Paris attacks: More than 120 killed at Bataclan and restaurants

[Gone]

While there is logic in the argument that (even allowing for crossfire) the death toll would have been lower if concert-goers were armed, it also would have been lower if everybody had gone Ben Carson and rushed the gunmen. Not that I could have seen that happening.

Personally I wouldn't like to go to a concert and wonder if someone around me was packing heat. But the US does have a particular problem with unstable people having access to guns, which is not something countries like France don't have to consider. International terrorism is a different case.

So terrorist aren't unstable? How about the drug cartels and illegal immigrants in America? They certainly skirt around our gun laws while the rest of Americans are punished by increasing restrictive laws that benefit only the constantly "afraid" of their own shadow and the criminals. Mentally unstable should not be allowed to own guns, I believe a that a review of any psychiatric history should be performed, but knowing our government they will abuse their power to target conservatives and prevent gun ownership that way.

 

Yes it already happens, it's called the IRS. Don't tell me that I am crazy, because anybody who keeps up with the news knows.

 

We need to stop terror attacks like this, but you never see terror attacks at places where guns are. They always take advantage of places that guns aren't, such as schools, theaters, stadiums, government buildings. Have you ever seen murders at a gun show or NRA convention?

[Gone]

 

Thanks for proving my point that EVERY SINGLE FRENCH CITIZEN CAN OWN A WEAPON.  Jeez, where's that facepalm icon we so badly need.... 

 

Um no, not every single French citizen can own a weapon. Instead of spewing your uninformed nonsense why don't you go look up the specific laws and report back. You'll find you are wrong, but you don't want that. 

 

And how does owning a weapon protect them from something like this from happening? They can't carry it on them can they? You have failed miserably twice to present a logical argument, let alone even something close to valid. You sir have facepalmed yourself.

[ctebah]

Um no, not every single French citizen can own a weapon. Instead of spewing your uninformed nonsense why don't you go look up the specific laws and report back. You'll find you are wrong, but you don't want that. 

 

And how does owning a weapon protect them from something like this from happening? They can't carry it on them can they? You have failed miserably twice to present a logical argument, let alone even something close to valid. You sir have facepalmed yourself.

 

Can you read?

Unfortunately, gun control advocates (such as yourself) fail to see that they are not allowed to own firearms

 

Which is a lie, since French can own weapons.  There are tons of weapons in France, and like I already said, the laws are tougher but that doesn't mean they aren't permitted to own them.  You're trying hard to make this into a gun-control related thread and FAILING MISERABLY.  Stick to the thread please.

[Gone]

 

 

Can you read?

 

Which is a lie, since French can own weapons.  There are tons of weapons in France, and like I already said, the laws are tougher but that doesn't mean they aren't permitted to own them.  You're trying hard to make this into a gun-control related thread and FAILING MISERABLY.  Stick to the thread please.

Let me rephrase it: They are not allowed to own firearms for defensive purposes (unless of course you are magical).

 

You might as well forget about carrying a firearm for self-defense. That requires an entirely different permit process that makes California concealed-carry look like a cake-walk. Think judges in criminal trials, high-ranking politicians, and people with enough political grease but certainly not your average Jacques.

 

BTW, aren't grenades illegal? Hmmm maybe we should control those too! 

[SecretAgentMan]

So....how about a joint NATO-Russia op to flush this POS?

RAID ON CONCERT HALL DONE - SPLASH 2 TERRORISTS.

In other news, earlier Obama said IS was contained & decapitated

http://www.cnn.com/2015/11/13/politics/obama-isis-contained-decapitated-abc-news/index.html

 

Obama never said IS was decapitated.  He said they are not growing, but not decapitated.  Try checking your link again.  

[Guest]

I had to leave work, I feel so disgusted.

[T3X4S]

 

 

I think people suggesting we nuke a region of the world should all be rounded up, put on an island and nuked.  

yea, the murder of 300 million people is the answer...which is what you are claiming is the "logical" solution.

 

What do you both propose then ?

 

[T3X4S]

I had to leave work, I feel so disgusted.

Are you in Paris ?
 

[Gone]

 

Obama never said IS was contained and decapitated.  Try checking your link again.  

Let me clarify it since you have such a pro-Obama stance:

President Barack Obama said that the U.S. strategy against ISIS has "contained them," but not yet succeeded in its effort to "decapitate" ISIS leadership.

...

"I don't think they're gaining strength," Obama told ABC's Notorious Liar George Stephanopoulos on Thursday...

