BREAKING NEWS: Large Scale Terrorist Attack in France -- Multiple Explosions, Gunfire! Death toll at - Polidicks

What a horrible event, can't believe the shitty media of my country didn't mention it at all. I feel so bad for France, is the reason they are constantly being attacked by terrorists because they're nearer?

Not sure if this has been posted but apparently a suicide bomber was turned away by security at that France v Germany football match. Holy shit [url]http://www.wsj.com/articles/attacker-tried-to-enter-paris-stadium-but-was-turned-away-1447520571[/url]

[QUOTE=InvaderNouga;49115832]Maybe I'm making a huge assumption but if more people knew what tourniquets or direct pressure was it could have helped. I was never formally instructed on a tourniquet until I joined the Navy, I feel like it should be a basic thing in Health class during primary or secondary school.[/QUOTE] That sounds like a good idea regardless, even if barely anyone ever has to use it. It seems like something that would take just a few minutes to explain but would save lives if someone is badly injured in that way. I know how to do a pressure bandage from school, but I'm not sure how that compares. It's probably only good for wounds near the surface, but wouldn't cause as much issues due to the circulation being cut off.

[QUOTE=PaperMartin;49115993]but if our president doesn't have the balls to take decisions,nothing will happen.[/QUOTE] Considering that he was AT the first attack site, I imagine he won't have many problems making decisions in what to do.

[QUOTE=catbarf;49115949]We [i]destroyed[/i] Al-Qaeda. Seriously, the near-dissolution of Al-Qaeda is the clearest proof that this 'killing extremists only makes them martyrs!!!' line is bogus. But, we built a Shi'ite government in Iraq headed by politicians with a history of repressing Sunnis, then pulled out. A Shi'ite government in a Shi'ite majority country with no barriers to ethnic repression is not a stable system, and it comes as no surprise that when a Sunni extremist organization (ISIS) came into town, the Sunni minority in Iraq was basically ready for anyone but their current government. The military campaign is relatively easy, it's the nation-building afterwards that's hard, and the American public is too mercurial and short-sighted to stay the course long enough to make it work. The French, however, have had a good track record ever since they learned from their mistakes in Algeria. If anyone can successfully lead the effort to rebuild the Middle East into a functional region, it'd be France.[/QUOTE] That would be pretty grand. And somewhat ironic. The good kind of irony.

[QUOTE=coldroll5;49116202]America also created their own enemy with Al Qaeda during the 80's when the Soviet union invaded and occupied Afghanistan by supplying weapons and ammo and training AL Qaeda and other rebel groups to fight back against the Soviets. By supplying the rebel groups in Syria and Iraq the same thing could happen again if one of the many rebel groups decides to go against the United States.[/QUOTE] Stop perpetuating this bullshit lie. Al Qaeda did not [B]exist [/B]in the 1980s. At all! The US supported the Mujahadeen, a pro-West group that, after the Soviet withdrawal, splintered off into multiple groups, including Al Qaeda, but also the Northern Alliance, a still pro-West group who fought the other guys for decades, and who's leader was even assassinated on 9/10/01 by an AQ suicide bomber.

[QUOTE=Ridge;49116291]Considering that he was AT the first attack site, I imagine he won't have many problems making decisions in what to do.[/QUOTE] Why wouldn't he? Just because he sad what happened doesn't mean he's suddenly gonna grow big balls and be useful for once.

I'm very anxious to see what the French Government is planning to do military-wise. I am very certain that their foreign legion and special forces groups are already preparing and planning missions. In the wake of 9/11 we had green berets entering Afghanistan

[QUOTE=Potus;49116209]Not sure if this has been posted but apparently a suicide bomber was turned away by security at that France v Germany football match. Holy shit [url]http://www.wsj.com/articles/attacker-tried-to-enter-paris-stadium-but-was-turned-away-1447520571[/url][/QUOTE] I think terrorists can't wait for UEFA Euro 2016. Even if they don't plan to do anything France could lose a ton of money on security and tourist that would be too scared to come. In the next few months, if a terrorist even sneezes in France I wouldn't be surprised they decided to cancel the whole thing.

An American girl studying abroad from Cal Tech was among the victims.

[QUOTE=Fort83;49116332]Then let's give them what they want, they will soon regret ever wanting the combined military might of the world coming down on them.[/QUOTE] Oh boy more innocent casualties caused by the west, that's such a good idea.

