Jihadi Attacks...Who is Next?

[Don M.]

The recent downing of the Russian Airliner, the bombing in Lebanon, and now this Paris tragedy, are setting up to be a banner month for the Jihadists. Their followers will be inspired to continue these vicious attacks. ISIS is showing the capability to wreak havoc on the "Infidels" with minimum losses to themselves. A Military commander would be elated with the "kill ratio" these attacks are having.

There will be major repercussions over the Paris attack, but that will most likely be short lived, and after a large number of air strikes, etc., against these Jihadists, the public mood will once again revert to mostly apathy.

Places like NYC, Washington DC, London, and Paris will continue to remain on high alert for some time, but most cities will revert to a more normal routine within a very few weeks. The Jihadists will lay low for a few weeks, and plot their next move. The "Soft Targets" in places like Chicago, Los Angeles, Atlanta, and secondary cities all over Europe will afford the Jihadists an endless array of possible easy targets. The successes of these most recent attacks will inspire even more Lunatics to eliminate as many Infidels as possible. Once again, "Guerilla tactics" will prove far more effective than massed conventional military forces.

 

[QuickSilver]

Which brings me to my question.. We have people calling for war.. War with who? and more importantly war WHERE? The danger is in the attacks on our soil from ISIS sympathizers.. What will going to Syria and wiping them out there do to prevent more attacks like Paris?

 

[WhatInThe]

Being a movement it's tough to pin down their targets or who will actually execute a mission for them- a self made lone wolf or facilitated cell. This is a movement that can come and go through out the course of man. Hopefully it only becomes fashionable every thousand years or so.

 

[hollydolly]

Today they have allegedly issued a threat saying that Washington is Next...

ISIS has issued a chilling new video warning that countries taking part in air strikes against Syria would suffer the same fate as Paris and claimed they will attack Washington D.C. next.
The specific threat against the US capital emerged as CIA director John Brennan warned that more atrocities will be committed against the West by the Islamist terror group.
In the film an armed fighter addresses the camera to say in Arabic: 'We say to the states that take part in the crusader campaign that, by God, you will have a day God willing, like France's and by God, as we struck France in the centre of its abode in Paris, then we swear that we will strike America at its centre in Washington.

Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/art...g-threat-attack-Washington.html#ixzz3rfz5dgac

​

 

[imp]

Which brings me to my question.. We have people calling for war.. War with who? and more importantly war WHERE? The danger is in the attacks on our soil from ISIS sympathizers.. What will going to Syria and wiping them out there do to prevent more attacks like Paris?

Very little, IMO. Such activity gives cover for other clandestine work which otherwise would be unpopular for elected leaders. imp

 

[imp]

Today they have allegedly issued a threat saying that Washington is Next...

ISIS has issued a chilling new video warning that countries taking part in air strikes against Syria would suffer the same fate as Paris and claimed they will attack Washington D.C. next.
The specific threat against the US capital emerged as CIA director John Brennan warned that more atrocities will be committed against the West by the Islamist terror group.
In the film an armed fighter addresses the camera to say in Arabic: 'We say to the states that take part in the crusader campaign that, by God, you will have a day God willing, like France's and by God, as we struck France in the centre of its abode in Paris, then we swear that we will strike America at its centre in Washington.

Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/art...g-threat-attack-Washington.html#ixzz3rfz5dgac

​

Today, our local paper carried a letter to the Editor stating that the folks in Paris were executed seemingly at random, like helpless, defenseless animals being slaughtered. It was mentioned specifically that being disarmed, those people, including security guards, had no means of defending against the killers.

Washington, DC? The leaders are safe enough, regardless of the degree of infiltration by terrorists. The danger exists primarily to security forces, who are armed and trained to fight back, and the citizenry at large, which is mostly disarmed and helpless, given such attack. imp

 

[QuickSilver]

Today, our local paper carried a letter to the Editor stating that the folks in Paris were executed seemingly at random, like helpless, defenseless animals being slaughtered. It was mentioned specifically that being disarmed, those people, including security guards, had no means of defending against the killers.

Washington, DC? The leaders are safe enough, regardless of the degree of infiltration by terrorists. The danger exists primarily to security forces, who are armed and trained to fight back, and the citizenry at large, which is mostly disarmed and helpless, given such attack. imp

So is the answer in your opinion that every man woman and child in the USA have a weapon on their person? OR maybe just select civilians.. what would the ration be 10 unarmed to 1 armed?

 

[Don M.]

Which brings me to my question.. We have people calling for war.. War with who? and more importantly war WHERE? The danger is in the attacks on our soil from ISIS sympathizers.. What will going to Syria and wiping them out there do to prevent more attacks like Paris?

