-
Hey, guest user. Hope you're enjoying NeoGAF! Have you considered registering for an account? Come join us and add your take to the daily discourse.
Paris Terrorist Attacks, 120+ dead. Do not post hearsay/unsourced/old news.
- Thread starter chadskin
- Start date
- Status
Elfforkusu
Member
I mean, how badass (or reckless?) do you have to be to take down (shoot at) a gunman amidst a crowd. His enemy is anything that moves. If he hits an innocent bystander, so what? OTOH, your enemy is him. And if you hit an innocent bystander, you just became an unintentional accomplice.
Yeah I agree, I don't think arming everyone is a good thing and would make everyone less safe, particularly in places in Europe where there aren't guns everywhere.
It has started already. There won't be an official declaration of war besides Hollande's speech yesterday. You can be sure that there are operations being organised right this moment to strike on ISIS and we will know only when they strike. Some of them we won't even know about. Beheading the organization will be high on the to do list, and that will only be public when it happens.
QuiteWhittle
Member
It still feels like the universe split into two, good and bad, and we were forced to live in the latter.
I don't even trust the cops in crowded shooting situations, and those guys are trained supposedly. I have far less faith in your random citizen.
Everyone either thinks they become Jack Bauer or someone else might, but in reality you'll most likely get stormtroopers or that 1 Seinfeld looking dude from Pulp Fiction.
Everyone either thinks they become Jack Bauer or someone else might, but in reality you'll most likely get stormtroopers or that 1 Seinfeld looking dude from Pulp Fiction.
Bam Bam Baklava
Member
Depends what your definition is. We've already had lots of airstrikes and small strike team raids.
Do you know what happens if you fire a gun into a crowd of people? Do you really think anyone would be safer with untrained civilians firing at the crowd ALSO?
As pacifist as I am, I would support this conflict... a "just war", in the vein of World War 2. It won't be enough though, but I am clueless to think on what could permanently stop the problem. Destroying ISIS would certainly lower morale, that's for sure. My idea was that we should have declared war on ISIS long ago, that way, if the west occupied those areas and began some huge infrastructure and education rebuilding, there would still be a few crazies and these events may still happen, but they would be the last of them. ISIS would have been a thing of the past. But now, seeing as the world is finally prompted into action, we have a long road ahead of us...
TheLaughingStock
Member
What do you mean as far as money supply? The #1 economy is within striking distance of 200% of GDP and the US is much lower.
http://data.worldbank.org/indicator/FM.LBL.MQMY.GD.ZS
Also inflation:
http://news.yahoo.com/imf-urges-fed-delay-rate-hike-until-inflation-180931779.html
The problem with the OPEC stuff is that a series of countries immediately engaged in strategic devaluation to keep the dollar from appreciating when Nixon took unilateral action. Second, at the Smithsonian meeting in DC countries literally came flying over asking the US gov't to limit devaluation...implying the gov't has or is perceived to have some control over that outcome. Nobody flew over to the Austria (OPEC HQ) to whine about how they want to maintain their status as net exporter to America.
Untrained probably no, but that's why I specifically said trained.
Again it's just a hypothetical and I'm not advocating arming people at all, but if you were in one of these situations where armed people were going room to room or floor to floor shooting people, would you feel less safe if someone in your room had a gun and was properly trained to use it? Or would you be thinking "I'm really glad no one else here has a gun"?
real_slime
Banned
.
Kiever Sher
Member
That seems more like... well excuse this RTS term- harassment. What I mean is is like something akin to the invasion or Iraq.
What does your hypothetical training regimen include? Because I don't think any civilian training includes the training that would lead to good decision making in crowd situations. Just hitting the range once a month isn't the kind of training you need for these situations. Having a weapon and using it effectively are very different things and arming up a populace is a great way to make a lot of situations much much worse that don't need to be on the highly unlikely chance of a mass shooting. Even in the US the odds are very low.
american forum.
Ah. The war on terror failed and it will fail if it's run the same way as before. Historical analysis shows that only 7% of Terrorists groups were eliminated by direct military engagement and 10% when their goals were achieved.
The best strategy has been good police and intelligence work and targeting key leaders. Starting a political process of integration of these movements as opposition forces in a democratic process is impossible in this case.
http://www.visionofhumanity.org/sites/default/files/Global Terrorism Index Report 2014_0.pdf
Oh yeah, right.
airmangataosenai
Member
Good on you guys. People need to be more careful when posting pictures of actual people.
hydragonwarrior
Member
Thank you
M1ch04c4n0
Banned
This jewel showed up on my FB today (Spanish):
http://periodicodigitalwebguerrille...11/montaje-terrorista-yihadista-de-falsa.html
Basically, among leftist, at least in Mexico, the word is that this was a montage, an self-attack, and a gruesome spectacle to force a war.
It goes even to to say that some of the dead where "faking" and that soon enough "the world will found out". Also, that some of the victims where in fact "people who showed in anti-israel demonstrations".
Is all over the place but those ideas are now being passed down all over the place. My FB was unbearable to see for a bit.
http://periodicodigitalwebguerrille...11/montaje-terrorista-yihadista-de-falsa.html
Basically, among leftist, at least in Mexico, the word is that this was a montage, an self-attack, and a gruesome spectacle to force a war.
It goes even to to say that some of the dead where "faking" and that soon enough "the world will found out". Also, that some of the victims where in fact "people who showed in anti-israel demonstrations".
Is all over the place but those ideas are now being passed down all over the place. My FB was unbearable to see for a bit.
OTOH Paris having strict (?) gun laws didn't prevent this gunshow.
Something happened one time so the laws don't work! Gun laws are supposed to mean nothing could ever happen right?
