The all purpose terrorism thread featuring plenty of allah akbar

[August]

Originally Posted by Schroeder

BS! They told us terrorists would never come in here pretending to be refugees! That would be way to dangerous for them they said!
No terrorists here, nothing to see move along.

No way Hillary Clinton assures us that this would never happen!

[Jimbuna]

Originally Posted by Nippelspanner

German intelligence warns of IS ‘hit squads’ among refugees

You don't say!?

I doubt it will happen but I'd be interested in seeing what the actual numbers are suspected of being

[danasan]

Originally Posted by Nippelspanner

Yeah I call BS on this too... and if, we probably just speak of regrettable and isolated incidents... right? Right?

At this point I sometimes catch myself thinking that maaaybeeee, a large and devastating attack with many casualties is what this country needs to wake up from its social-political-coma and start to act.
But I am unwilling to witness these kind of news actually.
And I also doubt it would change the regressive, self-destructive minds of the Gutmenschen-Plague roaming the country, sooo...

le sigh?
le sigh!

I really agree with you, generally speaking. But we can't wish to have innocent victims, can we?

[Oberon]

Originally Posted by danasan

I really agree with you, generally speaking. But we can't wish to have innocent victims, can we?

The trouble with large scale attacks with many victims is not only does it make a country act...it also makes it over-act which in turn backfires in its face further on down the line. But I'm sure NS will get his wish one day, the law of averages dictates that one is going to get through sometime, they only have to be lucky once, we have to be lucky all the time.
C'est la guerre.

Originally Posted by danasan

I really agree with you, generally speaking. But we can't wish to have innocent victims, can we?

Which is why I said it the way I did, adding that I don't want that, of course.
I tried to point out that people usually only start to act when things happen, regardless what we're talking about. This is natural, I guess, yet these days many things need pre-emptive action.
Controlling the invasion of Europe at all would have been the right thing to do, but it didn't happen and now, in consequence, anything can happen.

Originally Posted by Oberon

The trouble with large scale attacks with many victims is not only does it make a country act...it also makes it over-act which in turn backfires in its face further on down the line.

Over-reacting like what?

[Buddahaid]

Like invading Iraq after 911.

Originally Posted by Buddahaid

Like invading Iraq after 911.

As if that was some knee-jerk reaction solely due to 911, come on now.

Originally Posted by Nippelspanner

As if that was some knee-jerk reaction solely due to 911, come on now.

It wasn't a 'knee jerk reaction' to 911 at all. Those behind the invasion knew perfectly well that the Iraqi regime had nothing to do with 911.

Originally Posted by AndyJWest

It wasn't a 'knee jerk reaction' to 911 at all. Those behind the invasion knew perfectly well that the Iraqi regime had nothing to do with 911.

That's what I meant, in case it came across differently.

[Buddahaid]

I disagree. The public in general wanted to lash out and do something about it. The government did to and made something happen while public sentiment was favorable. No WMD found but some "towel heads" got their butts kicked and people felt better. It was a bad decision based more on emotions than logic.

[Oberon]

You can make the argument for Iraq, yes, but I also think about the First World War, the Israeli invasion of Lebanon in 1982, the Indian attack on the Golden Temple in 1984, to give a couple of examples. In each one all the reaction has done is lead to an escalation of the crisis and resulted in a rise in casualties for both sides. In fact, in some instances terrorist attacks are designed to try and provoke an overreaction, Bin Laden in 2004 said that it is "easy for us to provoke and bait....All that we have to do is to send two mujahidin...to raise a piece of cloth on which it is written Al'Qaeda in order to make the generals race there to cause America human, economic, and political losses."
Clearly one of the goals of terrorism is to provoke a reaction and to do it on the terms of the terrorists, and thus if we wish to act counter to the interests of terrorists we need to take a much more measured and reasoned response in order to avoid fighting the war on their tune.

Here's a read:
http://politicalscience.osu.edu/faculty/jmueller/nb.pdf

Originally Posted by Oberon

...and thus if we wish to act counter to the interests of terrorists we need to take a much more measured and reasoned response in order to avoid fighting the war on their tune.

