Attack on gas plant in France.

[Dennisch]

There has been several explosions and at least one confirmed death. A security guard has been found decapitated, his head was found on a fence.

One suspect is arrested, he was carrying an IS flag.

The plant is near Lyon.

 

[zzz_pt]

Is this related to the events of the Taxi drivers vs Uber system? Or a completely different thing?

 

[Liquid]

Woah. Horrific news.

 

[Dennisch]

No, this is more or less related to what's going on in the Middle East and North Africa. And what happened in Paris.

Terrorism. Not angry cab drivers.

 

[Furinkazen]

🤬 extremists...

 

[Dennisch]

It's a bit of a strange situation.

This isn't a full blown gas refinery, it's a local small plant to fill canisters.

 

[zzz_pt]

No, this is more or less related to what's going on in the Middle East and North Africa. And what happened in Paris.

Terrorism. Not angry cab drivers.

Ok. Just saw the news about the beheading.

 

[Carbonox]

Is the annihilation of ISIS starting to sound like a good plan?

The West needs to start hurrying up and choosing between either that or more breaches of homeland security.

 

[TenEightyOne]

It's a bit of a strange situation.

This isn't a full blown gas refinery, it's a local small plant to fill canisters.

Looks like an air-bottling unit. Police say that the intention was apparently to "blow up the factory".

Is the annihilation of ISIS starting to sound like a good plan?

The West needs to start hurrying up and choosing between either that or more breaches of homeland security.

Would you also annihilate hard-right white Americans? I think their total's higher in Western homelands over the last few weeks.

 

[Carbonox]

Would you also annihilate hard-right white Americans? I think their total's higher in Western homelands over the last few weeks.

Oh yeah, I forgot they also shoot up public places and behead people on a regular basis while fighting a war to expand their territory.

 

[prisonermonkeys]

Terrorism. Not angry cab drivers.

Criminals. Not terrorists.

If we call them "terrorists", we make it easy for them to call themselves "freedom fighters" or "holy warriors". But if we call them criminals, we make it harder for them to separate themselves out from the thieves, murderers and rapists. By disempowering the word, we disempower them.

 

[Lizard]

Is the annihilation of ISIS starting to sound like a good plan?

How do you propose we do this?

Criminals. Not terrorists.

If we call them "terrorists", we make it easy for them to call themselves "freedom fighters" or "holy warriors". But if we call them criminals, we make it harder for them to separate themselves out from the thieves, murderers and rapists. By disempowering the word, we disempower them.

Exactly. Although we have to treat them like criminals not just call them criminals to starve them of legitimacy.

 

[prisonermonkeys]

Exactly. Although we have to treat them like criminals not just call them criminals to starve them of legitimacy.

If only our governments would see it that way. Instead, they call it a "death cult" so often that any press conference on national security turns into a drinking game.

 

[Carbonox]

How do you propose we do this?

By actually properly attacking them (from multiple directions preferably as well) rather than having the Kurds do all the work and occasionally dropping off supplies?

This act of terrorism needs to be avenged somehow though, to show them we're not ones to be screwed with. No matter how many peaceful protests people hold in any part of the world, it doesn't make a difference to them as they're completely lost causes by now - too entangled in violent ways to ever listen to anything but sheer force. As a proper "🤬 you" to them, I propose what I've proposed before - a drone strike on one of their hideouts during prayer time. That is assuming they do pray.

 

[prisonermonkeys]

As a proper "🤬 you" to them, I propose what I've proposed before - a drone strike on one of their hideouts during prayer time.

All that's going to do is fuel more hatred. They won't take it as a sign to back off - they will take it as a reason and a justification for another attack.

 

[Carbonox]

All that's going to do is fuel more hatred. They won't take it as a sign to back off - they will take it as a reason and a justification for another attack.

I know they won't back off no matter what happens, as long as there's still some of them standing. And precisely because of that, our attacks need to become more violent and deadly, in order for this dirty war to finally have a chance to end at some point. I can't believe it's been prolonged for this long now.

It's sort of ironic that the Americans have invaded the area multiple times in the past, and yet now that they're genuinely needed to create peace and order, nothing's happening.

 

[prisonermonkeys]

I know they won't back off no matter what happens, as long as there's still some of them standing. And precisely because of that, our attacks need to become more violent and deadly, in order for this dirty war to finally have a chance to end at some point.

That sounds a lot like genocide to me.

 

[Carbonox]

That sounds a lot like genocide to me.

Killing armed assailants for as long as they refuse to surrender is an interesting form of genocide.

 

[prisonermonkeys]

Killing armed assailants for as long as they refuse to surrender is an interesting form of genocide.