Edit: Appreciate you updating your post! :).  

[protocol7]

As I said, terrorism is a different case. Generally speaking, European countries don't face the prospect of a random shooter at a cinema or a school to the degree that the US does. If people are packing heat everywhere you go, you end up with the Wild West all over again.

You have to understand that this gun control debate is a US thing. The rest of us don't give a crap about it, especially when it's brought up as a potential solution in the aftermath of attacks like this. And if you think guns are going to deter a would-be shooter ask Fort Bragg how that worked out for them.

[Gone]

As I said, terrorism is a different case. Generally speaking, European countries don't face the prospect of a random shooter at a cinema or a school to the degree that the US does. If people are packing heat everywhere you go, you end up with the Wild West all over again.

You have to understand that this gun control debate is a US thing. The rest of us don't give a crap about it, especially when it's brought up as a potential solution in the aftermath of attacks like this. And if you think guns are going to deter a would-be shooter ask Fort Bragg how that worked out for them.

If you know anything about US military bases and federal property, It is not permitted to carry a private firearm aboard a military installation. Only people on duty can carry a firearm if they are assigned to a position that requires one, such as PMO (military police) and duty officers.

 

Most people think the US military is just a hillbilly fest where everybody gets to play with guns all day any time they want, it is in fact not so. I served in the Marine Corps for 5 years,  I had a firearm in Afghanistan but was not permitted to carry it loaded on base there. When I was state-side I was not allowed to carry a firearm at all, only at the rifle range were we issued one and it was transported by some other people.

[ctebah]

 

What do you both propose then ?

 

Never in our history have countries been able to defeat terrorists by brute force.  Never.  Fighting terrorists has always made more terrorists.  US interventions in ME are prime example of that.  Look at how long it took for a Russian jet to go down after Russia got involved in ME.

In order to defeat terrorism, or come close to it, you have to defeat countries that sponsor terrorism, and when it comes to ME, almost every country is guilty of doing so.  There is no other way.  You can put a billion soldiers on the ground and in a generation or two, children of slain terrorists will rise up again.  It's inevitable.  

[bluesman86]

Religion of peace strikes again.

Let's keep importing them, though. Our countries aren't culturally enriched enough.

[guru]

 

Never in our history have countries been able to defeat terrorists by brute force.  Never.  Fighting terrorists has always made more terrorists.  US interventions in ME are prime example of that.  Look at how long it took for a Russian jet to go down after Russia got involved in ME.

In order to defeat terrorism, or come close to it, you have to defeat countries that sponsor terrorism, and when it comes to ME, almost every country is guilty of doing so.  There is no other way.  You can put a billion soldiers on the ground and in a generation or two, children of slain terrorists will rise up again.  It's inevitable.  

bullshite. Tamil Tigers in  Srilanka, Khalistanis in Punjab were crushed by force after decades of trying make peace with them. Chechens , Muslim Brotherhood in many gulf Arab countries. more often than not, political process takes hold once the violence is over

its insane to think terrorists are invincible.

 

[ctebah]

######. Tamil Tigers in  Srilanka, Khalistanis in Punjab were crushed by force after decades of trying make peace with them. Chechens , Muslim Brotherhood in many gulf Arab countries.

its insane to think terrorists are invincible.

 

You're very gullible if you think that any of those organizations are truly defeated.  

[bluesman86]

As I said, terrorism is a different case. Generally speaking, European countries don't face the prospect of a random shooter at a cinema or a school to the degree that the US does. If people are packing heat everywhere you go, you end up with the Wild West all over again.

You have to understand that this gun control debate is a US thing. The rest of us don't give a crap about it, especially when it's brought up as a potential solution in the aftermath of attacks like this. And if you think guns are going to deter a would-be shooter ask Fort Bragg how that worked out for them.

I'd rather have the Wild West all over again than people getting shot all over the place without being able to fight back.

 

Never in our history have countries been able to defeat terrorists by brute force.  Never.  Fighting terrorists has always made more terrorists.  US interventions in ME are prime example of that.  Look at how long it took for a Russian jet to go down after Russia got involved in ME.

In order to defeat terrorism, or come close to it, you have to defeat countries that sponsor terrorism, and when it comes to ME, almost every country is guilty of doing so.  There is no other way.  You can put a billion soldiers on the ground and in a generation or two, children of slain terrorists will rise up again.  It's inevitable.  

Bull-######. 

Kill them in large numbers with bullets drenched in pig-blood so they don't go to heaven with the 72 virgins. They'll get the message when you attack their dopey religion head-on. It's the only thing these savages understand.

[malenfant]

I wonder who will win. The ideological purists or the ideological purists with the AKs.

[exotoxic]

The only way we can defeat terrorists is by educating non terrorists.

[ctebah]

 

They have been getting attacked by female pilot for a while now, and that didn't stop them.  A lot of those terrorists don't even care for religion, except to attract foreigners from other countries.  Clearly killing them in droves hasn't worked as now there are even more of them.  You have to attack the source first.  

[compl3x]

The less people practice their religious beliefs the less of a threat they pose. You still have Christian extremists in the US calling for homosexuals to be executed but they are a minority, much like extremist Muslims in the west. You don't see many Muslim extremists in Indonesia or Albania - the situation couldn't be more different in Iraq, Syria and Afghanistan. It's not the religion that's the problem, it's the culture.

 

*spits out coffee*

Umm. I take it you've never heard of the Bali Bombings in 2002 which were carried out by Jemaah Islamiyah, an Indonesian radical group founded in the 1940s, in which over 200 people were killed, then? Indonesia even has special schools setup to deradicalise people.

 

 

No, that's just too ignorant. Plenty of atheists planting bombs for the IRA, it was a nationalistic movement. Still is. Religion was used as a divider, to make an "us vs them", but only a very very ignorant person would ever think religion was a reason of existence for the IRA. Deserves to be called out. 

 

Evidence? I am sure there were some atheists associated with both sides, but plenty of bomb-planters? Sounds BS.

 

ITT: people pretending all fundamentalism is equally dangerous to avoid the unpleasant and politically incorrect discussion about Jihadi Islam.

[Gone]

 

They have been getting attacked by female pilot for a while now, and that didn't stop them.  A lot of those terrorists don't even care for religion, except to attract foreigners from other countries.  Clearly killing them in droves hasn't worked as now there are even more of them.  You have to attack the source first.  

We were doing a good job of it until Obama came into office if you ask me.

 

Politicians get their grubby hands into military affairs causing wars to be lost. Let the military commanders do their jobs, watch our world problems go away.

[ctebah]

We were doing a good job of it until Obama came into office if you ask me.

 

Politicians get their grubby hands into military affairs causing wars to be lost. Let the military commanders do their jobs, watch our world problems go away.

Exactly how are military commanders supposed to kill all terrorists when Saudi Arabia continues to sponsor them and Turkey continues to shelter them?

[Gone]

 

Exactly how are military commanders supposed to kill all terrorists when Saudi Arabia continues to sponsor them and Turkey continues to shelter them?

I'll let you figure that one out on your own. I'll give you a hint:

President gives military commanders permission to do what needs to be done.

What do you think? 

Also, that Keystone pipeline would be really helpful right now, we could definitely not rely on Saudi Arabia, but your boy Obama said "“The pipeline would not make a meaningful long-term contribution to our economy,”....Speaking from the White House, President Obama said that the pipeline that purportedly would have transported 800,000 barrels of oil per day, would not have lowered gas prices, created long-term jobs or reduce the country’s dependence on foreign oil, according to BBC News.
Read more at http://www.redorbit.com/news/science/1113410584/obama-rejects-keystone-xl-pipeline-110715/#mt9kWd1ZMHPWvuZ6.99

Edited November 14, 2015 by SpeedyTheSnail

[Guest]

Are you in Paris ?
 

 

Stockholm. I was following the live report threads on Reddit, made me feel sick. I hate that we are so powerless against such evil.

[ctebah]

I'll let you figure that one out on your own. I'll give you a hint:

President gives military commanders permission to do what needs to be done.

What do you think? 

Also, that Alaskan pipeline would be really helpful right now, we could definitely not rely on Saudi Arabia, but your boy Obama said "“The pipeline would not make a meaningful long-term contribution to our economy,”....Speaking from the White House, President Obama said that the pipeline that purportedly would have transported 800,000 barrels of oil per day, would not have lowered gas prices, created long-term jobs or reduce the country’s dependence on foreign oil, according to BBC News.
Read more at http://www.redorbit.com/news/science/1113410584/obama-rejects-keystone-xl-pipeline-110715/#mt9kWd1ZMHPWvuZ6.99

Keystone XL has nothing to do with Alaska.  And you think the President will make the military go against some of the closest allies the US has?  You want to defeat terrorism, you have to deal with your allies first.  Heck, even US sponsors terrorists....