He's saying that it prevents way more. You can't stop them all, but the goal should always be to reduce the incidents. Loose gun policy typically fails at that goal comparatively. More Americans have died to domestic gun violence in the last 50 years than every battlefield America took to in any war since its founding combined.
A gun fight in a crowded room would be even worse.
gamechanger87
Member
This argument is asinine. In 20/20, all sign are obvious that an attack would take place but we did not have the focus on counterterrorism that we have today. There hadn't been an attack on US soil in years and no one was thinking that what would happen could.
Gore would have had the same people looking at the same things. 9/11 was happening and if it failed it would be because of someone slipping up or pilots randomly deciding to lock their doors.
In any case, lots of terror attacks look obvious after the fact but you have to realize how many things are being analyzed at once. It's not easy to pick out what is or isn't a real threat.
hydragonwarrior
Member
Actually there were numerous warning signs that even the Secretary of State (Condi Rice) shrugged at. But it's tough to say because we are in what if territory now.
There is a ton of data out there that argues to the opposite. Bush and his administration ignored all warnings as soon as the swearing in ceremony ended. Not sure we could have 100 % prevented it, but all evidence says Gore approaches it differently domestically and abroad, which could have foiled their plans at several crucial steps.
AngryNapkin
Banned
The nazis took over in Germany which was an established country with infrastructure. They still exist today, if they had the same hardcore religious beliefs and would kill themselves for their beliefs we would see terrorism in every State across America and every other Western country on earth.
You can't defeat an ideology with war, you only see hem get more recruits.
There are always signs as this is a probabilistic game. Intelligence seldom can be 100% certain of terrorism attacks. It ultimately falls on the political power to decide which threats are to be taken more serious than others. And we won't know of the attacks that were successfully stopped from happening.
gamechanger87
Member
Exactly. There were warning signs everywhere that AQ was a threat especially after the Cole but you can't try and MMQB that stuff from our perspective today. We have a different mindset now. What you learn from these events helps you going forward. You can't say that a person at that time would have randomly made different decisions.
gamechanger87
Member
There is no evidence that Gore would have come in and all the sudden targeted these hijackers. It's all people trying to make themselves feel better that he would have randomly done it differently.
Hell, couldn't Gore have stopped the attacks by forcing Clintons hand in 1998 when they could have killed Bin Laden? See you can't do this stuff later
We can and do every day. Are you implying that a Gore administration approaches the threat of the rise of Al Quaeda like Bush did leading up to 9/11? That alone changes things on the ground. Now, we can't say for sure what would have happened if Bush didn't virtually ignore every mention of Osama Bin Laden to go after his real goal - Iraq (one of which he was planning to invade before he even took the Presidency), but I assure you Gore would have made different decisions leading up to 9/11 and afterwards.
V
Vilix
Unconfirmed Member
Yeah, but you got Obama. By taking almost all the troops out of Iraq left a power vacuum.
Alpha Phoenix
Member
A worthwhile reminder that ISIS's stated goal is to eliminate coexistence:
https://twitter.com/MazMHussain/status/665360711967776768
They are literally depending on you to be islamophobic so they can achieve that black and white vision.
https://twitter.com/MazMHussain/status/665360711967776768
They are literally depending on you to be islamophobic so they can achieve that black and white vision.
De-Baathisizing the entire structure of Iraq set its doom before Obama even took office. If you want to argue having a permanent large presence in Iraq, that's a different argument and one which was a loser years ago and still is today. Americans are tired of endless conflict with no actual goal ore resolution in mind. We were not rebuilding Iraq at any point, just delaying the inevitable clusterfuck that we helped create.
Brolic Gaoler
formerly Alienshogun
That actually happened due to the Iraqi government not extending the amnesty agreement to soldiers anymore. As a result we pulled out and Obama spun it as his idea.
Skellig Gra
Member
What evidence? We have no idea what Gore would have done.
Bam Bam Baklava
Member
The last poll I saw was from a week ago before all this happened and even then sending troops to Iraq or Syria had 43% support and that 43% had a portion that only supported it with caveats like "only a short time" or "low number of troops" which is really fucking stupid considering the objective could take an unknown amount of time and unknown number of troops.
Nobody wanted to stay in Iraq and it's not gonna be easy to convince people to go back the right way to the full extent. Not just some piecemeal effort.
Nobody wanted to stay in Iraq and it's not gonna be easy to convince people to go back the right way to the full extent. Not just some piecemeal effort.
Lan Dong Mik
And why would I want them?
Well put. Imagine the world without Bush and his ilk. It's possible there would have been no 9/11 and even if there was likely no Iraq war and perhaps Afghanistan as well. The lack of those 2 wars or even just one would have kept ISIS from forming... there are millions of dominos that never had to fall the way they did.
NullPointer
Member
CNN keeps finding a new low to sink into.
Resident_UA
Member
This thread is weird... How did we get to gun control here? Sure, guns were used, but that's pretty much where this ends.
Since pretty much everything is being discussed here. Wast this posted yet?
Since pretty much everything is being discussed here. Wast this posted yet?
Alpha Phoenix
Member
Posted something like that a few posts above youThis thread is weird... How did we get to gun control here? Sure, guns were used, but that's pretty much where this ends.
Since pretty much everything is being discussed here. Wast this posted yet?
Death Metalist
Member
gamechanger87
Member
I think a lot of people like to live in a fantasy land where they pretend that somehow Al Gore would have prevented 9/11. There is no evidence of that and no indication that he would have. He was in office for 8 years before that why didn't he have bin laden killed I. 1998. Why didn't he head off the threat for all the years before it. I'm done here.
- Status
Similar threads
- Locked