That's right. There are already hundreds, perhaps thousands, of ISIS sympathizers living in Europe, and N. America....with more on the way, "joining" the Syrian refugees. No amount of bombing campaigns, or conventional military actions is going to change that. If anything, increased bombing, etc., is just going to motivate the next "Boston Marathon" bombers. The Lunatics can get on the Internet, and find plans to build deadly bombs, and find the parts needed at the department/hardware/sporting goods stores. Guns and ammo can be readily purchased on the Black Market in any major city...without having to go through any "background" checks.

Increased intelligence, and surveillance are probably the Only tools that will stand a chance of preventing this activity. Despite the Howls of our Politically Correct...social media, internet, and phone traffic, etc., may need much closer scrutiny, to intercept these lunatics before they can act. If it "looks like a duck, walks like a duck, and quacks like a duck"...it may be necessary to assume that it IS a duck, until proven otherwise....even if such actions result in "Profiling".

 

[QuickSilver]

That's right. There are already hundreds, perhaps thousands, of ISIS sympathizers living in Europe, and N. America....with more on the way, "joining" the Syrian refugees. No amount of bombing campaigns, or conventional military actions is going to change that. If anything, increased bombing, etc., is just going to motivate the next "Boston Marathon" bombers. The Lunatics can get on the Internet, and find plans to build deadly bombs, and find the parts needed at the department/hardware/sporting goods stores. Guns and ammo can be readily purchased on the Black Market in any major city...without having to go through any "background" checks.

Increased intelligence, and surveillance are probably the Only tools that will stand a chance of preventing this activity. Despite the Howls of our Politically Correct...social media, internet, and phone traffic, etc., may need much closer scrutiny, to intercept these lunatics before they can act. If it "looks like a duck, walks like a duck, and quacks like a duck"...it may be necessary to assume that it IS a duck, until proven otherwise....even if such actions result in "Profiling".

Normally part of the "politically correct" howling group... We part company on this. I am and always have been in favor of surveillance of phone, email and other social media feeling that it was the only way to wage war against this type of terror. I'll gladly assume the DHS knows all about my sister's gallbladder.. if they know about the guy a mile away building a bomb.

 

[imp]

Profiling?

....even if such actions result in "Profiling".

Too late now. Profiling has resulted in much higher rates of unnecessary, inconvenient, often illegal, detainment, some resulting in charges being pressed even though L.E. awareness exists of innocence. A natural consequence of profiling. IOW, screw up the lives of a few poor suckers in order to thwart terrorism, real or imagined, and "save" the citizenry.

Gotta be a more equitable way, but ain't found one yet. imp

 

[squatting dog]

So is the answer in your opinion that every man woman and child in the USA have a weapon on their person? OR maybe just select civilians.. what would the ration be 10 unarmed to 1 armed?

I don't know about a ratio, but, if just a couple of people in that theater had been armed, I don't believe it would have been that difficult to eliminate the 2 shooters, and at the very least, lower the amount of carnage they produced. Please keep in mind, that any former military person has been trained and taught the correct way to handle a firearm, and how to react to a particular situation. Also, anyone who has a concealed carry permit has gone through an extensive background check and proper training and is not the crazy cowboy that a lot of people picture of gun toting Americans thanks to the media.
Now, knowing this... wouldn't you acknowledge that there could be a possibility that these theater shooters might not have been as successful had someone been able to return fire?

 

[imp]

So is the answer in your opinion that every man woman and child in the USA have a weapon on their person? OR maybe just select civilians.. what would the ration be 10 unarmed to 1 armed?

QS, I did not suggest an "answer", simply wrote what story had to offer, by one who was PRESENT. It's easy for us to conjecture while sitting in our own safety. I would hope your question was written facetiously.

You asked my opinion. Here, then: It should be the choice of all responsible law-abiding adults to be armed, with whatever means seems fittest, to each. When an individual seriously steps "out of line", they get taken away, armed or not. imp

 

[QuickSilver]

I don't know about a ratio, but, if just a couple of people in that theater had been armed, I don't believe it would have been that difficult to eliminate the 2 shooters, and at the very least, lower the amount of carnage they produced. Please keep in mind, that any former military person has been trained and taught the correct way to handle a firearm, and how to react to a particular situation. Also, anyone who has a concealed carry permit has gone through an extensive background check and proper training and is not the crazy cowboy that a lot of people picture of gun toting Americans thanks to the media.
Now, knowing this... wouldn't you acknowledge that there could be a possibility that these theater shooters might not have been as successful had someone been able to return fire?

Had a "couple of people" been armed and began shooting... what are the odds that they would shoot one another... Or shoot people running and screaming. It sounds really Hollywood'ish to think you could, in a split second, determine what was happening.. who the bad guys are.. and who to shoot.. Suppose a "good guy" was also shooting from the other side of the room... WHO would YOU shoot? would you make the correct decision? Doubtful. NOW add a few more "good guys" ALL shooting at any direction they hear shots coming from. I contend that just as many people would have died in that concert hall.. only some of them at the had of the "good guys". It's utter NONSENSE to believe it would have made a difference.

