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

[QUOTE=Incoming.;49116734]That's... kind of confusing looking. Can someone translate?[/QUOTE] Basically it's like "Join ISIS/Affiliates and nothing good will come of it"

[QUOTE=Zillamaster55;49117178]Basically it's like "Join ISIS/Affiliates and nothing good will come of it"[/QUOTE] Why is only 1 kid is actually reacting in a crowd of maybe a dozen.

[QUOTE=catbarf;49115855]This is such bullshit. <Very spot on wall of text>[/QUOTE] People living in the Western world think that since our civilisation is so advanced, we can resolve all our confilcts with talks. We can't. If anyone here legitimately thinks that we should not step down to their level and fight them with more bloodshed, I am sorry - you are fucking stupid. We couldn't have won Napoleon without bloodshed. We couldn't have won Hitler without bloodshed. We wouldn't have USA independant today the way it happened without bloodshed. Killing people is normal to human nature, pseudointellectual "We are above that today" is ridiculous, because no matter how hard you try to be "the better man", you will be bested if you do not use everything at your disposal just because the opposition [i][b]does not care how they do it, they just do[/b][/i]. This kind of thinking will only make us more vulnerable to their attacks, we must kill the fucking bastards on the spot the moment we confirm its them. [b]There is no other solution.[/b]

[QUOTE=Dark RaveN;49117197]People living in the Western world think that since our civilisation is so advanced, we can resolve all our confilcts with talks. We can't. If anyone here legitimately thinks that we should not step down to their level and fight them with more bloodshed, I am sorry - you are fucking stupid. We couldn't have won Napoleon without bloodshed. We couldn't have won Hitler without bloodshed. We wouldn't have USA independant today the way it happened without bloodshed. Killing people is normal to human nature, pseudointellectual "We are above that today" is ridiculous, because no matter how hard you try to be "the better man", you will be bested if you do not use everything at your disposal just because the opposition [i][b]does not care how they do it, they just do[/b][/i]. This kind of thinking will only make us more vulnerable to their attacks, we must kill the fucking bastards on the spot the moment we confirm its them. [b]There is no other solution.[/b][/QUOTE] I don't understand how can someone even think of "talking it out". Talking it out with who? The same guys who are deranged lunatics shooting and blowing up along with people?

[QUOTE=Incoming.;49117189]Why is only 1 kid is actually reacting in a crowd of maybe a dozen.[/QUOTE]Because he sees it directly, but he's too far in to it to get away, there is no way out. The only times people realize just how bad it is when they're right up on it and staring it in the face. A figurative meat grinder.

On Facebook a few of my pseudo-intellectual friends crawled out of the woodwork and are pointing to Beirut and Gaza, trying to guilt trip or mock everyone declaring their support for Paris Maybe I'm not openly supporting them because my country has no cultural affinity with them and unlike Paris they're not on our doorstep? Doesn't mean I don't care about their deaths either

[QUOTE=Doctor Zedacon;49117251]Because he sees it directly, but he's too far in to it to get away, there is no way out. The only times people realize just how bad it is when they're right up on it and staring it in the face. A figurative meat grinder.[/QUOTE] That's pretty cryptic for a warzone with starving people.

[QUOTE=Dark RaveN;49117197]People living in the Western world think that since our civilisation is so advanced, we can resolve all our confilcts with talks. We can't. If anyone here legitimately thinks that we should not step down to their level and fight them with more bloodshed, I am sorry - you are fucking stupid. We couldn't have won Napoleon without bloodshed. We couldn't have won Hitler without bloodshed. We wouldn't have USA independant today the way it happened without bloodshed. Killing people is normal to human nature, pseudointellectual "We are above that today" is ridiculous, because no matter how hard you try to be "the better man", you will be bested if you do not use everything at your disposal just because the opposition [i][b]does not care how they do it, they just do[/b][/i]. This kind of thinking will only make us more vulnerable to their attacks, we must kill the fucking bastards on the spot the moment we confirm its them. [b]There is no other solution.[/b][/QUOTE] Nobody here is suggesting we negotiate with terrorists, or that violence should not be employed against actual terrorists. You're arguing with strawmen here.