[QUOTE=itisjuly;49116392]Oh boy more innocent casualties caused by the west, that's such a good idea.[/QUOTE] There's no other fucking option then wiping the terrorists out! Get off your shitty fucking moral high horse. The longer we let the operate the more causalities there will be. period.

[QUOTE=itisjuly;49116392]Oh boy more innocent casualties caused by the west, that's such a good idea.[/QUOTE] Oh boy, letting them run rampant as they kill not only their own countrymen, but those all across the world, that's such a good idea. Grow up and face reality: there is no other option.

As time goes on, I agree more and more with Travolta's character in Swordfish. Stanley: War? Who are we at war with? Gabriel: Anyone who impinges on America's freedom. Terrorist states, Stanley. Someone must bring their war to them. They bomb a church, we bomb ten. They hijack a plane, we take out an airport. They execute American tourists, we tactically nuke an entire city. Our job is to make terrorism so horrific that it becomes unthinkable to attack Americans. replace Americans with your country of choice, or just The West. It's brutal, and terrifying, but when it costs them more than just their martyr, they won't want to do it as much. The disparity in casualties in this kind of war is backwards when you look at the technological capabilities of the players.

[QUOTE=itisjuly;49116392]Oh boy more innocent casualties caused by the west, that's such a good idea.[/QUOTE] What exactly is the alternative? Sit there and take it? Worked out well for us, didn't it? [highlight](User was permabanned for this post ("alt of perma'd user Moupi" - Orkel))[/highlight]

[QUOTE=Ridge;49116431] It's brutal, and terrifying, but when it costs them more than just their martyr, they won't want to do it as much.[/QUOTE] Did you ever stop to wonder why this happened in the first place?

[QUOTE=Ridge;49116431]As time goes on, I agree more and more with Travolta's character in Swordfish. Stanley: War? Who are we at war with? Gabriel: Anyone who impinges on America's freedom. Terrorist states, Stanley. Someone must bring their war to them. They bomb a church, we bomb ten. They hijack a plane, we take out an airport. They execute American tourists, we tactically nuke an entire city. Our job is to make terrorism so horrific that it becomes unthinkable to attack Americans. replace Americans with your country of choice, or just The West. It's brutal, and terrifying, but when it costs them more than just their martyr, they won't want to do it as much. The disparity in casualties in this kind of war is backwards when you look at the technological capabilities of the players.[/QUOTE] This, bomb their fucking bases back to the stone age. Destroy their equipment. Ruin their moral. Destroy the oil fields which is their income. Turn the people against them. Systematically fuck them up so damn hard they wouldn't fucking dare think about attacking another western country again.

[QUOTE=catbarf;49115949]But, we built a Shi'ite government in Iraq headed by politicians with a history of repressing Sunnis, then pulled out. A Shi'ite government in a Shi'ite majority country with no barriers to ethnic repression is not a stable system, and it comes as no surprise that when a Sunni extremist organization (ISIS) came into town, the Sunni minority in Iraq was basically ready for anyone but their current government. The military campaign is relatively easy, it's the nation-building afterwards that's hard, and the American public is too mercurial and short-sighted to stay the course long enough to make it work. The French, however, have had a good track record ever since they learned from their mistakes in Algeria. If anyone can successfully lead the effort to rebuild the Middle East into a functional region, it'd be France.[/QUOTE] Sometimes I wonder if the only way to "fix" that place would be to tear down the entire thing, the entire region, and restructure it as new countries based on the population groups in an area, and hope they don't use their newfound national identities and legitimacy as reason to go to war with each other anyway. Of course that's not feasible because the death toll of both Westerners and Middle-Easterners, as well as the obvious opposition from major players in the area and in the East, as well as from non-violent protests from all over the world.

[QUOTE=The Rifleman;49116397]There's no other fucking option then wiping the terrorists out! Get off your shitty fucking moral high horse. The longer we let the operate the more causalities there will be. period.[/QUOTE] Because invasions stopped alquada or other terrorist organizations? Last I checked they still exist and are doing fine, ISIS just took the spotlight for now. You can't possibly expect the problem to get fixed by using same methods that never worked before? Why can't we actually help the local people while we murder them? Establish schools, improve education and economy, convert them to our "religion" instead of just raining fire? A lot of Middle East sees us as the bad guys and really you can't blame them. All we do is kill them. We should look into actually helping them get out of their shitty situation. ISIS WANTS us to invade, it's much easier to paint us as bad guys when we are right there, killing the locals. This will breed more terrorist organizations to free east from "west oppression". Pure invasion is a short term solution that doesn't even solve anything.