You know perfectly well that an attack on a mosque at prayer time will only inspire more anger and see more violence. You kill one set, only to create another. You kill that set, and create a third. And a fourth. And a fifth. And do on and so forth, until the only way that it can end is when there is no-one left to kill.

 

[Sanji Himura]

That sounds a lot like genocide to me.

There is another alternative that would be just as unpopular. One nuke at Mecca, and another at Medina. Even the threat of nukes at two of Islam's holiest sites would stop a lot of the BS that is going on involving muslims. Granted that it could start World War 3, but let's be honest, it has already started.

 

[Carbonox]

You know perfectly well that an attack on a mosque at prayer time will only inspire more anger and see more violence. You kill one set, only to create another. You kill that set, and create a third. And a fourth. And a fifth. And do on and so forth, until the only way that it can end is when there is no-one left to kill.

Isn't this going in circles now? I already had an answer to this - they don't listen to anything but sheer force. I also spoke nothing about mosques - I believe other praying areas exist too. An attack like that could make the West look more intimidating and less like the same old tolerant laughing stock.

 

[prisonermonkeys]

I already had an answer to this - they don't listen to anything but sheer force.

Wrong again. When has force ever dissuaded these criminals from attacking? Never.

There is another alternative that would be just as unpopular. One nuke at Mecca, and another at Medina. Even the threat of nukes at two of Islam's holiest sites would stop a lot of the BS that is going on involving muslims. Granted that it could start World War 3, but let's be honest, it has already started.

So attacking a holy site and potentially killing innocent people is completely justified if it means preventing a war?

That sounds a lot like the justification uses by the likes of ISIS and al Qaeda.

 

[MatskiMonk]

@Carbonox An eye for an eye leaves the whole world blind.



However, watching MOABs on CNN is always fun to do with a beer and some friends.

 

[Carbonox]

Wrong again. When has force ever dissuaded these criminals from attacking? Never.

When has peace and tolerance dissuaded them from attacking?

 

[Encyclopedia]

There is another alternative that would be just as unpopular. One nuke at Mecca, and another at Medina. Even the threat of nukes at two of Islam's holiest sites would stop a lot of the BS that is going on involving muslims. Granted that it could start World War 3, but let's be honest, it has already started.

It certainly wouldn't solve the ISIS problem. In fact it would line up with their goals.

And if America did that, things would get a lot worse than they are now.

 

[KSaiyu]

Oh people actually still think we're not at war. Cute.

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/art...ries-attack-outside-hotel-packed-Britons.html

At least 27 tourists dead in Tunisian hotel attacks as gunmen 'shoot people on sunbeds' along beach packed with western holidaymakers

Liberals, wake up and get with the program. Pick your side very carefully as your policies have created a Europe severely weakend and primed for an invasion.

 

[prisonermonkeys]

Liberals, wake up and get with the program. Pick your side very carefully as your policies have created a Europe severely weakend and primed for an invasion.

What policies would they be? Inventing excuses to invade other countries? Launching military strikes against targets regardless of civilian casualties? Instigating coups to overthrow democratically elected governments because it's in the West's interests?

That's what created the current situation, and that's on people like you.

 

[Dotini]

What policies would they be? Inventing excuses to invade other countries? Launching military strikes against targets regardless of civilian casualties? Instigating coups to overthrow democratically elected governments because it's in the West's interests?


That's what created the current situation, and that's on people like you us.

Please allow me to fix your otherwise brilliant remark.
These problematic policies have been pursued by both major parties in the US since WWII. That's the broad mainstream left to right. Only libertarians and anarchists have been consistently and stridently anti-interventionist, IMO.

 

[Imari]

There is another alternative that would be just as unpopular. One nuke at Mecca, and another at Medina. Even the threat of nukes at two of Islam's holiest sites would stop a lot of the BS that is going on involving muslims. Granted that it could start World War 3, but let's be honest, it has already started.

Why not nuke Jerusalem and Vatican City while you're at it?

Destroying religious sites because a small fraction of religious fanatics is like trimming your fingernails with a chainsaw. There are millions of perfectly normal, rational Muslims who would likely join your fight against ISIS who would be inconvenienced, injured or killed.

This sort of thing isn't even an option for any rational human being.

 

[prisonermonkeys]

Please allow me to fix your otherwise brilliant remark.

It's all academic, really. If KSaiyu's predicted invasion of Europe were to happen, retroactively assigning blame isn't going to fix anything. And I'm sure that it would be small comfort to Europe if they could unilaterally proclaim "this side of politics did it".

Besides, an invasion is inconsistent with ISIL's methods to date. KSaiyu's post reeks of the Domino Theory - junk political science from the 1960s that claimed communism would claim countries one by one before sweeping over its true target, Australia. He's clearly hoping that by accusing the political left, liberals will stand down and allow the conservatives a free hand to deal with ISIL by force.