[QUOTE=RainbowStalin;49116825]And then what? You go into countries you've already blown the shit out of and you blow some more shit out of them. You have early success and then ISIS go underground and you've got another 10 year long conflict as you try to root them out while they fight with IEDs and suicide bombers. Then once the war loses all public support back home you leave the middle east and another extremist group slides in to fill in the power vacuum you leave behind.[/QUOTE] what should the governments do then, armchair general?

[QUOTE=Jund;49117414]what should the governments do then, armchair general?[/QUOTE] Surround the entire middle east with western troops, shoulder to shoulder, 5 deep, and slowly close in, weeding out the terrorists and securing any civilians. Establish law, rebuild cities, infrastructure, education, do that for 2 generations and you are golden. Too bad that is impossible.

[QUOTE=MedicWine;49116704]facebook already has a "put a French flag overlay on your profile picture" button :why:[/QUOTE] I don't understand how this is a bad thing. I'm 99% sure the majority of individuals who do this do it to show support, and not to "gain likes". That kind of assumption is just so ridiculously filled with cynicism it's kind of disturbing.

[QUOTE=Dark RaveN;49117197]People living in the Western world think that since our civilisation is so advanced, we can resolve all our confilcts with talks. We can't. If anyone here legitimately thinks that we should not step down to their level and fight them with more bloodshed, I am sorry - you are fucking stupid. We couldn't have won Napoleon without bloodshed. We couldn't have won Hitler without bloodshed. We wouldn't have USA independant today the way it happened without bloodshed. Killing people is normal to human nature, pseudointellectual "We are above that today" is ridiculous, because no matter how hard you try to be "the better man", you will be bested if you do not use everything at your disposal just because the opposition [i][b]does not care how they do it, they just do[/b][/i]. This kind of thinking will only make us more vulnerable to their attacks, we must kill the fucking bastards on the spot the moment we confirm its them. [b]There is no other solution.[/b][/QUOTE] There is no one saying we can reason with ISIS, even today. We can't reason with them, we can't talk with them, but it's not our responsibility to intervene (I'm talking about the US directly). After so many american and western lives have been lost. America gets shit for being the "World police" but every time we pull out, other countries want us right back in. If other NATO countries didn't bastardize their military, and rely on us for essentially all heavy lifting, then we wouldn't be so hesitant to fight. Besides this, We can't even fight them militarily. we need to have Ideological warfare, propaganda warfare, and prolonged presence in the middle east to even begin to change anything. Terrorism, both domestic and abroad should be dealt with domestically. The laws and the openness of France to extremist thought, made this inevitable. Thoughts like these lead to barbaric killings of ethnic minorities, and lead to even more violence. We will win NOTHING by fighting, only more deaths, and more extremism through other means. By killing one man with an AK-47, you hand 5 more to other people.

[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] Yes because advocating the mass genocide of innocent people that get caught in the cross fire is totally worth it. The only that would work is if you nuked the middle east which would cause a mass amount of innocent people to die. [editline]14th November 2015[/editline] [QUOTE=Incoming.;49116869]What you must also understand, is they weren't overly organized to begin with. This is eerily similar to the statements made earlier in the second invasion. [yes, that was invasion 2] This is something I think everyone wants to see, but there are ramifications. Destroy the infrastructure and you have to rebuild it. The last two times, all invading countries collectively ignored the rebuilding process. It's a catch 22. Doing nothing is unacceptable, but so is another incompetent rebuilding program in a post-invasion situation. Another massive roadblock is war fatigue in major countries. All in all, it's a giant mixed bag that has no clear answer. I'm not in complete disagreeal, but dumbing down the crisis to a matter of invasion is not doing justice to the difficulties of this screwed up, hellish situation.[/QUOTE] Americans in a nutshell repeat repeat repeat repeat they still haven't learned from Vietnam.

What if we (the U.S.) threatened to nuke Mecca if Isis don't surrender? It'll never happen, just curious if y'all think it could work.

