Paris attacks
Post Reply
 
Thread Rating:
  • 0 Votes - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
19-11-2015, 02:15 PM
RE: Paris attacks
[Image: ocuRlE7.jpg]
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 3 users Like WeAreTheCosmos's post
19-11-2015, 02:47 PM
RE: Paris attacks
(19-11-2015 02:09 PM)SunnyD1 Wrote:  I agree. In regards to your final sentence I think that's where most people seem to fail to come to terms with. People are either at one extreme or the other, total ban or total openness. We need to compromise on moderate grounds!

Not really, people are in fact more moderate then they seem, it's just that in discussions people get stubborn and take more and more extreme positions in order to I don't know...out do the other person.
One pushes a little to one side, then the other pushes a little bit more to the other side, then first pushes even more ....

. . . ................................ ......................................... . [Image: 2dsmnow.gif] Eat at Joe's
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes Slowminded's post
19-11-2015, 05:18 PM
RE: Paris attacks
(19-11-2015 09:16 AM)Chas Wrote:  
(19-11-2015 03:35 AM)Banjo Wrote:  You are forgetting the Phoney war.

Yabut, that still makes it 5 years. Drinking Beverage

True, The Battle of France, Norway etc all happened in 1940. The stalemate of the Battle of Britain in summer 1940 saved England.

There was the Atlantic war of course. U boats and merchant shipping. The loss of the Hood and the Bismark however, was in 1941. As was the Prince of Wales and Repulse.

However what I allude to is the inclusion of the Japanese attack on the US, the British Commonwealth and south east Asia and the Pacific. The German attack on Russia. And Hitler's declaration of war against the US Dec 10 1941. This really made it a full world wide war.

The African campaign did not even begin until the Afrika Korps went in to help Italy in 1941. The Americans later entered with Operation Torch but were too inexperienced and suffered greatly at the hands of the Germans. It took about a year for America to really get that experience.

NOTE: Member, Tomasia uses this site to slander other individuals. He then later proclaims it a joke, but not in public.
I will call him a liar and a dog here and now.
Banjo.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
20-11-2015, 09:47 AM
RE: Paris attacks
(19-11-2015 05:18 PM)Banjo Wrote:  The African campaign did not even begin until the Afrika Korps went in to help Italy in 1941.

Can't say that agree with that. The Italian 10th army had been decimated, and the Allied forces had captured 130,000 Italian POWs before they even asked the Germans for help. Rommel wouldn't arrive in Africa for other 5 months after that.

Quote:The Americans later entered with Operation Torch but were too inexperienced and suffered greatly at the hands of the Germans. It took about a year for America to really get that experience.

A few of the lessons learned by the Americans in Africa.

1. The new artillery shell radio fuses worked. Preset altitude controlled air bursts were devastating when used against infantry and lightly armored vehicles. They saved Patton's ass in Morocco.

2. The German 88 mm gun was something to respected.

3. Shallow slit trenches were suicidal when used as defensive positions against armor. They had the affect of positioning soldiers in a line which allowed tanks to simply drive down the trench killing anyone not fast enough to get out of the way.

4. British upper level commanders could be micro managers. They often issued orders which included specific tactics to be used by lower level units. This could affect the lower levels unit's ability to adapt to fluid battlefield conditions which could have a negative affect on both the offensive and defensive capabilities.

Save a life. Adopt a greyhound.

[Image: anigrey.gif]
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 2 users Like Popeye's Pappy's post
20-11-2015, 11:40 AM
RE: Paris attacks
(15-11-2015 05:13 PM)Popeyes Pappy Wrote:  
(15-11-2015 04:07 PM)Thumpalumpacus Wrote:  I can't read the image (I'm on my phone), but I'm wondering what is meant by "support".

It's the number of people that find suicide bombings acceptable often/sometimes form the chart you posted.

