Welcome Guest [Log In] [Register]
Welcome to The New Coffee Room. We hope you enjoy your visit.


You're currently viewing our forum as a guest. This means you are limited to certain areas of the board and there are some features you can't use. If you join our community, you'll be able to access member-only sections, and use many member-only features such as customizing your profile, sending personal messages, and voting in polls. Registration is simple, fast, and completely free.


Join our community!


If you're already a member please log in to your account to access all of our features:

Username:   Password:
Add Reply
  • Pages:
  • 1
  • 5
  • 7
Shootings in Paris
Topic Started: Nov 13 2015, 01:38 PM (3,326 Views)
TomK
HOLY CARP!!!
Here Ron Paul explains (in 2011) why the Jihadist are fighting us.

Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
John D'Oh
Member Avatar
MAMIL
TomK
Nov 17 2015, 11:57 AM
Here Ron Paul explains (in 2011) why the Jihadist are fighting us.

Basically, he's blaming the attacks on interventionist US foreign policy, and wants to go back to isolationism. It has to be said, that didn't work out too well in the 1920's and 1930's. He also needs to explain why ISIS are killing all those other people - i.e. non-Western Christians and moderate Muslims.

One could argue that the rise of ISIS is a result of the neo-con policy of removing a brutal dictator (Saddam), as well as the internal removal of Mubarak and Gadaffi, which has created a power vacuum allowing extremism in. I'm not sure, to be honest, but I do think that the gung-ho attitudes of Bush, Cheney and Rumsfeld are at least partially responsible for this mess, as well as the lack of any kind of leadership provided by Obama.
What do you mean "we", have you got a mouse in your pocket?
Online Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
TomK
HOLY CARP!!!
John D'Oh
Nov 17 2015, 12:19 PM
TomK
Nov 17 2015, 11:57 AM
Here Ron Paul explains (in 2011) why the Jihadist are fighting us.

Basically, he's blaming the attacks on interventionist US foreign policy, and wants to go back to isolationism. It has to be said, that didn't work out too well in the 1920's and 1930's. He also needs to explain why ISIS are killing all those other people - i.e. non-Western Christians and moderate Muslims.

One could argue that the rise of ISIS is a result of the neo-con policy of removing a brutal dictator (Saddam), as well as the internal removal of Mubarak and Gadaffi, which has created a power vacuum allowing extremism in. I'm not sure, to be honest, but I do think that the gung-ho attitudes of Bush, Cheney and Rumsfeld are at least partially responsible for this mess, as well as the lack of any kind of leadership provided by Obama.
ISIS is killing moderate Muslims because they betray Islam. The Shia, the Druze, don't follow Islam correctly and are an offence to Allah and ISIS sees it as their job to defend the true path. As far as we go--the Arabian peninsula is sacred and the US put bases in that sacred soil.

I agree that isolationism isn't the answer but as Paul said we don't need to be in a hundred twenty something countries around the world. Also the problem also stems from our support of countries like Saudi Arabia that sponsor the terrorism. Until we address the Saudis on this matter the deaths in Paris and Lebanon and the WTC are just collateral damage that we are willing to accept. Sure we bolster security and wave flags and make speaches, but we don't attempt to solve the problem itself.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Aqua Letifer
Member Avatar
ZOOOOOM!
TomK
Nov 17 2015, 12:42 PM
I agree that isolationism isn't the answer but as Paul said we don't need to be in a hundred twenty something countries around the world. Also the problem also stems from our support of countries like Saudi Arabia that sponsor the terrorism. Until we address the Saudis on this matter the deaths in Paris and Lebanon and the WTC are just collateral damage that we are willing to accept. Sure we bolster security and wave flags and make speaches, but we don't attempt to solve the problem itself.
Yeah. I have a feeling that not pissing off the Middle East so much and following the money with these groups would both go a very long way.
I cite irreconcilable differences.
Online Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Horace
Member Avatar
HOLY CARP!!!
Aqua Letifer
Nov 17 2015, 11:06 AM
George K
Nov 17 2015, 10:46 AM
One guy disagreed: "OK, the four of us in this room are going to stage a similar attack. All we need is access to weapons (not that difficult) or bomb-making materials, a map for locations and some semi-accurate wristwatches so each guy can do it at the same time. That's not sophisticated - it's simple planning."
I agree with that.
It's obvious. We all know that.