[QUOTE=viper shtf;49117531]What if we (the U.S.) threatened to nuke Mecca if Isis don't surrender? It'll never happen, just curious if y'all think it could work.[/QUOTE] PERFECTLY REASONABLE THOUGHT

[QUOTE=viper shtf;49117531]What if we (the U.S.) threatened to nuke Mecca if Isis don't surrender? It'll never happen, just curious if y'all think it could work.[/QUOTE] They literally don't care. it's not about religion. it's about extremism.

[QUOTE=Jund;49117414]what should the governments do then, armchair general?[/QUOTE] Just suggesting you actually consider the bigger picture instead of sending soldiers into the middle east for what must be the 3rd or 4th time for another kill all terrorists mission that will achieve nothing of value except kill another couple thousand people. Its understandable you want blood so soon after the attack but drop the shitty attitude and consider that western invasions caused this problem in the first place, they won't fix it.

Honestly the only real way your going to put ISIS and every other radical group in a real conundrum, is to have a Middle Eastern coalition to fight them directly. If Saudi Arabia, Turkey, and other islamic countries showed that ISIS's version of ideology is invalid to the majority then there is nothing worth fighting for them. No more bullshit where we fuel the flames with western intervention. But guess what, Islam and establishing a caliphate is an idea quietly entertained by even moderates, and so this is why you get this retarded ass situation where the big islamic powers rather sit on their hands. At this point we have no choice but to intervene or put pressure on local nations to do more.

[QUOTE=viper shtf;49117531]What if we (the U.S.) threatened to nuke Mecca if Isis don't surrender? It'll never happen, just curious if y'all think it could work.[/QUOTE] That would be a genocidal war crime on an unrelated noncombatant allied nation.

I graduate from sonar tech school in February, I am looking forward to being on one of the boats assigned the task of dropping tomahawks on the shitheads responsible for this.

[QUOTE=viper shtf;49117531]What if we (the U.S.) threatened to nuke Mecca if Isis don't surrender? It'll never happen, just curious if y'all think it could work.[/QUOTE] If our most hated enemy was threatening to desecrate one of the things we hold most sacred to us if we didn't do what they wanted, would we back down?

[QUOTE=Tudd;49117548]Honestly the only real way your going to put ISIS and every other radical group in a real conundrum, is to have a Middle Eastern coalition to fight them directly. If Saudi Arabia, Turkey, and other Islamic countries showed that ISIS's version of ideology is invalid to the majority then there is nothing worth fighting for them. No more bullshit where we fuel the flames with western intervention. [B]But guess what, Islam and establishing a caliphate is an idea quietly entertained by even moderates, and so this is why you get this retarded ass situation where the big Islamic powers rather sit on their hands. At this point we have no choice but to intervene or put pressure on local nations to do more.[/B][/QUOTE] I don't get why saying this is such a huge controversy but everyone was totally on board with the suggestion that Pakistan and Saudi Arabia were working with Al-Qaeda and Osama Bin Laden.

[QUOTE=viper shtf;49117531]What if we (the U.S.) threatened to nuke Mecca if Isis don't surrender? It'll never happen, just curious if y'all think it could work.[/QUOTE] That would be pretty stupid, ISIS don't give a shit about Mecca, they'd use it to recruit even more membres.

Joann Sfar, the Charlie Hebdo cartoonist, posted this recently. Its a comic, but I'm posting the english translation of the text. I'm sure oyu can find the comic elsewhere, not sure about accuracy of translation: [QUOTE]France is an old country where lovers embrace freely. Paris is our capital. We love music, drinking, joy. For centuries, those who love death have tried to make us lose our lust for life. They never succeed. Those who love, those who love life - in the end, they're the ones who win. It's beautiful, the motto of Paris: 'She is tossed by the waves but does not sink.' Friends from the whole world, thank you for ‪#‎prayforParis‬, but we don't need more religion! Our faith goes to music! Kisses! Life! Champagne and joy! ‪#‎Parisisaboutlife‬. Terrorism is not the enemy. Terrorism is a tactic. Repeating 'We are at war' without finding the courage to name our enemies leads nowhere. Our enemies are those who love death. They have been around forever, in different guises. History is quickly forgotten, and Paris, who told them off, dies. The people who died tonight were out living, drinking, singing. They did not know they had declared war. Instead of letting ourselves become divided, remember all that is precious: our way of life. Lovers of death: if God exists, he hates you. And you have already lost, on earth as in heaven. Paris's motto curses in the face of death: 'She is tossed by the waves but does not sink[/QUOTE]