Like what?

[Oberon]

Originally Posted by Nippelspanner

Like what?

Indentifying how their organisations are structured and targetting key figures, remaining vigilant but working with rather than against local Muslim communities, and remembering that in this war we still have the upper hand, our casualty rates are far far lower than theirs. For every western civilian killed by extremists there have to be at least twenty Daesh fighters killed in Syria. Unfortunately there are going to be western casualties, I think even if you stopped every refugee from entering Europe and put every Muslim citizen under surveillance there would be ones who would slip through the cracks and attack, and I think the fact that it's been seventy years since the west has had such casualties has made our acceptance of such deaths much lower, but allowing this to affect our strategic and tactical war plan would be a mistake.

To take another example, and apologies in advance for the Godwin but it's the only one I can think of to hand since it's an area I have studied fairly in depth. During the Battle of Britain the Luftwaffe had the RAF on the back foot after Adlertag, whilst it wasn't the knock-out blow that was wanted and indeed you can argue that Adlertag failed in its objectives, the rate of attriction on the RAF was high and a lot of 11 Group airfields were badly damaged, forcing squadrons to fall back closer to London and use dispersed fields. Then came the Croydon error, which lead to Berlin being visited by Bomber Command and the Luftwaffe switched from focusing on 11 Group airfields and attritioning the RAF in the air to hitting targets in London which achieved little of strategic value. Likewise the focus on the 'V' weapons later in the war which consumed precious materials and resources for little to no return all because of a desire for Vengence for losses suffered by the German people to Allied bombing raids.
I get that fear and vengence are powerful emotions, I felt them too after July 7th, when I went to London the first time after the bombings I felt uneasy whilst on the tube and every person carrying a rucksack received a second glance, particularly if they looked 'a bit foreign', but we have to try to rise above that and act with care and thought in order to inflict as much damage on our enemy as we can without making the job harder for ourselves whilst doing so.

[Skybird]

Scandal: a parliamentary request by the party Die Linke led to a reply via a secret paper that was gained by media and where the government declares that in its view and based on assessments of the German BND Erdoghan is in full cooperation and support of Muslim terror organisation and has opened Turkey as a platform from which these barbarians operate. Officially, the government has always rejected this version. Also a sensible nuance: the reply did not come from the foreign ministry, but the interior ministry.

To be precise, not the whole paper is secret, only the explosive parts in it. These parts now were gained by German state television ARD.

One wonders whether the revelation really is unwanted, and not channelled. The relations between Turkey and Germany are at an all-time low, well-deserved, and I hope they freeze even more. Almost never making a stand in public that could lead to open confrontation, this might be Merkel'S way to retaliate for the treason against Germany and NATO conducted by Erdoghan, and the constant and ongoing Turkish offences, diffamations, provocations and demands to obey the Sultan's willpower.

We can be certain that oncer again the German ambassador will be called in - who since months only get met when the Turks want to complain again and want to demand again, else gets completely shut out since the gerna parliament dared to call the Turkish genocide against the Armenians a genocide. A step that other Western parliaments already took many years ago.

And two days ago there was a media report that prominant circles in the American military do not see the nukes at Incirlik as safe and rate it as an uncalculatable risk to leave them in Turkey. They could be obtained by one of the many terror groups in the region - I would even claim they are not safe from the Turks themselves. We must push Turkey out of NATO, at all costs. A treacherous, split-tongued, double-acting ally is no ally, but a danger and a risk.

Maybe a US president Trump would do that. Which would give Putin a nice trophy, since pro-Russian groups seem to finance his campaign quite massively. Who said Russians cannot play chess? Trump would divide the West, Clinton not so much. Its clear where Putin's sympathies lies.

[eddie]

Well, it finally happened Choudary has been found guilty of inciting support for Daesh. Along with one of his aides, he could get 10 years in prison. That doesn't sound long enough to me!


http://www.bbc.com/news/uk-37098751?...ource=facebook