People get caught by motive. If you have no motive, and you just want to do something really bad, you could. We all could.
As a good person, I implore you to do as I, a good person, do. Be good. Do NOT be bad. If you see bad, end bad. End it in yourself, and end it in others. By any means necessary, the good must conquer the bad. Good people know this. Do you know this? Are you good?
Online Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Renauda
Member Avatar
HOLY CARP!!!
TomK
Nov 17 2015, 12:42 PM
John D'Oh
Nov 17 2015, 12:19 PM
TomK
Nov 17 2015, 11:57 AM
Here Ron Paul explains (in 2011) why the Jihadist are fighting us.

Basically, he's blaming the attacks on interventionist US foreign policy, and wants to go back to isolationism. It has to be said, that didn't work out too well in the 1920's and 1930's. He also needs to explain why ISIS are killing all those other people - i.e. non-Western Christians and moderate Muslims.

One could argue that the rise of ISIS is a result of the neo-con policy of removing a brutal dictator (Saddam), as well as the internal removal of Mubarak and Gadaffi, which has created a power vacuum allowing extremism in. I'm not sure, to be honest, but I do think that the gung-ho attitudes of Bush, Cheney and Rumsfeld are at least partially responsible for this mess, as well as the lack of any kind of leadership provided by Obama.
ISIS is killing moderate Muslims because they betray Islam. The Shia, the Druze, don't follow Islam correctly and are an offence to Allah and ISIS sees it as their job to defend the true path. As far as we go--the Arabian peninsula is sacred and the US put bases in that sacred soil.

I agree that isolationism isn't the answer but as Paul said we don't need to be in a hundred twenty something countries around the world. Also the problem also stems from our support of countries like Saudi Arabia that sponsor the terrorism. Until we address the Saudis on this matter the deaths in Paris and Lebanon and the WTC are just collateral damage that we are willing to accept. Sure we bolster security and wave flags and make speaches, but we don't attempt to solve the problem itself.
Not just the Saudis Tom, but the Gulf States and to a lesser degree, Turkey as well.

Otherwise not much to add to what John and you have written.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Copper
Member Avatar
Shortstop
Horace
Nov 17 2015, 02:39 PM
Aqua Letifer
Nov 17 2015, 11:06 AM
George K
Nov 17 2015, 10:46 AM
One guy disagreed: "OK, the four of us in this room are going to stage a similar attack. All we need is access to weapons (not that difficult) or bomb-making materials, a map for locations and some semi-accurate wristwatches so each guy can do it at the same time. That's not sophisticated - it's simple planning."
I agree with that.
It's obvious. We all know that.

People get caught by motive. If you have no motive, and you just want to do something really bad, you could. We all could.

I agree too.

And of course we are all wrong. It is sophisticated.

It is so sophisticated that it took them years to pull it off.

Our average guys are way more sophisticated than their top guys.

But they'll get better at it given the chance.

The Confederate soldier was peculiar in that he was ever ready to fight, but never ready to submit to the routine duty and discipline of the camp or the march. The soldiers were determined to be soldiers after their own notions, and do their duty, for the love of it, as they thought best. Carlton McCarthy
Online Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
kluurs
Member Avatar
Fulla-Carp
Each group has different motivations. I'm not so sure I'd say that the ISIS folks are true believers in Islam. I think it is offering young people an ideal of a land of their own, a chance to kick sand in the face of the major powers and wealth. ISIS pays its recruits well and often - and of course, there's sex with prisoners and a nice afterlife for the martyrs.

The Taliban are probably a bit more religious, in the traditional sense.

I'm sympathetic to that we might have been a bit ham-handed with interventions - but that genie is out of the bottle.