[QUOTE=Canuhearme?;49117571]I don't get why saying this is such a huge controversy but everyone was totally on board with the suggestion that Pakistan and Saudi Arabia were working with Al-Qaeda and Osama Bin Laden.[/QUOTE] It shouldn't be a controversy and hopefully isn't. I am just pointing out that it doesn't matter if these countries have no direct ties to a these radical groups. What matters is for people to realize the inaction of these countries is what really hurts the world, since the Jihadis believe they are the catalyst and doing the work for Islam. Why is it that Saudi Arabia, with a tent city that can house 3 million people in a short period of time, doesn't even take any refugees? (without visa, but we all know what that means). Oh and then offers to build 200 mosques in Germany for free? It's because they don't mind seeing how our multiculturalism experiment plays out since it can only mean that the overall idea of Islam spreading will be progressed. Taking in refugees is very noble and should be done selectively, but eventually you are taking away Syria's ability to rebuild too by taking their workforce away.

[QUOTE=gman003-main;49117324]Nobody here is suggesting we negotiate with terrorists, or that violence should not be employed against actual terrorists. You're arguing with strawmen here.[/QUOTE] Exactly. I think people just don't want a repeat of 2003 where we made so many mistakes that cost unnecessary lives. While it it most certainly is possible to defeat ISIS conventionally and with the counter terror and counter insurgent doctrines we've developed over the years, any such invasion or attack must be meticulously planned, from the opening stages of the attack to a post-war reconstruction and redevelopment plan, to an eventual exit strategy that will allow us to withdraw while leaving the smallest possible number of troops to maintain stability. We cannot have another 7 year period of bloodletting and quagmire because we weren't able to see past our desire for revenge and make a clear strategy.

[QUOTE=viper shtf;49117531]What if we (the U.S.) threatened to nuke Mecca if Isis don't surrender? It'll never happen, just curious if y'all think it could work.[/QUOTE] I wish I could get this printed out and framed on my wall.

[QUOTE=RainbowStalin;49117537]Just suggesting you actually consider the bigger picture instead of sending soldiers into the middle east for what must be the 3rd or 4th time for another kill all terrorists mission that will achieve nothing of value except kill another couple thousand people. Its understandable you want blood so soon after the attack but drop the shitty attitude and consider that western invasions caused this problem in the first place, they won't fix it.[/QUOTE] again, all you're saying is X or Y is wrong but not actually giving any reasonable suggestions i never said we should be out for blood, so how about you drop [U]your[/U] shitty attitude and actually talk about something worthwhile instead of only saying that everyone else is wrong because your moral ground is so much higher. else you oughta shut the fuck up [editline]14th November 2015[/editline] [QUOTE=TheDestroyerOfall;49117473] Besides this, We can't even fight them militarily. we need to have Ideological warfare, propaganda warfare, and prolonged presence in the middle east to even begin to change anything. Terrorism, both domestic and abroad should be dealt with domestically. The laws and the openness of France to extremist thought, made this inevitable. [/QUOTE] the line of thinking that we haven't been doing anything for the past decade other than shooting brown people is about as incorrect and idiotic as saying that the US funded al-Qaeda

[QUOTE=TheDestroyerOfall;49117536]They literally don't care. it's not about religion. it's about extremism.[/QUOTE] Of course its about religion. [QUOTE=viper shtf;49117531]What if we (the U.S.) threatened to nuke Mecca if Isis don't surrender? It'll never happen, just curious if y'all think it could work.[/QUOTE] I doubt it but theres this whole "ends justify the means" equation we need to consider.

So what's this I've been hearing about NATO article 5? Are we preparing to go to war?