[QUOTE=itisjuly;49116468]Because invasions stopped alquada or other terrorist organizations? Last I checked they still exist and are doing fine, ISIS just took the spotlight for now. You can't possibly expect the problem to get fixed by using same methods that never worked before? Why can't we actually help the local people while we murder them? Establish schools, improve education and economy, convert them to our "religion" instead of just raining fire? A lot of Middle East sees us as the bad guys and really you can't blame them. All we do is kill them. We should look into actually helping them get out of their shitty situation. ISIS WANTS us to invade, it's much easier to paint us as bad guys when we are right there, killing the locals. This will breed more terrorist organizations to free east from "west oppression". Pure invasion is a short term solution that doesn't even solve anything.[/QUOTE] You should probably read this post Mr. Holier than thou [QUOTE=catbarf;49115855]This is such bullshit. ISIS isn't an insurgency. They use insurgent tactics, but their power base comes from territory that they have occupied and controlled, and extort tithes from. ISIS has [I]formed a state[/I] (hint: it's in their name) in much of Iraq and Syria where they represent the political leadership and military control over the regions. A conflict with a de facto state, fighting for control over their territory, would be about as 'conventional' as it can get. By the way, are you aware that Kurdish forces have [URL="http://www.nytimes.com/2015/11/13/world/middleeast/sinjar-isis-iraq-syria.html"]retaken Sinjar[/URL]? You wanna know how they did it? They [I]shot the fuckers[/I] (with bullets!) and took the territory. There are certainly still ISIS sympathizers in the region but now ISIS doesn't have geographic, political, military, or economic control over Sinjar. That's a win. By your logic Nazi Germany could never take France circa 1940, because French Resistance fighters remained. Scattered insurgent resistance is not the same as statehood. And you don't need to crack open a history textbook to know that in the case of France, getting invaded and their government dismantled didn't 'strengthen their resolve', it completely removed them from the war as a military power until someone came in to bail them out. They presented a thorn in the side of German occupiers but they weren't waging any wars or exerting serious influence over what used to be their country. How about Russia and Chechnya? Russia suffered repeated insurgent attacks at the hands of Chechen insurgents based in Grozny. Russia invaded Grozny and dismantled the Chechen government and replaced it with a puppet state. The Chechen insurgents remained, scattered across the countryside, but lost their power base and since the 90s have been little more than a nuisance. Have you been to Somalia? I have. Back in the 90s it was a real shithole run by a series of warlords who asserted control over parts of Mogadishu. Then the UN intervened, the US took out a number of key players, and the slow process of economic rebuilding began. With the leaders and organizers dead or defunct and a viable economy being rebuilt, violent extremism loses support and power and today is well on its way out, with organizations like Al-Shabaab representing a last-gasp attempt to retain control through terror rather than through popular and economic support. Killing leadership and mopping up isolated cells has been an [B]extremely[/B] effective strategy in combating Al-Qaeda, in combating the Taliban, in cleaning up Mogadishu, when the French fought Algerian insurgents, in the recent French operations in Mali, in a whole host of other examples that I would be overjoyed to open my textbooks and list if you're still not convinced. When these groups assume statehood, all it does it put a bigger bullseye on their heads and make them easier to target. In the last 18 hours there have been a plethora of pseudo-intellectuals coming out of the woodwork to tell us all about how military action can't combat extremism. They have no knowledge of military history and seem to think that simplistic platitudes somehow constitute a viable military policy, and are entirely ignorant of the [I]numerous[/I] examples of successful counter-insurgency military campaigns. In fact, in military analysis it's not a question of whether military action works against insurgencies (spoilers: it does), the issue is always how to balance military needs against collateral damage and alienating the local population- which stops being a problem when the insurgents are kind enough to assert statehood and present overtly military targets and leadership to destroy. This is going to end in blood, and sooner or later ISIS is going to get annihilated through conventional warfare. The question you should be asking is how, once the military operation is complete, we're going to rebuild the region to prevent the ethnic and tribal tensions that led to the present instability, develop viable economies that dissuade extremism as a means of income, and build functioning non-partisan governments that adequately represent their people. This 'violence never solves anything!!!' mantra is useless to that goal, and amounts to little more than holier-than-thou moral masturbation.[/QUOTE]