As much as people beat up Obama about this, I'm a little sympathetic that the nation has been weary of interventions - thousands of lives lost - and for what? Cheney promised us a rose garden... I only see the thorns. The moderates don't have the ability to inspire and control their nation's destiny. The Shah of Iran was correct that we don't understand what these people (religious fanatics) are all about. His methods were cruel by our standards - but our methods don't look so great either.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Copper
Member Avatar
Shortstop
kluurs
Nov 17 2015, 04:12 PM

thousands of lives lost - and for what?
You are alive.
The Confederate soldier was peculiar in that he was ever ready to fight, but never ready to submit to the routine duty and discipline of the camp or the march. The soldiers were determined to be soldiers after their own notions, and do their duty, for the love of it, as they thought best. Carlton McCarthy
Online Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Axtremus
Member Avatar
HOLY CARP!!!
Article:

Military leaders dubious of bigger war against ISIL
http://www.politico.com/story/2015/11/isil-pentagon-syria-terror-paris-216003
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
George K
Member Avatar
Finally
Video of the restaurant that was attacked:

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-3324310/First-footage-Paris-terror-attacks-shows-diners-diving-cover-AK47-wielding-jihadist-sprays-caf-bullets-victim-escaped-gun-jammed.html
A guide to GKSR: Click

"Now look here, you Baltic gas passer... "
- Mik, 6/14/08


Nothing is as effective as homeopathy.

I'd rather listen to an hour of Abba than an hour of The Beatles.
- Klaus, 4/29/18
Online Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Jolly
Member Avatar
Geaux Tigers!
As far as I'm concerned, I'm a firm believer in Total War. War should be an utter last resort, never just an option, but the last and only option. But if we have to fight...

If we choose to intervene, annihilate the bastards. Kill every one of them and let God sort the dead out, for surely He will know his own. Don't leave one stone setting atop another and sow the land with salt. Butcher the beasts of the field and shoot the dogs as they run off. If a crow decides to fly across the path of destruction, let him carry his own food or starve to death.

If we don't have the stomach for that, we don't need to be down there.
The main obstacle to a stable and just world order is the United States.- George Soros
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Catseye
Member Avatar
Pisa-Carp
Quote:
 
As far as I'm concerned, I'm a firm believer in Total War. War should be an utter last resort, never just an option, but the last and only option. But if we have to fight... If we choose to intervene, annihilate the bastards . . . Don't leave one stone setting atop another and sow the land with salt.


Were it not that they are temperamentally unsuited to it, it is for this reason I believe women would be superior warfighters, or at least war planners. Women, I believe, would not fiddle around making a game of war the way men seem compelled to do -- the pawing of the ground, the leadup confab, the rules-setting, the Geneva convention stuff, the Christmas truces, the "talks", all that. Women would be slow to reach the boil, but once they did, I believe the approach would be: Then let's do this, and they would overwhelm the enemy ruthlessly with speed, force and ruthless unstoppability and would keep doing it like a giant fist BAMBAMBAM until it was over -- which wouldn't take long. Shock, awe and total commitment.
"How awful a knowledge of the truth can be." -- Sophocles, Oedipus Rex
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Mikhailoh
Member Avatar
If you want trouble, find yourself a redhead
Jeez...you want war to be like MARRIAGE??!?!?! :hair:
Once in his life, every man is entitled to fall madly in love with a gorgeous redhead - Lucille Ball
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Axtremus
Member Avatar
HOLY CARP!!!
Catseye
Nov 19 2015, 05:02 AM
Quote:
 
As far as I'm concerned, I'm a firm believer in Total War. War should be an utter last resort, never just an option, but the last and only option. But if we have to fight... If we choose to intervene, annihilate the bastards . . . Don't leave one stone setting atop another and sow the land with salt.


Were it not that they are temperamentally unsuited to it, it is for this reason I believe women would be superior warfighters, or at least war planners. Women, I believe, would not fiddle around making a game of war the way men seem compelled to do -- the pawing of the ground, the leadup confab, the rules-setting, the Geneva convention stuff, the Christmas truces, the "talks", all that. Women would be slow to reach the boil, but once they did, I believe the approach would be: Then let's do this, and they would overwhelm the enemy ruthlessly with speed, force and ruthless unstoppability and would keep doing it like a giant fist BAMBAMBAM until it was over -- which wouldn't take long. Shock, awe and total commitment.
Was that how Margaret Thatcher approached war?
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
John D'Oh
Member Avatar
MAMIL
That was how she approached everything.
What do you mean "we", have you got a mouse in your pocket?
Online Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Aqua Letifer
Member Avatar
ZOOOOOM!
Catseye
Nov 19 2015, 05:02 AM
Quote:
 
As far as I'm concerned, I'm a firm believer in Total War. War should be an utter last resort, never just an option, but the last and only option. But if we have to fight... If we choose to intervene, annihilate the bastards . . . Don't leave one stone setting atop another and sow the land with salt.


Were it not that they are temperamentally unsuited to it, it is for this reason I believe women would be superior warfighters, or at least war planners. Women, I believe, would not fiddle around making a game of war the way men seem compelled to do -- the pawing of the ground, the leadup confab, the rules-setting, the Geneva convention stuff, the Christmas truces, the "talks", all that. Women would be slow to reach the boil, but once they did, I believe the approach would be: Then let's do this, and they would overwhelm the enemy ruthlessly with speed, force and ruthless unstoppability and would keep doing it like a giant fist BAMBAMBAM until it was over -- which wouldn't take long. Shock, awe and total commitment.
That's the craziest shit I'll hear all day. Women are slow to boil? Men suck at war because they turn it into a game?

1) Are you familiar with the most basic stereotypes of your own gender and 2) Do you know anyone in the service. That women are better at war because they would just get shit done is ridiculous. Some people are better tacticians than others, better at logistics, better at soldiering, better at commanding soldiers. Others suck at it. It has nothing to do with gender.
I cite irreconcilable differences.
Online Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Copper
Member Avatar
Shortstop
Obviously, the first phrase is correct
Quote:
 
Were it not that they are temperamentally unsuited


So if they weren't unsuited then they would be suited. OK, I buy that. But they are.

You could also say that if men weren't suited then they wouldn't be suited. But they are.
The Confederate soldier was peculiar in that he was ever ready to fight, but never ready to submit to the routine duty and discipline of the camp or the march. The soldiers were determined to be soldiers after their own notions, and do their duty, for the love of it, as they thought best. Carlton McCarthy
Online Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Catseye
Member Avatar
Pisa-Carp
Quote:
 
That's the craziest **** I'll hear all day. Women are slow to boil? Men suck at war because they turn it into a game?


You have a way of cherry-picking bits out of a post and distorting the intent of the poster's meaning. I.e., I did not say that "men suck at war". But be that as it may, what I wrote was speculative and subjective. You're free to disagree, but you can't treat it as dealing in fact. It's a belief, and your only option is to share the belief or believe something else.

I'm done, though. I shared an opinion; it's not worth it to me to keep on keeping on with it.
"How awful a knowledge of the truth can be." -- Sophocles, Oedipus Rex
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
taiwan_girl
Member Avatar
Fulla-Carp
George K
Nov 18 2015, 06:13 PM
Wow. It is sad and scary how the gunman just walked up and did the shooting. Did not seem to have any emotion about what he was doing. :(
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Jolly
Member Avatar
Geaux Tigers!
Aqua Letifer
Nov 19 2015, 06:34 AM
Catseye
Nov 19 2015, 05:02 AM
Quote:
 
As far as I'm concerned, I'm a firm believer in Total War. War should be an utter last resort, never just an option, but the last and only option. But if we have to fight... If we choose to intervene, annihilate the bastards . . . Don't leave one stone setting atop another and sow the land with salt.


Were it not that they are temperamentally unsuited to it, it is for this reason I believe women would be superior warfighters, or at least war planners. Women, I believe, would not fiddle around making a game of war the way men seem compelled to do -- the pawing of the ground, the leadup confab, the rules-setting, the Geneva convention stuff, the Christmas truces, the "talks", all that. Women would be slow to reach the boil, but once they did, I believe the approach would be: Then let's do this, and they would overwhelm the enemy ruthlessly with speed, force and ruthless unstoppability and would keep doing it like a giant fist BAMBAMBAM until it was over -- which wouldn't take long. Shock, awe and total commitment.
That's the craziest **** I'll hear all day. Women are slow to boil? Men suck at war because they turn it into a game?

1) Are you familiar with the most basic stereotypes of your own gender and 2) Do you know anyone in the service. That women are better at war because they would just get **** done is ridiculous. Some people are better tacticians than others, better at logistics, better at soldiering, better at commanding soldiers. Others suck at it. It has nothing to do with gender.
She's right.

In my day, I've seen a lot of people with GSW's. A lot. As in 2-5 every Friday and Saturday night, a lot.

A woman is by far the more serious person when it comes to doing away with somebody. When that tripwire goes, there is no mercy. None.
The main obstacle to a stable and just world order is the United States.- George Soros
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Renauda
Member Avatar
HOLY CARP!!!
Jolly
Nov 18 2015, 07:09 PM
As far as I'm concerned, I'm a firm believer in Total War. War should be an utter last resort, never just an option, but the last and only option. But if we have to fight...

If we choose to intervene, annihilate the bastards. Kill every one of them and let God sort the dead out, for surely He will know his own. Don't leave one stone setting atop another and sow the land with salt. Butcher the beasts of the field and shoot the dogs as they run off. If a crow decides to fly across the path of destruction, let him carry his own food or starve to death.

If we don't have the stomach for that, we don't need to be down there.
Yes, I have to agree with you on this point.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Improviso
Member Avatar
HOLY CARP!!!
Just heard last night that oil trucks were targeted and destroyed. These are the trucks that carry the oil out to be sold on the spot market and finance ISIS activities. They were not targeted until now because the truck drivers were considered civilians. Are you kidding me?

The point at which those drivers climbed into the trucks to carry water oil for ISIS made them fair game in my book.

These rules of engagement are FUBAR. The WH needs to get out of the way of the military and allow them to do their job.

Jesus... we've got another year of this asshole in the WH.
Identifying narcissists isn't difficult. Just look for the person who is constantly fishing for compliments
and admiration while breaking down over even the slightest bit of criticism.

We have the freedom to choose our actions, but we do not get to choose our consequences.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Piano*Dad
Member Avatar
Bull-Carp
Catseye
Nov 17 2015, 05:45 AM
Quote:
 
"You Can't Understand ISIS If You Don't Know the History of Wahhabism in Saudi Arabia"


What's to understand?
As I was saying ...

Black Daesh, White Daesh

Fundamentally (pun intended) little difference between Saudi Arabia and the regime in Raqqa.

There was a cleric in Jordan a few days ago who publicly said that murdering Jews, even soldiers, was wrong in the absence of war. "You take their money when you work for them, and then kill them?" He denounced this. Then a few days later he had to recant. The belief system in much of the middle east really is that different. And it emanates from Saudi Arabia and its monied religious media.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
TomK
HOLY CARP!!!
Piano*Dad
Nov 20 2015, 11:34 AM
It's odd that mindset.Fundamentally (pun intended) little difference between Saudi Arabia and the regime in Raqqa.

There was a cleric in Jordan a few days ago who publicly said that murdering Jews, even soldiers, was wrong in the absence of war. "You take their money when you work for them, and then kill them?" He denounced this. Then a few days later he had to recant. The belief system in much of the middle east really is that different. And it emanates from Saudi Arabia and its monied religious media.
It's odd that mindset--or maybe it's something. I think I take my religion seriously and so does Larry. While we have some things in common and there are other things we don't and if we met and discussed those things we might argue and maybe even do so loudly. But after that I would buy Larry a beer and watch the sun set.

These guys when they argue pull out swords and cut off each other heads. And it's not that they are any more serious about their beliefs than me or Larry--they just can't live with someone having a different opinion than they have.

The problem here is you just can't have a different opinion than they have and hope to survive. So as to those refugees--they are a two edged sword, yes, they are homeless and hungry and need help, but when they have full bellies and jobs and the nice things America has to offer, can I trust them not to stab me if turn my back on them after we disagree?

And I'm not talking about the radicals--I'm talking about the run of the mill refugee. What do those people really believe?
Edited by TomK, Nov 20 2015, 11:57 AM.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
ZetaBoards - Free Forum Hosting
Create a free forum in seconds.
Learn More · Sign-up for Free
Go to Next Page
« Previous Topic · The New Coffee Room · Next Topic »
Add Reply
  • Pages:
  • 1
  • 5
  • 7