 

[squatting dog]

QS, I highly doubt that anybody with a concealed carry permit would have been in the theater with an AK 47 or shotgun tucked in their pants.

 

[Don M.]

I am and always have been in favor of surveillance of phone, email and other social media feeling that it was the only way to wage war against this type of terror. I'll gladly assume the DHS knows all about my sister's gallbladder.. if they know about the guy a mile away building a bomb.

In this type of "warfare", conventional tactics are of little value...rather, Information is the most valuable "weapon". No one really likes to have their private information known, but in this age, we Must be willing to allow the government access to virtually everything, if we are ever going to win this struggle. After all, it would seem to me that Only Those with Something illegal to Hide, would benefit from "secrecy". There seems to be a great deal of desire to keep medical records hidden, but I don't understand why. Who cares if I had a dental crown, or got new glasses this past Summer? Anything that helps identify a potential Jihadist is OK in my book.

 

[Lon]

I personally would like to see more outrage expressed by so called Good Muslim Clerics & a discrediting of the so called rewards of Martyrdom which is why Isis members are so willing to die. It's difficult to win any war where your enemy has no concern for their on lives-------

 

[QuickSilver]

QS, I highly doubt that anybody with a concealed carry permit would have been in the theater with an AK 47 or shotgun tucked in their pants.

what difference does THAT make.. The fact that people would have had to

1. Instantly assess what was happening, when even the band member didn't know and kept right on playing after the 1st shots.

2. Get their weapon OUT of wherever it was concealed

3. Figure out who the shooter was and WHERE he was in a dark room with people running and screaming

4. Take aim at and actually HIT the bad guy.. while other good guys were shooting... and not hit innocent people running for their lives.

The whole idea is laughable.. It was not a Hollywood movie in Paris that night.

 

[SeaBreeze]

I don't know about a ratio, but, if just a couple of people in that theater had been armed, I don't believe it would have been that difficult to eliminate the 2 shooters, and at the very least, lower the amount of carnage they produced.

I agree Squatting Dog, which is the case in most of these mass shootings where there is nobody able to fire back and kill these people, it's like shooting fish in a barrel. As you say, at the very least, it would have lowered the amount of lives taken, definitely worth it IMO, only makes sense.

 

[Meringue]

I personally would like to see more outrage expressed by so called Good Muslim Clerics

Indeed, but as per usual "their silence is deafening"

 

[Butterfly]

Normally part of the "politically correct" howling group... We part company on this. I am and always have been in favor of surveillance of phone, email and other social media feeling that it was the only way to wage war against this type of terror. I'll gladly assume the DHS knows all about my sister's gallbladder.. if they know about the guy a mile away building a bomb.

I'm with you on this, QS. Not too worried about the feds hearing my discussions with my sis about whether we should go shopping today or not, or her cat throwing up hairballs on her bed.

 

[Don M.]

I personally would like to see more outrage expressed by so called Good Muslim Clerics & a discrediting of the so called rewards of Martyrdom which is why Isis members are so willing to die. It's difficult to win any war where your enemy has no concern for their on lives-------

For Sure...I am not aware of any Muslim Cleric, or Islamic leader coming out and publicly condemning these attacks. The "Good" Muslims....if such really exists....are giving tacit approval to these Jihadists with their Silence. If a society doesn't discipline or condemn the idiots in its midst, that society can only blame itself when it falls apart.

 

[QuickSilver]

For Sure...I am not aware of any Muslim Cleric, or Islamic leader coming out and publicly condemning these attacks. The "Good" Muslims....if such really exists....are giving tacit approval to these Jihadists with their Silence. If a society doesn't discipline or condemn the idiots in its midst, that society can only blame itself when it falls apart.

Apparently you don't read through these threads... Outrage WAS expressed by all of the ME leaders.. incuding Iran. There is a massive outcry on social media by average Muslims called "Not in MY Name".. where have your been?

 

[Ameriscot]

For Sure...I am not aware of any Muslim Cleric, or Islamic leader coming out and publicly condemning these attacks. The "Good" Muslims....if such really exists....are giving tacit approval to these Jihadists with their Silence. If a society doesn't discipline or condemn the idiots in its midst, that society can only blame itself when it falls apart.

Oh right, another one who thinks all 1.5 billion Muslims are terrorists.

 

[Butterfly]

I actually know a few "good Muslims," as you put it, and they are as American as the rest of us. I can assure you they are just as appalled as the rest of us at the carnage in Paris. The danger is the radicalized nutjobs, not my pharmacist.

 

[QuickSilver]

I personally would like to see more outrage expressed by so called Good Muslim Clerics & a discrediting of the so called rewards of Martyrdom which is why Isis members are so willing to die. It's difficult to win any war where your enemy has no concern for their on lives-------

http://philadelphia.cbslocal.com/20...ps-speak-out-against-terror-attacks-in-paris/

http://www.bing.com/videos/search?q...&mid=81A61C5E30740E436B4681A61C5E30740E436B46