Not all suicide bombings are terrorist attacks, firstly. Secondly, that conflates the words "support" and "approve", it seems to me.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
20-11-2015, 12:26 PM
RE: Paris attacks
(19-11-2015 02:09 PM)SunnyD1 Wrote:  
(19-11-2015 11:01 AM)Atothetheist Wrote:  Forgive me, I am jumping in late and with admittedly no military, social or political information other than what was handed to me the moment on the attack. I got a few questions and maybe some comments

People have been telling me, "terrorism has no religion." I heartily disagree, it HAS a RELIGION, just pick one and you can see terrorism. Its currently Islam, I don't think any sane person can deny the religiosity of the attackers (you would be hard pressed to find better martyrs even in the catholic church) and the devotion they have to their cause. Wether this be for Syria, or for Islam, its unimportant to me, both positions may have contributed (although I have reason to believe it was Islam that had more of an influence). It is ridiculous that islamic violence can be looked at, and not seen as a effect of islam. There were two attacks in France caused by Muslim extremists this year, we are one short of an established pattern (and thats for specifically in France).

Now, as to the Syrian refugees. If my understanding is correct, Obama's refugee plan requires vetting to make sure you are not affiliated with terrorist organizations, and if you are going to argue that we shouldn't open our borders, what about homegrown terrorism? Doesn't ISIS recruit online as well as in person? If they're already in the border, it won't matter. Its easy, I find, in situations like these to promote isolationism, to close ourselves off. However, as a human being that can't imagine the pain and trauma and desire to escape, I find it hard to simply refuse. We need vetting processes and restrictions, not a ban.

Is ISIS a serious threat to this country? Didn't they kind of ruin the surprise factor that precluded 9/11? Every country is stepping up their security, which is going to make an attack harder (though not impossible). While I think this is an appropriate thing, I think that we need to make sure that we don't completely close ourselves off. What are there chances of acquiring a Nuclear Device? Where would they strike? Where did they claim they would strike (I believed they said our capital)?

I think that we need to be tolerant, but intolerant of violence, bigotry, and hatred.

I agree. In regards to your final sentence I think that's where most people seem to fail to come to terms with. People are either at one extreme or the other, total ban or total openness. We need to compromise on moderate grounds!

For example Hilary Clinton posted a Twitter status earlier saying Muslims (to generalize them) are peaceful loving etc etc. This is JUST as unhelpful and ignorant as saying Muslims are violent, hateful etc etc.

Edit: Oh and to answer your nuclear device question I think there have been a few plots to obtain weapons grade nuclear materials to make a dirty bomb, the one i saw most recently was in Moldova, I think. They almost acquired cesium. I know nothing about cesium but anything in regards to the word nuclear seems dangerous Tongue

Hell no that's ridiculous Europe is at war we need to stop these loons and that requires robust action by all governments to stop further migration regardless of humanitarian grounds in order to protect the current citizens.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
20-11-2015, 01:15 PM
RE: Paris attacks
(20-11-2015 11:40 AM)Thumpalumpacus Wrote:  
(15-11-2015 05:13 PM)Popeyes Pappy Wrote:  It's the number of people that find suicide bombings acceptable often/sometimes form the chart you posted.

Not all suicide bombings are terrorist attacks, firstly. Secondly, that conflates the words "support" and "approve", it seems to me.

Just saying what I meant by support in my post...

Save a life. Adopt a greyhound.

[Image: anigrey.gif]
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes Popeye's Pappy's post
20-11-2015, 01:37 PM
RE: Paris attacks
(20-11-2015 01:15 PM)Popeyes Pappy Wrote:  
(20-11-2015 11:40 AM)Thumpalumpacus Wrote:  Not all suicide bombings are terrorist attacks, firstly. Secondly, that conflates the words "support" and "approve", it seems to me.

Just saying what I meant by support in my post...

I gotcha. I was just pointing out a couple of issues with that.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
20-11-2015, 01:40 PM
RE: Paris attacks
Yes, I probably shouldn't have used the term support. That's why I took the time to try to clarify what I was trying to say.

Save a life. Adopt a greyhound.

[Image: anigrey.gif]
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
20-11-2015, 01:49 PM
RE: Paris attacks
It's cool, Pap.

I get your point, that there's an awful lot of Muslims who do indeed approve of violent jihad in many different forms, including terrorism. But there are many, many more who abhor it and yet still get tarred with that brush -- and then such tarring is used to justify bigotry.

Please don't think I'm accusing you of any of this. I've read your posts for several years at several forums and I know you to be a thoughtful guy. I'm just pretty suspicious of broad brushes, because I've seen how they can be used to justify atrocities.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
Post Reply
Forum Jump: