these events are tied to Islamic jihad and a war on the infidels of the west, and all of these events are carried out in support of that larger cause.

What is much more interesting/worrying than any lone wolf / homegrown or not discussion is why ISIS, be it by leading locals spiritually or by actually training/sending people, have turned their strategy 180?. Until now, ISIS focused on building themselves into a local power to be reckoned with by being ruthless in their local expansion strategy and staying out of global politics. Yep, there's has been some alibi anti-ISIS bombing and drone warfare, but it's the main reason the west has left them more or less alone so far.

By attacking targets in the West (and maybe downing a Russian airliner as well) they are provoking a major international strike against them that is almost guaranteed to take a bunch of the territory they gained away from them. It seems like the most stupid move in the history of expansive warfare.

ISIS realizes that they can't win a ground war. Like I said elsewhere, a bunch of durkas with stolen trucks and AKs is no match for a true military in a true face-off. Instead they resort to two strategies:
1) Guerrilla warfare. An underground insurgency is basically impossible to defeat by actually fighting them with weapons. Also, as we've seen in places like Afghanistan and Vietnam, it's difficult for an outside force to fight local militias. Again, this type of warfare is categorically different from the traditional army vs army.
2) Terrorist attacks. Strike at the heart of the enemy. Weaken and demoralize the enemy. Make the enemy rush into decisions that they might later regret. Keep in mind that ISIS is not a group that simply wants to fight for independence and to create their own nation and then leave in peace. No, what they really want is to destroy western civilization. What better way to accomplish this and to show your enemy just how powerless they are than to slaughter 150+ people in one of your enemy's largest and most symbolic cities?

And while I won't even comment on most of the racist shit Delll spouts, he's right in one point: A war against ISIS can only be won by ground troops. In fact, sending in a decent amount of soldiers instead of arming ISIS to fight Assad would probably have prevented this shit from happening. But as long as the West fears the images of soldiers returning home in body bags by the dozen, the terrorist threat will not be stopped: You can destroy a country with air strikes, but you can't control it without a guy with a gun on every street corner. And you need to do the latter to stop terrorism. Thus, another bombing campaign will only make stuff worse. Send in ground troops, disarm these assheads and stay until civil society is fully restored. Even if it takes a dozen years or more. The Americans stayed in Germany for more than 40 years after WW II to make sure civil society would work. The West has to do the same next time they try to fight terror in the middle east.

There are simultaneous calls for the US to stop policing the world and to send ground troops back into Iraq to fight ISIS. Pick one or the other! Personally, I'm not opposed to an escalation of force in the middle east BUT the US should not be doing 90% of the work. The UN needs to step up and deliver. Heck, how hard can it be to negotiate with Russia to set differences aside for the time being and focus on fighting the mutual foe? Forget Assad vs rebels, make that a separate issue; agree to cooperate on fighting ISIS.

The scary part, I think, is that while ground troops can defeat men, they cannot defeat an idea. The extremist ideology has been around for centuries (arguably forever even) and it remains today. Again, you have to face the fact that Islamic law (Sharia) cannot coexist with western civilization so the solution is to somehow get Sharia countries to accept that other countries are governed inherently different and that's okay. Many of these countries do not partake in this terrorist bullshit and I don't think anyone has any problems with them. It's the militant extremes that we need to worry about.

 

[Delll]

What is much more interesting/worrying than any lone wolf / homegrown or not discussion is why ISIS, be it by leading locals spiritually or by actually training/sending people, have turned their strategy 180?. Until now, ISIS focused on building themselves into a local power to be reckoned with by being ruthless in their local expansion strategy and staying out of global politics. Yep, there's has been some alibi anti-ISIS bombing and drone warfare, but it's the main reason the west has left them more or less alone so far.

By attacking targets in the West (and maybe downing a Russian airliner as well) they are provoking a major international strike against them that is almost guaranteed to take a bunch of the territory they gained away from them. It seems like the most stupid move in the history of expansive warfare.

Disclaimer: I know nothing.
They know they don't have enough resources to win an actual war at least when external countries join the fray. As recent examples have proven, it's tremendously difficult to fight scattered insurgent groups. So they provoke external countries to attack and assume a lower profile locally. Whatever destruction is wrought upon ISIS' former strongholds will breed discontent among the populace. Immigrants in other countries tend to feel a connection to their (parents') home countries (witness Kurdish marches and demonstrations, important holiday celebrations, France-Algeria football matches...) and any action taken in Iraq/Syria will also drive immigrants/refugees to support those who defend their home country (ISIS) from foreign forces. Some day they will have enough local and external support to make another serious bid for control of the area.

[Greek] Citizen Protection Minister Nikos Toskas, in charge of police forces, has released the following statement: "On the case of the Syrian passport found at the scene of the terrorist attack, we announce that the passport holder had passed from Leros on October 3 where he was identified based on EU rules."