[QUOTE=itisjuly;49116468]Because invasions stopped alquada or other terrorist organizations? Last I checked they still exist and are doing fine, ISIS just took the spotlight for now. You can't possibly expect the problem to get fixed by using same methods that never worked before? Why can't we actually help the local people while we murder them? Establish schools, improve education and economy, convert them to our "religion" instead of just raining fire? A lot of Middle East sees us as the bad guys and really you can't blame them. All we do is kill them. We should look into actually helping them get out of their shitty situation. ISIS WANTS us to invade, it's much easier to paint us as bad guys when we are right there, killing the locals. This will breed more terrorist organizations to free east from "west oppression". Pure invasion is a short term solution that doesn't even solve anything.[/QUOTE] Last time I checked Al Quada has been fucked back to the 80s during our invasions. You've never taken a history class if you think our efforts to combat terrorism hasn't done shit. Good luck establishing schools and an economy that will be bombed the next day by said extremists. Look at the kids in the Vice video who can't wait to grow up to be martyrs. Tell me, how do you educate someone who would put a bullet in your head without blinking? You're acting like an edgy teenager going "ugh war is bad, boo help the people man" when you don't understand how geopolitics nor warfare actually works.

I wonder if leaflet campaigns would help during a counterattack in Iraq. Not so much like "WE GON' KILL ALL YOU SUNSABITCHES" but instead basically say "Hey if you don't want your shit pushed in, let your arms down and surrender. If not, prepare to get slapped upside the head with an MLRS"

A man, just brought his piano and played Imagine of John Lennon next to the Bataclan Theater [video=youtube;MNRCTC1ElXQ]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MNRCTC1ElXQ[/video]

[QUOTE=Zillamaster55;49116491]I wonder if leaflet campaigns would help during a counterattack in Iraq. Not so much like "WE GON' KILL ALL YOU SUNSABITCHES" but instead basically say "Hey if you don't want your shit pushed in, let your arms down and surrender. If not, prepare to get slapped upside the head with an MLRS"[/QUOTE] A leaflet campaign would be better targeted toward civilians discouraging them from supporting ISIS.

[QUOTE=Mr. Someguy;49116504]A leaflet campaign would be better targeted toward civilians discouraging them from supporting ISIS.[/QUOTE] Anyone found picking them up gets executed

We've used leaflets I'm Iraq, Afghanistan, and Libya.

[QUOTE=Zillamaster55;49116491]I wonder if leaflet campaigns would help during a counterattack in Iraq. Not so much like "WE GON' KILL ALL YOU SUNSABITCHES" but instead basically say "Hey if you don't want your shit pushed in, let your arms down and surrender. If not, prepare to get slapped upside the head with an MLRS"[/QUOTE] They don't care. They want to kill us all - that is their goal. They want to dominate and subjugate the world. Threats wont stop them. Calls for surrender will go unheeded. They will either use it to their own advantage, or disregard it entirely. There is only one path to peace, and it's war. It will never be over until their last fighter has been torn from this earth to face whatever hell awaits them beyond.

[QUOTE=Zillamaster55;49116491]I wonder if leaflet campaigns would help during a counterattack in Iraq. Not so much like "WE GON' KILL ALL YOU SUNSABITCHES" but instead basically say "Hey if you don't want your shit pushed in, let your arms down and surrender. If not, prepare to get slapped upside the head with an MLRS"[/QUOTE] We already do that. [thumb]http://www.iwar.org.uk/psyops/resources/iraq/IZD-005.jpg[/thumb] [thumb]http://www.iwar.org.uk/psyops/resources/iraq/izd-028.jpg[/thumb]

[QUOTE=itisjuly;49116468]Because invasions stopped alquada or other terrorist organizations? Last I checked they still exist and are doing fine, ISIS just took the spotlight for now. You can't possibly expect the problem to get fixed by using same methods that never worked before? Why can't we actually help the local people while we murder them? Establish schools, improve education and economy, convert them to our "religion" instead of just raining fire? A lot of Middle East sees us as the bad guys and really you can't blame them. All we do is kill them. We should look into actually helping them get out of their shitty situation. ISIS WANTS us to invade, it's much easier to paint us as bad guys when we are right there, killing the locals. This will breed more terrorist organizations to free east from "west oppression". Pure invasion is a short term solution that doesn't even solve anything.[/QUOTE] OR or... we avoid more shit by going into their homes, maybe even forcing their sleeper cells back to help, anihilate them all, and rebuild the place after. As catbarf said (I think?), France should know what to do. France would have its revenge for yesterday.

My facebook feed is already flooded with people using this shit to get likes and false appreciation.